Euro: UEFA bans Man City for 2 CL seasons

[East Coast Bias]

Then Chevrolet broke market value.

You dont know the other bids. and this applies to OWNERS controlled sponsorship.

I feel like you're using City to voice all of your issues with FFP. You can hate FFP and still see them breaking the rule.

 

[Blender]

Then Chevrolet broke market value.

You keep proving you have no understanding of the market or economics. United and City do not have equal brand values and would in no way be expected to have equal value sponsorships.

 

[Evilo]

you have the other bids?

Well duh you have the other deals from other teams!

 

[Evilo]

You keep proving you have no understanding of the market or economics. United and City do not have equal brand values and would in no way be expected to have equal value sponsorships.

My god......
You keep missing the issue.
I never said they were....
Link me to somewhere I said this

 

[East Coast Bias]

Well duh you have the other deals from other teams!

I updated my post. It's not even remotely the same scenario, and the UEFA rule referenced wouldn't apply, because United doesn't own Chevy.

If you don't see a difference I can't help you. We'll agree to disagree.

 

[The Abusement Park]

It isn’t worth it everyone.

 

[Blender]

My god......
You keep missing the issue.
I never said they were....
Link me to somewhere I said this

You keep comparing the Etihad deal to the Chevrolet deal as if this is an issue of general market value, when United is worth way more from a sponsorship perspective than City. The Chevrolet deal isn't even necessarily overvalued in the market based on the stature of United, it was just a bad deal for a struggling car company.

 

[hatterson]

The Chevy deal was high, but it wasn't absurdly over the value of a sponsorship like City's many deals were.

Also, more importantly, Chevy is a publicly traded company and not privately owned by the same people who own the team.

 

[Evilo]

I updated my post. It's not even remotely the same scenario, and the UEFA rule referenced wouldn't apply, because United doesn't own Chevy.

If you don't see a difference I can't help you. We'll agree to disagree.

Ffs.... I didn't deny the cheating!
I said you can't prove a sponsorship deal is off-base.
And since it's not forbidden to have a sponsor from owner A give money in a deal to his own team, the only way Etihad's deal is not FFP (and I agree it isn't) is to gauge how the deal is off-base.
Which as I said is impossible.

 

[Evilo]

The Chevy deal was high, but it wasn't absurdly over the value of a sponsorship like City's many deals were.

Also, more importantly, Chevy is a publicly traded company and not privately owned by the same people who own the team.

1st point : it was absurdly high. 3 years later it still was the highest in the business.
2nd point : not illegal.

 

[Blender]

For example Chelsea, Liverpool, Tottenham, and Arsenal all have comparable shirt sponsor deals in the £35-40m/year range. Manchester United has the largest worldwide presence and secured a £64m/year deal with Chevrolet. The Manchester City deal with Etihad is about £45m/year, 2nd behind only Manchester United, despite being smaller in stature than all of those other clubs they managed to sign the 2nd highest deal through their owner, then hid and lied about the finances of it.

 

[Evilo]

it was just a bad deal for a struggling car company.

See it's not the chore of the subject but I can't even understand how someone living in our world can think "well it's just bad business, nothing shady about it".
That just doesn't happen.
These guys don't take 500M decisions like this
They got paid for it.
You can't be that naive of our capitalist world.

 

[hatterson]

1st point : it was absurdly high. 3 years later it still was the highest in the business.
2nd point : not illegal.

3 years after it was signed United was still, by a good amount, the largest global brand in the PL.

 

[Live in the Now]

There was far, far more to the complaint than just the sponsorship. That's only one of the details. One of the others is tax evasion, which British authorities are currently investigating.

 

[Evilo]

For example Chelsea, Liverpool, Tottenham, and Arsenal all have comparable shirt sponsor deals in the £35-40m/year range. Manchester United has the largest worldwide presence and secured a £64m/year deal with Chevrolet. The Manchester City deal with Etihad is about £45m/year, 2nd behind only Manchester United, despite being smaller in stature than all of those other clubs they managed to sign the 2nd highest deal through their owner, then hid and lied about the finances of it.

Nah that's just not honest.
United is still way higher than those Now.
Imagine when it was signed. It was beyond crazy.

 

[Blender]

See it's not the chore of the subject but I can't even understand how someone living in our world can think "well it's just bad business, nothing shady about it".
That just doesn't happen.
These guys don't take 500M decisions like this
They got paid for it.
You can't be that naive of our capitalist world.

People absolutely do make terrible business decisions all the time, and in cases like this the executives who make the deal don't always make them in the best interest of the share holders. I literally gave you a comparable earlier with the Sportsnet NHL deal where they signed a terrible deal, but the executives who did it made the deal for the prestige and the personal bonuses they got for securing NHL hockey rights.

 

[Evilo]

3 years after it was signed United was still, by a good amount, the largest global brand in the PL.

Please.
Etihad would answer City is going to be a major brand in the next 5 years.
Which is true.

 

[Evilo]

People absolutely do make terrible business decisions all the time, and in cases like this the executives who make the deal don't always make them in the best interest of the share holders. I literally gave you a comparable earlier with the Sportsnet NHL deal where they signed a terrible deal, but the executives who did it made the deal for the prestige and the personal bonuses they got for securing NHL hockey rights.

OK so you're this naïve really?
Or just defending capitalism with blinders on?

Come on man. 500M€ decision was not taken lightly.
But anyway that is not the point of the discussion.

 

[Blender]

Nah that's just not honest.
United is still way higher than those Now.
Imagine when it was signed. It was beyond crazy.

What's not honest? Manchester United has a $3.8 billion market value according to Forbes. Forbes only lists Manchester City at $2.6 billion (barely 2nd in the EPL) and that includes all of their faux revenue in the calculation. I imagine their actual value is far less than that when you cut out all of the money the owner pumps into the club from sponsorships.

 

[Evilo]

There was far, far more to the complaint than just the sponsorship. That's only one of the details. One of the others is tax evasion, which British authorities are currently investigating.

And I never said City shouldn't be punished BTW.
I just said it's possible to gauge a sponsorship deal as fair or not. Brands could project how that club will develop etc..

 

[Blender]

OK so you're this naïve really?
Or just defending capitalism with blinders on?

Come on man. 500M€ decision was not taken lightly.
But anyway that is not the point of the discussion.

Where did I say it was "taken lightly"? Do you think every business decision ever made is a good one and that there are never winners/losers? That is literally not how the world works, at all.

 

[Evilo]

What's not honest? Manchester United has a $3.8 billion market value according to Forbes. Forbes only lists Manchester City at $2.6 billion (barely 2nd in the EPL) and that includes all of their faux revenue in the calculation. I imagine their actual value is far less than that when you cut out all of the money they owner pumps into the club from sponsorships.

You're dishonest by comparing recent deals to an old one.
Go and check how much money teams were getting WHEN United got their deal.

 

[Evilo]

Where did I say it was "taken lightly"? Do you think every business decision ever made is a good one and that there are never winners/losers? That is literally not how the world works, at all.

Again, no point in discussing capitalism here.

 

[Blender]

You're dishonest by comparing recent deals to an old one.
Go and check how much money teams were getting WHEN United got their deal.

Chelsea signed a 5 year deal (i.e. in 2015, one year after the United deal in 2014) at about £40m at the same time the United deal was signed, and Chelsea is worth about half of United in market value. Chelsea's new deal that just started is about the same as the last one. There is nothing dishonest here, you just literally don't now what you're talking about.

 

[Chimaera]

Roman should have just put his face on the front of the kit for 100 million a match.

What's it matter!