whitwickfox Posted 4 June 2013 Share Posted 4 June 2013 Can any one say whether or not king power who are our shirt sponsors could in theory give the club £30 million for advertising their name on our shirts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashley Posted 4 June 2013 Share Posted 4 June 2013 Can any one say whether or not king power who are our shirt sponsors could in theory give the club £30 million for advertising their name on our shirts I've already asked the same question. Someone put a link up which basically said it will go to a panel to deem which is fair and unfair Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimmy Posted 4 June 2013 Share Posted 4 June 2013 Can any one say whether or not king power who are our shirt sponsors could in theory give the club £30 million for advertising their name on our shirts there would probably be an investigation to make sure the money was put in under sponsorship and not a loan but once it is then its revenue, I expect Man City to do the same to circumvent UEFA's FFP regs in Europe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Callabinho Posted 4 June 2013 Share Posted 4 June 2013 I've heard a romour it could be Singha Beer, but then again it's only a rumour, I would prefer the proper "King power" text rather than the "K" and the name in question a boring font! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy1960 Posted 4 June 2013 Share Posted 4 June 2013 If you put KP on your shirts surely it should be for peanuts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indierich06 Posted 5 June 2013 Share Posted 5 June 2013 Yeah, my understanding is that it would have to be in sponsorship, which means actually giving the money to the club, rather than loaning it, which is what the Thais have done so far. Personally, I don't think they will be willing to fork out a load of money with no chance of getting it back. As for it being approved by a panel - what money we receive from our sponsors or for our stadium naming rights, that's up to whoever is paying for the sponsorship or stadium rights, surely? If the owners want to spend a few million a season on each, they should be allowed to - it's their money and they're paying for a service. That's got nothing to do with the FL or FFP as far as I'm concerned. I'm all for financial regulation, but there would no way of us racking up any debt from this, so they can keep their noses out. It's just another revenue stream. But like I said, I doubt the owners will do that because it's bascially giving their money away with no chance of getting it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unreachable Posted 5 June 2013 Share Posted 5 June 2013 I've already asked the same question. Someone put a link up which basically said it will go to a panel to deem which is fair and unfair I posted this link in the Financial Fair Play thread http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2013/feb/04/manchester-city-financial-fair-play which mentions that "expert panels will assess the "fair value" of sponsorship deals and if related party transactions breach them, the relevant amount will be deducted from the break-even calculations." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hackneyfox Posted 5 June 2013 Share Posted 5 June 2013 Just how long will it take a panel of experts to decide what is fair and what isn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trav Le Bleu Posted 5 June 2013 Share Posted 5 June 2013 Just how long will it take a panel of experts to decide what is fair and what isn't? When the money they get paid for deciding runs out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katieakita Posted 5 June 2013 Share Posted 5 June 2013 How can anyone deem what is reasonable, for arguments sake we have a pre season friendly vs Man Utd broadcast live in the far East, KIng Power advertised to how many millions of potential customers. The Post Office have just spent £11 million on a tv advertising campaign that was?? Certainly not much for £11 million. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swiss_tony Posted 5 June 2013 Share Posted 5 June 2013 Yeah, my understanding is that it would have to be in sponsorship, which means actually giving the money to the club, rather than loaning it, which is what the Thais have done so far. Personally, I don't think they will be willing to fork out a load of money with no chance of getting it back. As for it being approved by a panel - what money we receive from our sponsors or for our stadium naming rights, that's up to whoever is paying for the sponsorship or stadium rights, surely? If the owners want to spend a few million a season on each, they should be allowed to - it's their money and they're paying for a service. That's got nothing to do with the FL or FFP as far as I'm concerned. I'm all for financial regulation, but there would no way of us racking up any debt from this, so they can keep their noses out. It's just another revenue stream. But like I said, I doubt the owners will do that because it's bascially giving their money away with no chance of getting it back. You might want to read up on FFP and what the rules are as opposed to saying what you think they should be. there's plenty of info on the football League website. sponsorships will be reviewed to make sure a club is not getting around the FFP rules by over inflating a deal. how they decide what is 'market' i have no idea, and i'm sure somebody will try to push the limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 5 June 2013 Share Posted 5 June 2013 You might want to read up on FFP and what the rules are as opposed to saying what you think they should be. there's plenty of info on the football League website. sponsorships will be reviewed to make sure a club is not getting around the FFP rules by over inflating a deal. how they decide what is 'market' i have no idea, and i'm sure somebody will try to push the limits. The specific point on "Fair Sponsorship Value is not covered on the Football League site, but is referred to in other FFP publications Following the Radio Leicester show, we have submitted a couple of clarification points directly to the Football League, but are awaiting a response (and this was one of the questions) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bayfox Posted 6 June 2013 Share Posted 6 June 2013 I think we are all getting carried away. Man city, psg, monaco etc are all owned by people who will tie this shit up in the courts for years. Only arsenal and munich really want this to come in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 6 June 2013 Share Posted 6 June 2013 I think we are all getting carried away. Man city, psg, monaco etc are all owned by people who will tie this shit up in the courts for years. Only arsenal and munich really want this to come in. Almost every club has already agreed to it. I'd be surprised if the clubs haven't already signed a legally binding document stating acceptance of the rules. I think in future years it may well be challenged but certainly for the next few seasons I would expect it to be administered by the book. It has already started don't forget. Clubs have already submitted accounts for the sanctionless seasons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.