Euro: UEFA bans Man City for 2 CL seasons

[Live in the Now]

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

What's it matter!

Are you watching the match right now? With the crap they have on there that would probably look better.

 

[Blender]

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

What's it matter!

Exactly, our sponsor should just be "Millhouse Capital" so Abramovich can endlessly pump money into the club and no one will be able to tell if it's above market value.

 

[Evilo]

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.

Yes, you're AGAIN being dishonest. United's set a new market obviously.
Give me the numbers BEFORE United signed theirs.

Indeed, literaly.

 

[Evilo]

And United signed in 2012.
Since apparently YOU know what you're talking about.

 

[Evilo]

Aon's sponsorship deal with United (the previous one) was LESS THAN HALF of Chevrolet. So YES, it was completely crazy.
To deny it is just being dishonest.

 

[Blender]

Yes, you're AGAIN being dishonest. United's set a new market obviously.
Give me the numbers BEFORE United signed theirs.

Indeed, literaly.

And United signed in 2012.
Since apparently YOU know what you're talking about.

The deal actually started in 2014, it was agreed earlier but started in 2014.

That they set a new market is completely irrelevant, since clearly the market is not out of line with the sponsorship deals that came right after it. United is the most valuable English club in the world, I always expect them to set a new market for sponsorship. It's delusional to think any other team would.

 

[Blender]

Aon's sponsorship deal with United (the previous one) was LESS THAN HALF of Chevrolet. So YES, it was completely crazy.
To deny it is just being dishonest.

So? The value of the EPL greatly increased over time. Their latest TV deal is also massive compared to the last one, is that some conspiracy as well? When clubs become more valuable their sponsorship deals increase, what an insane concept.

 

[Evilo]

The deal actually started in 2014, it was agreed earlier but started in 2014.

That they set a new market is completely irrelevant, since clearly the market is not out of line with the sponsorship deals that came right after it. United is the most valuable English club in the world, I always expect them to set a new market for sponsorship. It's delusional to think any other team would.

So Etihad is not out of line since future sponsroship deals will be higher????

 

[Blender]

So Etihad is not out of line since future sponsroship deals will be higher????

It's out of line because it is greater than clubs that are much more prominent and valuable than them that signed deals even after they did for less money, because the market doesn't support it. Manchester United signed a deal with a publicly traded company that bid the most money. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.

 

[Evilo]

If you DENY the obvious (Chevrolet's deal was completely out of base), how do you argue against this (all euros) :

10th PSG 25M (signed 2006)
9th Liverpool 35M (signed 2011) -> the NEW one is 46M
8th Bayern 35M (I don't know the date of latest contract)
7th Spurs 35M (signed 2017)
6th Arsenal 40M (signed 2019, was 18.5 previously)
5th Chelsea 46M (signed 2016)
4th City 45M (infamous Etihad deal signed in 2009) -> deemed as WAY too high by US citizens here.
3rd Barcelona 55M (signed 2018), but previously it was 35M
2nd Real Madrid 65M (signed 2018, was previously 25M signed in 2013)
1st United 68M (signed 2012 with Chevrolet). Worth noting they only got the game kits, not the training kits.

So, after reading this, can you, with a straight face, say that United's deal with Chevrolet was NOT off base (68M), compared to Real's (25M), Barca (35M), etc... that was signed AFTERWARDS?????

Like seriously?
Anyone denying the Chevrolet deal was WAYYYYYY out of reality is simpy denying FACTS.

 

[Blender]

If you DENY the obvious (Chevrolet's deal was completely out of base), how do you argue against this (all euros) :

10th PSG 25M (signed 2006)
9th Liverpool 35M (signed 2011) -> the NEW one is 46M
8th Bayern 35M (I don't know the date of latest contract)
7th Spurs 35M (signed 2017)
6th Arsenal 40M (signed 2019, was 18.5 previously)
5th Chelsea 46M (signed 2016)
4th City 45M (infamous Etihad deal signed in 2009) -> deemed as WAY too high by US citizens here.
3rd Barcelona 55M (signed 2018), but previously it was 35M
2nd Real Madrid 65M (signed 2018, was previously 25M signed in 2013)
1st United 68M (signed 2012 with Chevrolet). Worth noting they only got the game kits, not the training kits.

So, after reading this, can you, with a straight face, say that United's deal with Chevrolet was NOT off base (68M), compared to Real's (25M), Barca (35M), etc... that was signed AFTERWARDS?????

Like seriously?
Anyone denying the Chevrolet deal was WAYYYYYY out of reality is simpy denying FACTS.

There is only one outlier on this list, and it's Manchester City since when you take away their faux revenue they are more comparable to an Everton or West Ham in stature than any of these clubs.

"deemed as WAY too high by US citizens here" is incredibly disingenuous, UEFA made that determination and was blocked at every turn by City when they tried to review their accounts to see where the money was coming from and how the deal was made.

Manchester United is the most marketable club in the world, like it or not, because the English speaking market is the largest financially. No one has denied that it was absurdly valuable, just that there was anything at all nefarious or problematic about it. Good for them for being so valuable and managing to secure a great deal.

 

[Evilo]

Yeah, that US citizen remark was just to poke fun at people saying it's way too much while NOT acknowledging the obvious : United's contract was WAY off base.

But yes, even after calmy reading that Real and Barca, the two most famous teams in the world, having signed contract AFTER the United one, the fact their deals wasn't even half of United's, YOU still think it's all good and normal.
Frankly, there's nothing to add here. If you can't admit it, there's absolutely no way you're being honest.

 

[Blender]

Yeah, that US citizen remark was just to poke fun at people saying it's way too much while NOT acknowledging the obvious : United's contract was WAY off base.

But yes, even after calmy reading that Real and Barca, the two most famous teams in the world, having signed contract AFTER the United one, the fact their deals wasn't even half of United's, YOU still think it's all good and normal.
Frankly, there's nothing to add here. If you can't admit it, there's absolutely no way you're being honest.

Real and Barca don't have the TV exposure Manchester United has, that's what drives the shirt deal.

Regardless, Manchester United's deal being overvalued is irrelevant to Manchester City's being overvalued, as has been explained repeatedly already. The clubs aren't comparable, and the situation isn't comparable.

 

[Savant]

Pearce is God Tier for Liverpool



I would not be shocked if FSG is out in five years or less.

 

[Evilo]

Real and Barca don't have the TV exposure Manchester United has, that's what drives the shirt deal.

Regardless, Manchester United's deal being overvalued is irrelevant to Manchester City's being overvalued, as has been explained repeatedly already. The clubs aren't comparable, and the situation isn't comparable.

No and I didn't say they have to be compared.
I used the Chevrolet example to say you can't gauge the validity of a sponsorship deal by its amount.

And BTW, you do realize spanish is more spoken than english?
You do realize that Real and Barca are followed absolutely everywhere in the world?

 

[East Coast Bias]

Love how this is now actually “United is the real culprit here!”

lol. I gave @Savant a hard time all week and this is far worse

 

[Blender]

No and I didn't say they have to be compared.
I used the Chevrolet example to say you can't gauge the validity of a sponsorship deal by its amount.

And BTW, you do realize spanish is more spoken than english?
You do realize that Real and Barca are followed absolutely everywhere in the world?

Of course Spanish is more spoken than English, but the EPL TV deal is absolutely massive compared to anything La Liga has. The money just isn't the same between the EPL and La Liga.

Yes, you absolutely can judge it's validity relative to the stature of the club, that is what you aren't acknowledging. They pay professionals to do exactly that, and that's what UEFA used as part of their investigation, professionals whose job it is to determine such things.

 

[Evilo]

Love how this is now actually “United is the real culprit here!”

lol. I gave @Savant a hard time all week and this is far worse

I mean really?
Can you at least read what I wrote before you grow all paranoid !
I never said United was to blame FFS.

I used the Chevrolet example to say that you can't judge a sponsorship amount properly as fair or not.

 

[Evilo]

Of course Spanish is more spoken than English, but the EPL TV deal is absolutely massive compared to anything La Liga has. The money just isn't the same between the EPL and La Liga.

Yes, you absolutely can judge it's validity relative to the stature of the club, that is what you aren't acknowledging. They pay professionals to do exactly that, and that's what UEFA used as part of their investigation, professionals whose job it is to determine such things.

But those pros can't figure out that Chevrolet more than doubling the amount of Real or Barca isn't a problem?

You're kidding yourself. It's simply impossible to argue in front of a legal court. UEFA knows it.

 

[hatterson]

You do realize that fraudulently inflating sponsorship values actually *is* something that's actually argued in real courts, right?

 

[Evilo]

You do realize that fraudulently inflating sponsorship values actually *is* something that's actually argued in real courts, right?

You do realize that I said you CAN'T, in a court, tell Etihad that their 4th highest contract is off base when in the same time saying United's isn't (at a much higher price, signed 8 years ago).
Etihad can always argue (and again, I'm not defnding them, I fully agree they cheated, OK?) that they thought City's brand would explode after a CL win and EPL titles. That's totally arguable and a court would never say the contract is off base because it can't be proven.

Again, for @East Coast Bias , that doesn't mean City didn't cheat and that doesn't mean United cheated.
I'm just using this example to prove you can't prove a deal is too big.

Now, since FFP of course didn't have the bright idea to ban owners from having a brand sponsoring a team they owned obviously. Which totally facilitates the cheating.

 

[Savant]

Love how this is now actually “United is the real culprit here!”

lol. I gave @Savant a hard time all week and this is far worse

I have thick skin. I’m from New Jersey, I can take it.
Not touching that United point with a ten foot pole though.

 

[les Habs]

Hopefully Guardiola signs a long term contract with City.

 

[Duchene2MacKinnon]

Hopefully Guardiola signs a long term contract with City.

HUH???

 

[The Abusement Park]

HUH???

For real. I thought they were trying to win the CL