They aren't selling it, if you rent your business premises from a third party do they dictate what you call it? No they don't. It makes perfect sense.
It doesn't make sense, the stadium is not theirs to sell, the deal should be with the council, not the club.
If you think it makes sense, fine, I don't.
It doesn't make sense, the stadium is not theirs to sell, the deal should be with the council, not the club.
If you think it makes sense, fine, I don't.
err they are not selling the stadium, they have just changed its "name". Cantona has already explained this to you.
It hasnt really changed, you can call it what you like - but the media refer to it as the "etihad" and thats the advertising they have paid for.
It doesn't make sense, the stadium is not theirs to sell, the deal should be with the council, not the club.
If you think it makes sense, fine, I don't.
They HAVENT SOLD THE STADIUM. Its effectively a giant billboard.
Just to be absolutely clear, Man City obtained the naming rights of the stadium in return for an increased rent payment to the city. So they are the club's to sell. Not a bad return for £2m extra a year though.
But how can Etihad pay for the naming rights to a stadium that City do not own, it is only on a lease from the council (still something like 90 or so years left on it I think), so any revenue gained from naiming rights would surely go to the council, rather than the club I would have thought.
So, I don't quite understand how City can make money out of something that is not thiers to do so.
As part of the tenancy agreement between Manchester Council and Manchester City, City pay the council £2m extra a year for the naming rights. When you look at the breakdown and the potential business returns, its a cracking bit of business for City.
It is not just Chelsea and City that have a sugar daddy - every club that is run at a loss has a sugar daddy.
Liverpool
QPR
Villa
Arsenal
It does annoy me when CFC and City are 'singled' out for criticism here. All Chelsea have is a sugar daddy that is prepared to put a hand into a deeper pocket. I wouldnt see any Arsenal fans complaining if their billionaires bought then David Villa in January, or of FSG gave Suarez 200k a week to stay with them.
I would also argue that even United has a sugar daddy, it just happens to be a bank.
I dont see this FFP getting anywhere close to happening, if it does we may as well keep the premiership as a closed shop, with no relegation. It would be pointless.
With FFP, the gap between the biggest clubs and the smallest clubs will only grow.
Why do you think this? Without FFP this will certainly be the case. FFP, if properly implemented, should prevent the gap growing and hopefully help close it.
We should all want to see a better run, more profitable league. It's the only way the PL can survive long term. Wanting the present high spending period to continue only benefits those who support clubs with bottomless pockets and draws in clubs without such resources to spend beyond their means merely to stay still.
Apart from anything else, not being able to buy success by importing the best talent from around the world at any cost will promote the development of home grown players in academies, something clubs can do on quite limited resources.
Good financial management at club level is one reason why Germany produces so many good players for its national team.
I've been reading through the FFP that have just been approved, and it's a bit odd if I'm reading it correctly. It seems that a team's overall wages are allowed to go up by £4m next season compared to this season, and an extra £4m each season thereafter.
The big problem with this being that there will be a lot more money coming into the clubs next season with the new broadcasting deal but clubs not already spending big on wages will, in effect, not be allowed to catch up with the others. I'm a West Brom fan and i think our wage bill is comparatively small at the moment. Come the Summer when (as long as we're still in Premier League) we will be able to increase our salary allowance in line with increased income, we will only be allowed to increase it by a small amount, whereas teams that are currently paying above their means will be allowed to 'stay where they are' essentially and be allowed to spend more on wages than comparative teams that were being well run previously. Apparently none of Albion, Swansea and Reading, all clubs that seem well run and you'd think would benefit from FFP, voted in favour of these proposals, and I can see why. If QPR stay up they will be at such an advantage compared to other clubs of similar size, it would be ridiculous.
I should say that the £4m increase is only applied on wage bills of £52m, good job otherwise no teams coming up from the Championship would ever be able to compete!
It is not just Chelsea and City that have a sugar daddy - every club that is run at a loss has a sugar daddy.
Liverpool
QPR
Villa
Arsenal
It does annoy me when CFC and City are 'singled' out for criticism here. All Chelsea have is a sugar daddy that is prepared to put a hand into a deeper pocket. I wouldnt see any Arsenal fans complaining if their billionaires bought then David Villa in January, or of FSG gave Suarez 200k a week to stay with them.
I would also argue that even United has a sugar daddy, it just happens to be a bank.
I dont see this FFP getting anywhere close to happening, if it does we may as well keep the premiership as a closed shop, with no relegation. It would be pointless.
Half of the teams in the Premier League are only there, or have the status that they currently do, because of sugar daddies.
Man City and Chelsea are the standouts because of the sheer amount put into them and they've effectively bought league titles. City were effectively a midtable side who were "chosen" to be the playthings of mega-rich Arabs. Liverpool, Villa, Sunderland have also overspent other people's money despite not achieving anywhere near as much. But there are also the likes of Fulham, Wigan, Reading, QPR, Southampton, perhaps Norwich who have all benefited from rich owners putting far more cash into the club than they'd have ever been able to generate for themselves and in the first 3 cases but for these sugar daddies would probably have never got anywhere near the Premier League. Cardiff will soon join that club as well, and the likes of Leicester, Hull, and Brighton have all had very rich people putting in extra cash to chase the Premier League pot of gold.
The way things are at the moment it'll eventually mean that a club will need a billionaire owner just to have a chance of staying in the PL! Therefore financial fair play rules would benefit the game as a whole.
Here's how many points each Premier League team won per £million spent on wages this season (final league positions and wage rankings in brackets with column 4 showing how much higher/lower a team placed than it's relative wage ranking):
It's complete bollocks - if this has come in prior to Man City/ Chelsea's billions we would have seen Man U win the league 10 years straight. It's a way to prevent rich owners coming into leagues and splashing their cash - but frankly what's wrong with that?
Anyway FFP is is operating in an unfair universe in itself, the likes of Real and Barca have ridiculous TV deals which make a massive mockery of the Primera Liga + they owe tens of million in unpaid tax. Not exactly 'Financial Fair Play'.
Italian site http://tifosobilanciato.it has published an unusually candid interview with Umberto Gandini, AC Milan Organising Director and Vice President of the European Club Association.
...In the interview with Diego Tari, Gandini explained that the FFP rules stemmed directly from the 2008 Champions League final between Manchester United and Chelsea (two clubs that had exceptionally high debt levels). This is a distinctly 'off-message' admission by Gandini - English journalists have often suggested that the FFP rules were introduced specifically to prevent further English club success. Platini has been questioned on this repeatedly and has always maintained that the rules were introduced solely to tackle debt and were not anti-English.
...Gandini’s comments on Paris-Saint Germain are also of interest. Commenting on their attempts to justify their huge-backdated sponsorship from the Qatar Tourist Authority (a body connected to the club owner), Gandani explained “ To be honest … none of us envy PSG at the moment! To prove that a sponsorship of 150 euros million is for ‘fair value’ is complex and, as far as I'm concerned, difficult. “
Given Zenit and Anzhi continued high-spending, it is also interesting that Gandini questions the absence of account-auditing carried for clubs from the Russian Federation; “we have a part of the UEFA world that has stringent procedures and request a third party (audit firm) control, while another part of the same world can potentially draw up budgets and provide them to CFCB [UEFA’s financial control body] without these being subject to any external check.”
Gandini also raises the issue of membership subscriptions paid to top Spanish clubs. Perhaps worryingly for Barcelon and Real Madrid, the ECA Vice President wondered “Why, for example, can the 180,000 Barcelona shareholders annually fund their Club and Abramovich (to say a random name) cannot?”
It's complete bollocks - if this has come in prior to Man City/ Chelsea's billions we would have seen Man U win the league 10 years straight. It's a way to prevent rich owners coming into leagues and splashing their cash - but frankly what's wrong with that?
Anyway FFP is is operating in an unfair universe in itself, the likes of Real and Barca have ridiculous TV deals which make a massive mockery of the Primera Liga + they owe tens of million in unpaid tax. Not exactly 'Financial Fair Play'.
Yeah what's wrong with half the league bankrupting themselves to try and win something. I wonder if Portsmouth fans think the same.
Comments
It doesn't make sense, the stadium is not theirs to sell, the deal should be with the council, not the club.
If you think it makes sense, fine, I don't.
err they are not selling the stadium, they have just changed its "name". Cantona has already explained this to you.
It hasnt really changed, you can call it what you like - but the media refer to it as the "etihad" and thats the advertising they have paid for.
Thats what i said earlier in the thread - it simply will not happen.
They HAVENT SOLD THE STADIUM. Its effectively a giant billboard.
I think you may need to explain it again.
Make it clearer next time.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/oct/04/manchester-city-council-stadium-naming-rights?
As part of the tenancy agreement between Manchester Council and Manchester City, City pay the council £2m extra a year for the naming rights. When you look at the breakdown and the potential business returns, its a cracking bit of business for City.
Dave
In EU law it was yes. This is completely different.
And the number of clubs going bankrupt will fall.
Arsenal are run at a loss?
Do you need us to explain sponsorship to you?
We should all want to see a better run, more profitable league. It's the only way the PL can survive long term. Wanting the present high spending period to continue only benefits those who support clubs with bottomless pockets and draws in clubs without such resources to spend beyond their means merely to stay still.
Apart from anything else, not being able to buy success by importing the best talent from around the world at any cost will promote the development of home grown players in academies, something clubs can do on quite limited resources.
Good financial management at club level is one reason why Germany produces so many good players for its national team.
Yes, I know it sounds naive and un-intel on my part, but I did explain, finance in football is not one of my strong points sadly.
The big problem with this being that there will be a lot more money coming into the clubs next season with the new broadcasting deal but clubs not already spending big on wages will, in effect, not be allowed to catch up with the others. I'm a West Brom fan and i think our wage bill is comparatively small at the moment. Come the Summer when (as long as we're still in Premier League) we will be able to increase our salary allowance in line with increased income, we will only be allowed to increase it by a small amount, whereas teams that are currently paying above their means will be allowed to 'stay where they are' essentially and be allowed to spend more on wages than comparative teams that were being well run previously. Apparently none of Albion, Swansea and Reading, all clubs that seem well run and you'd think would benefit from FFP, voted in favour of these proposals, and I can see why. If QPR stay up they will be at such an advantage compared to other clubs of similar size, it would be ridiculous.
I should say that the £4m increase is only applied on wage bills of £52m, good job otherwise no teams coming up from the Championship would ever be able to compete!
Thought I would bump this again as I thought it will probably not stand in Brussels.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/21958992
No real surprise.
Half of the teams in the Premier League are only there, or have the status that they currently do, because of sugar daddies.
Man City and Chelsea are the standouts because of the sheer amount put into them and they've effectively bought league titles. City were effectively a midtable side who were "chosen" to be the playthings of mega-rich Arabs. Liverpool, Villa, Sunderland have also overspent other people's money despite not achieving anywhere near as much. But there are also the likes of Fulham, Wigan, Reading, QPR, Southampton, perhaps Norwich who have all benefited from rich owners putting far more cash into the club than they'd have ever been able to generate for themselves and in the first 3 cases but for these sugar daddies would probably have never got anywhere near the Premier League. Cardiff will soon join that club as well, and the likes of Leicester, Hull, and Brighton have all had very rich people putting in extra cash to chase the Premier League pot of gold.
The way things are at the moment it'll eventually mean that a club will need a billionaire owner just to have a chance of staying in the PL! Therefore financial fair play rules would benefit the game as a whole.
Footballers' wages: No cheap points | The Economist
Wage and the Premier League scaled table | Financial Fair Play
Here's how many points each Premier League team won per £million spent on wages this season (final league positions and wage rankings in brackets with column 4 showing how much higher/lower a team placed than it's relative wage ranking):
Swansea........... 46pts (9th) ........ £34m (20th) ... (+11) ... 1.35pts/£m
Southampton.... 41pts (14th) ...... £37m (17th) .... (+3) .... 1.11pts/£m
Norwich............ 44pts (11th) ...... £41m (16th) .... (+5) .... 1.07pts/£m
West Brom........ 49pts (8th) ........ £48m (15th) .... (+7) .... 1.02pts/£m
Everton............. 63pts (6th) ........ £62m (11th) .... (+5) .... 1.01pts/£m
Wigan............... 36pts (18th) ...... £37m (18th) ..... (=) ..... 0.97pts/£m
West Ham......... 46pts (10th) ...... £51m (14th) .... (+4) .... 0.90pts/£m
Reading............ 28pts (19th) ...... £34m (19th) .... (=) ..... 0.82pts/£m
Fulham.............. 43pts (12th) ..... £55m (13th) .... (+1) .... 0.78pts/£m
Tottenham......... 72pts (5th) ....... £93m (6th) ..... (+1) .... 0.77pts/£m
Stoke City.......... 42pts (13th) ..... £55m (12th) .....(-1) .... 0.76pts/£m
Newcastle.......... 41pts (16th) ..... £65m (9th) ...... (-7) .... 0.63pts/£m
Sunderland....... 39pts (17th) ...... £62m (10th) .... (-7) .... 0.63pts/£m
Man Utd............. 89pts (1st) ...... £162m (3rd) ..... (+2) .... 0.55pts/£m
Aston Villa......... 41pts (15th) ...... £75m (7th) ..... (-8) .... 0.55pts/£m
Arsenal.............. 73pts (4th) ..... £144m (4th) ...... (=) ..... 0.51pts/£m
Liverpool........... 61pts (7th) ..... £127m (5th) ...... (-2) .... 0.48pts/£m
Chelsea............. 75pts (3rd) ..... £172m (2nd) ..... (-1) ......0.44pts/£m
Man City............ 78pts (2nd) ..... £200m (1st) ..... (-1) ......0.39pts/£m
QPR................... 25pts (20th) ..... £69m (8th) ...... (-12) ....0.36pts/£m
Anyway FFP is is operating in an unfair universe in itself, the likes of Real and Barca have ridiculous TV deals which make a massive mockery of the Primera Liga + they owe tens of million in unpaid tax. Not exactly 'Financial Fair Play'.
It has been taken to court by somebody, not sure of the status of it at the minute.
Yeah what's wrong with half the league bankrupting themselves to try and win something. I wonder if Portsmouth fans think the same.