FFP

[DB]

🔺 NEW: Manchester City have reached a settlement with the Premier League in their latest legal challenge over sponsorship rules, enabling them to now complete a hugely lucrative, long-term deal with Etihad Airways

Let's see how this plays out with the 115 charges and how it impacts us.

Well it is totally seperate to the 115 charges. However the only way it will affect us is if Edens and Sawaris decide to get Fortress or some other company associated with them to sponser us in some way that is worth £2bill over 10 years.

Yes it is separate, but could have indirect impacts.

[lovejoy]

It is being reported by some that the massively inflated Etihad sponsorship is allowable income, is this a fair interpretation of the agreement? If so it somewhat opens the floodgates doesn't it?

[paul_e]

It is being reported by some that the massively inflated Etihad sponsorship is allowable income, is this a fair interpretation of the agreement? If so it somewhat opens the floodgates doesn't it?

without knowing how much is 'some' it's impossible to say. They're allowed to include income that is deemed as 'fair market value'.

[liam]

Aren't we finding though that Premier League Rules and UEFA rules being different is still a huge challenge, will UEFA adopt a similar stance, or you spend millions on Sponsorship to find that UEFA say thats not allowed!

[john2710]

I'm sure in the next few months, we'll see that City have accepted some concessions on the ATP rules, dropping the case, in exchange for some minor punishment on the other 117 charges.

[SaddVillan]

Cop out, or sell out?

Will we ever find out?

The real winners?  All m'learned friends who've racked up squillions in fees and costs. Money that's gine out of the game.

Guess we'll need to let the dust settle and for the financial experts and journos to tap up their "sources" to find out what's happened and what it really means.

[Percy McCarthy]

Sports lawyer on SSN speculating that it could be good news for ridiculous*, corrupt*, over-the-top* sponsorships. If so, over to you NSWE.

*my words, not his.

[aj2k77]

Well the ground, training ground, academy, warehouse and Holte Pub all need sponsoring.

[PeterWithesShin]

Don't let Monchi and co near negotiations. We'll sell all naming rights for 50 quid and a sherbert dab.

[Somniloquism]

And the latter will be used already.

[Smithy]

I think it benefits state-owned clubs more than individual billionaires, because even billionaires often have to report to shareholders. Wes isn't a majority shareholder in Fortress (controlling interest has been sold a couple of times), so he doesn't have the clout to sponsor the club for anything other than fair value through that company, despite his shares being worth billions.

Same for Nassef, who I think owns less than 50% of his family company these days.

Compare this to state-owned clubs and companies, where it's often the same people who "own" the entity in its entirety.  The can "choose" to sponsor Man City's stadium for £100m a year, without anyone blinking an eye