Monk Posted 11 July 2011 Posted 11 July 2011 Does anyone know what money was involved in the stadium sponsorship deal announced last week? Call me a sceptic, I've been reading up about the Man City deal, and, if you don't already understand what's happened here's a quick breakdown: - Man City owners cover the clubs massive losses with their cash - UEFA / FIFA have new rules coming in stating clubs' finances must be sustainable - Man City's owners also have a huge stake in Emirates airline. - Therefore the sponsorship deal of their stadium is the the same people writing off the same losses in a different way, but this time the money coming into the business counts as revenue, and would actually be tax beneficial to Emirates. I'm just wondering if we're doing something similar? King Power get tax relief on the money they spend on stadium sponsorship, and we get money through the door as revenue, thus offsetting the losses we incur on running the club in the championship. Not saying there's anything inherantly wrong with this - but what are your thoughts?
Bayfox Posted 11 July 2011 Posted 11 July 2011 I think this is exactly why we have done it, if they want us promoted and in europe in 3 years then uefa will start looking at the outlay, from around now. Having just spent 5 million on a championship player, we have to put that money into the club some how and as uefa will only let owners cover a small percentage of losses, you have to find a way to get that cash in.
Kent Posted 11 July 2011 Posted 11 July 2011 Would probably work with the shirt sponsor too. Rather than directly investing just increase the sponsorship deal.
Len Finsbury Posted 11 July 2011 Posted 11 July 2011 Makes a lot of sense. So... this season's spending is essentially being paid for by the stadium and possibly shirt sponsorship rather than the owners' own pocket.
cc_star Posted 11 July 2011 Posted 11 July 2011 'tis a good idea to pump money into the club, although it almost seems akin to laundering Pretty sure once most clubs do it another law will be passed to try and squeeze it out,
Monk Posted 11 July 2011 Author Posted 11 July 2011 If many other clubs with wealthy backers go down this route, perhaps it will be banned by UEFA. The idea is to stop clubs going bankrupt in the longer term when owners leave. The Man City approach doesn't really remove that risk, as if the owners pulled out presumably they'd pull out of the stadium name too?
Jace Posted 11 July 2011 Posted 11 July 2011 I cant see it being banned as its perfectly legal its a great idea allowing man city to still be able to spend big money in the champions league when other big spending teams such as chelsea may struggle without a simular deal
Guest MattP Posted 11 July 2011 Posted 11 July 2011 Wenger had it right - "financial doping". Man City should have an * next to anything they win. Actually feel sorry for UEFA for once, they implement laws actually trying to make the game fairer and on a more even keel and everyone just finds another way around it. It's cheating plain and simple no matter how you dress it up. Sooner we get an US style wage cap and structure to the league the better.
21st Century Fox Posted 11 July 2011 Posted 11 July 2011 Wenger had it right - "financial doping". Man City should have an * next to anything they win. Actually feel sorry for UEFA for once, they implement laws actually trying to make the game fairer and on a more even keel and everyone just finds another way around it. It's cheating plain and simple no matter how you dress it up. Sooner we get an US style wage cap and structure to the league the better. The whole sport would need to be wage capped otherwise the top players would just move to a league without wage caps. Players still find ways around the U.S. style wage caps anyway. FIFA need to actually do something.
Guest MattP Posted 11 July 2011 Posted 11 July 2011 The whole sport would need to be wage capped otherwise the top players would just move to a league without wage caps. Players still find ways around the U.S. style wage caps anyway. FIFA need to actually do something. Yeah would need to be european wide and I see the problems we have as we have a transfer system instead of a draft system. One thing is for certain, this cannot go on with football clubs just being bankrolled by foriegn investment, its totally unfair and makes the sport look a joke.
21st Century Fox Posted 11 July 2011 Posted 11 July 2011 Yeah would need to be european wide and I see the problems we have as we have a transfer system instead of a draft system. One thing is for certain, this cannot go on with football clubs just being bankrolled by foriegn investment, its totally unfair and makes the sport look a joke. Sport and business probably will never mix. Sport in its nature is all about competition, where as business (capitalism) is anti-competition. Would probably help with a reformed FIFA and Rupert Murdoch out of the picture though.
John Matrix Posted 11 July 2011 Posted 11 July 2011 don't see it happening. the nfl system works due to them only having to worry about one country and the fact there's only 32 teams
Smudge Posted 11 July 2011 Posted 11 July 2011 Sport and business probably will never mix. Sport in its nature is all about competition, where as business (capitalism) is anti-competition. Would probably help with a reformed FIFA and Rupert Murdoch out of the picture though. Apart from the oil industry, who do you have in mind?
21st Century Fox Posted 11 July 2011 Posted 11 July 2011 Apart from the oil industry, who do you have in mind? Where would I start?? Microsoft is a pretty good place I guess.
Guest MattP Posted 11 July 2011 Posted 11 July 2011 Where would I start?? Microsoft is a pretty good place I guess. Microsoft arent ruling the computing world because of capitalism, they rule it because there product is about 10,000 times better than anything anyone else can produce.
MPH Posted 11 July 2011 Posted 11 July 2011 ****Etihad. Funny thing about Etihad is that in Arabic it actually means United..... So Man City have named their stadium the United stadium... Bet Man U love that!!!
B52 Posted 11 July 2011 Posted 11 July 2011 Microsoft arent ruling the computing world because of capitalism, they rule it because there product is about 10,000 times better than anything anyone else can produce. , is this why they copy Apple as we speak?
Guest MattP Posted 11 July 2011 Posted 11 July 2011 , is this why they copy Apple as we speak? In terms of Microsoft office? Apple havnt exactly done badly.
21st Century Fox Posted 11 July 2011 Posted 11 July 2011 Microsoft arent ruling the computing world because of capitalism, they rule it because there product is about 10,000 times better than anything anyone else can produce. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Microsoft_competition_case
brockmyster Posted 11 July 2011 Posted 11 July 2011 Definately a way around the rules, and a very good one in my eyes!
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.