Topic: What is Manchester City's transfer policy? What is their strategy?

[Skeeve]

As someone pointed out on another forum, its not naming rights for the stadium, its for a stadium and an area of approx 10 miles either side of the stadium (Which City have been buying off the council for a while now).
It basically means, there is no precedent for UEFA to go against because never in the history of the game has there been a naming rights deal for, basically, a chunk of the entire city. So the deal can be pretty much as high as they want.
City played a blinder there abusing and getting around the FFP, and there's nothing UEFA can do about it.

It would be very tough for them to argue that sponsoring that whole area would amount to footballing or related income though and that is probably where uefa could disallow things if they felt like it.

In any case, this deal could effectively just be a smokescreen to get through a record-breaking stadium naming deal that might have been otherwise queried, but will now seem like they have backed down and been more reasonable.

One area that City could really boost their money would be in the terms of their sponsorship deals, they hadn't won anything for decades nor got into the CL, so doing those things could have major bonus clauses that would be tougher for Uefa to disallow as how could they argue that winning your first FA Cup in nearly 50 years wasn't a big deal?

[Mrfabulous]

There'll be a few brown envelopes bunged in uefas direction and nothing will be done about it.

[rocco]

As someone pointed out on another forum, its not naming rights for the stadium, its for a stadium and an area of approx 10 miles either side of the stadium (Which City have been buying off the council for a while now).
It basically means, there is no precedent for UEFA to go against because never in the history of the game has there been a naming rights deal for, basically, a chunk of the entire city. So the deal can be pretty much as high as they want.
City played a blinder there abusing and getting around the FFP, and there's nothing UEFA can do about it.

How can City receive the cash for selling the stadium if they don't own it and how can selling land they have bought either side of the stadium be seen as football income.
Sure then they could just sell other properties they own around the world and say it's football income


Time for the European Internet terrorist to take to Their Preferred weapon of choice.

[Skeeve]

Interesting to read their misunderstanding of people's dislike for the way City are going about things, there is almost nobody who objects to rich owners allowing a club to spend all the club's profits on improving the team and boosting that as much as they are allowed to jump start a team's progress to that level, while it isn't ideal for another team such as ours on a personal level you only have to look at somewhere like scotland to see the problems you get where there isn't sufficient competition.

It is only things like this initial attempt to get round the ffp rules with a completely unrealistic valuation on the stadium naming rights that people dislike because if this happens then it will only lead to an arms race of clubs trying to find the next lot of loopholes to get round ffp and all the time our teams will be moving further away from us fans than they already are.

One thing that we should bear in mind, the papers make up a lot of shit about all clubs and City aren't going to sign 20 players for several billion any more than we will sign the 70 or 80 we have been linked with so far.

[Jocko]

John Henry's tweet asking rhetorically how much the losing bid was, is much more relevant than a simple throw away remark.

A judgement on the market rate will take account of all the bids received by Man City, it won't just be examination of sponsorships received by other clubs or sports groups as there is no complete correlation between what a company would pay to sponsor say Arsenal or City.

If City received no other bids or didn't "test the market" UEFA will find this easy decision to make, equally if the Ethiad bid was hugely above the next or average bid then again UEFA will have an easy decision. Alternative if City conducted a tender process and all bids were around the level they have secured then I think UEFA will approve it.

[Acaustiq]

[BarryCrocker]

The thing that UEFA needs to take into consideration:

How can a team thats won only 1 domestic trophy in 30+ years, has no experience in the CL, from Englands 3rd largest city,
with that cities 2nd largest stadium, sign the biggest naming rights deal in the history of sport.

[StormyDog]

By the way, I think it's instructive to look at our owners' previous battle with the Yankees when we consider our struggle against Man City. 

So it can be done.  Man City may eventually buy enough left backs to find a truly top class one.  They may do the same for every position on the pitch, and send out a team of Galacticos the likes of which the world has never seen.  However, our owners have shown that it is possible to beat a team like that, and if you throw in Kenny at the helm I think we have a chance.

The problem in football is that each team play each other twice, in many American Sports (including Baseball) play each other more than twice, resulting in a 162 game season with only 30 teams in the two leagues (AFAIK). If you look at the win/loss ratio for MLB even the best teams fail to reach 55% Wins with no concept of draws, but looking at our league even in a poor season Man U won the league with a win ratio of over 70%.

Even with ever advantage we can get from strategies we'll struggle to win the league if City turn over 14+ of the rest of the teams in the league. Lets hope their magical wallet doesn't cover a decent manager and some team spirit.
 

[Cusamano]

Nothing will be done about it.

[Acaustiq]

By UEFA? Quite possibly.

Other clubs may well see that as fraud and that's where it gets interesting.

[all_funkt_up]

Who sets the value of sponsorship deals? Who says what is right to pay and what is 'value' for money other than the club and the potentially interested parties?

This latest action was so blatantly obvious it could be spotted a mile away, but how can it be stopped? How can UEFA stop one company buying naming rights off another company? That is restrict of trade (is it not?) and City could take them to court.

Surely the legal men could change directors of the respective companies so that officially there was no conflict of interest or no co-directors of Manchester City and Etihad? Where there's a will there's a way.

[FernandoSusoLFC]

[RJH]

Who sets the value of sponsorship deals? Who says what is right to pay and what is 'value' for money other than the club and the potentially interested parties?

In theory, the markets says what is "value".
In the FFP rules, it says UEFA will use similar deals to work out what a "fair value" should be.

The problem is that there isn't really anything to compare it to.
There aren't many comparable deals just for stadium naming rights anyway, but there's nothing for rights covering a whole area as with the City deal.

This latest action was so blatantly obvious it could be spotted a mile away, but how can it be stopped? How can UEFA stop one company buying naming rights off another company? That is restrict of trade (is it not?) and City could take them to court.

I don't think it can be stopped. Even if they wanted to, I'm not sure there's anything UEFA could do to block the sponsorship. But that's not really the issue.

What UEFA can do is decide how much of that income can be counted in the FFP accounts, which in turn could affect City's participation in European competition.

[mcfc1]

Have to laugh at stupid City fans getting tatoos though, hahaha. At least they offer some humour while the transfers and money winds us up. Not that we give two dumps.

One fan with a C. Ronaldo 7 shirt at a City game... Lol! And some with a Rooney 10 shirt, a couple with Kaka Tatoos... Haha. On a facebook page those pictures.

That Ronaldo one was real. The Kaka tattoos were fake and so was the Rooney shirt.

[Skeeve]

Who sets the value of sponsorship deals? Who says what is right to pay and what is 'value' for money other than the club and the potentially interested parties?

This latest action was so blatantly obvious it could be spotted a mile away, but how can it be stopped? How can UEFA stop one company buying naming rights off another company? That is restrict of trade (is it not?) and City could take them to court.

Surely the legal men could change directors of the respective companies so that officially there was no conflict of interest or no co-directors of Manchester City and Etihad? Where there's a will there's a way.

Uefa can't stop a company overpaying for the naming rights, however what they can do is declare that they are inconsistent with market values and disallow the money from being included in any FFP calculations.

[Cookie-7-]

Uefa can't stop a company overpaying for the naming rights, however what they can do is declare that they are inconsistent with market values and disallow the money from being included in any FFP calculations.

And if they don't, the FFP process is a complete waste of time.

[Wish Matrix]

And they had the cheek to call us delusional.

[Alpherah]

If i recall, a UEFA spokesman said in a press conference when this was being set up that deals must be transparently bid for by numerous interested parties to allow UEFA to gauge market value.
Seems to me this City deal was more like
City to Etihad: We need £400 mill.
Etihad: okay

[B_I_F]

I don't know if this is official, or has been mentioned here or in the media, but apparently Manchester City have "signed" Manchester United's first team/club chef. Talking about transfer strategy

[Art Vandelay]

I saw Mancini on the telly talking about something.  His face looks like a chamois leather.  That's all I have to add.

[Werner A Kop Idol]

Glad to see fellow reds laying into the dirty Mancs

For too long I've been around LFC fans who say things like "I like Man City, they hate Man Utd like we do" and then go on to say that they're the proper Manchester club, as if it's a great thing that most Mancs support them.

Fuck em - and I mean both showers. Any enthusiast will say that we're Scousers and they're Mancs - or if you're an out of towner your heart belongs to the city of Liverpool - and I have never had much respect for Manchester City, despite (obviously) hating them less than their scummy neighbours. Now they're pretty much a rentboy used for a dirty oil tycoon criminal's sexual needs whenever he feels like it. No soul left whatsoever.

We'll finish above them next season. King Kenny > Mancini. Enthusiasts will agree.

[carrolluptop]

There fans are worse than the rag scum

http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=226545


Hi Ciddy fans

[mcfc1]

There fans are worse than the rag scum

http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=226545


Hi Ciddy fans

And you're just as bad.

[Dr Manhattan]

And you're just as bad.

To be honest, it's pretty funny how you all just dismiss the issue at hand for petty point scoring and claims of jealousy. The money has completely blinded you to even attempt to look at this impartially.

It's quite obvious to anyone with a brain and two eyes that this £400m naming rights deal is your attempt at getting around the FFP rules. It would have been slightly less obvious if it weren't with Etihad and wasn't for a ridiculous sum with no precedent set before. It's like you've pulled a figure right out of thin air, and that's what makes it so alarming and transparent.

Jealousy? Not really. Moreso being worried that these FFP rules will be one rule for some and one rule for others if UEFA doesn't do what they promised and look in to things like this. Otherwise what's the fucking point in this game anymore?

Like I said though, you all just want to use jealousy as the excuse for everything, and I think it's definitely more a case of people getting sick and tired of there being hardly ANY fucking rules enforced in this game anymore. If those FFP rules are to stand a chance of working then UEFA have to look in to £400m deals made internally with companies already invested in the club, because if they don't then we may as well all pack up and go home.

[.Mike]

And you're just as bad.

Far from it.

Just glimpsing through that thread seems to think it some sort of way to get one over you. The company that is sponsoring you, has never made profit, yet they can just give £400m away from no where. Not only that, it's not like it's a club who have a massive fanbase worldwide who have done this deal - not even Real, Barca or Man U have managed to secure any deals near this size.

[DM Red]

And you're just as bad.

we overpaid for players?  lol thats rich coming from Man City fans. most signings that city have made, they overpaid on.

all that money spent on shite like Milner, Barry, Toure, Bridge, Dezeko, Adebayor, Santa Cruz.

should i go on?

[mcfc1]

Far from it.

Just glimpsing through that thread seems to think it some sort of way to get one over you. The company that is sponsoring you, has never made profit, yet they can just give £400m away from no where. Not only that, it's not like it's a club who have a massive fanbase worldwide who have done this deal - not even Real, Barca or Man U have managed to secure any deals near this size.

Give me an example of a sponsorship like this before.

There has never been one before, there is no benchmark, we are setting it and its as simple as that.

Im not saying that its not a way to boost profits and meet FFP but what exactly can Uefa do? Make up new rules on the spot? Rules for some that don't apply to others? It has to remain impartial or they'll risk alienating us.

[USC19Babel]

Give me an example of a sponsorship like this before.

There has never been one before, there is no benchmark, we are setting it and its as simple as that.

Im not saying that its not a way to boost profits and meet FFP but what exactly can Uefa do? Make up new rules on the spot? Rules for some that don't apply to others? It has to remain impartial or they'll risk alienating us.

It's a made-up figure that they pulled out of the air unless there was another prospective sponsor offering £350m or a similar figure and Etihad had to top it.

Which I highly doubt is the case.

[BIGdavalad]

It has to remain impartial or they'll risk alienating us.

Alienating a nothing club that no-one gives a shit about? Do you really think they'll care?

All in all, City are the ideal club to prove that FFP rules are real on. No-one outside their own fans care if they're thrown out of Europe and they're not really any loss to the competition.

[.Mike]

Give me an example of a sponsorship like this before.

There has never been one before, there is no benchmark, we are setting it and its as simple as that.

Im not saying that its not a way to boost profits and meet FFP but what exactly can Uefa do? Make up new rules on the spot? Rules for some that don't apply to others? It has to remain impartial or they'll risk alienating us.

But there is no foundations in place for you to actually set the benchmark in the first place.

And I doubt UEFA would really care about alienating a club which is only just having its first season in the CL.

[Lawnmowerman]

All in all, City are the ideal club to prove that FFP rules are real on. No-one outside their own fans care if they're thrown out of Europe and they're not really any loss to the competition.

Pretty much how i feel. If they want to show they mean business, then city are the type of club to make an example of.

[Dr Manhattan]

There has never been one before, there is no benchmark, we are setting it and its as simple as that.

You idiot.

[Surprise me.]

Give me an example of a sponsorship like this before.

There has never been one before, there is no benchmark, we are setting it and its as simple as that.

It is that simple, that's exactly why you lot should be investigated.

[m4Rco]

Give me an example of a sponsorship like this before.

There has never been one before, there is no benchmark, we are setting it and its as simple as that.

Im not saying that its not a way to boost profits and meet FFP but what exactly can Uefa do? Make up new rules on the spot? Rules for some that don't apply to others? It has to remain impartial or they'll risk alienating us.

Sure, Manchester City, one of the most uninteresting clubs in football history who have done shit all, set standarts. yawn.

[Ambrosia]

Alienating a nothing club that no-one gives a shit about? Do you really think they'll care?

All in all, City are the ideal club to prove that FFP rules are real on. No-one outside their own fans care if they're thrown out of Europe and they're not really any loss to the competition.

That's the harsh truth.

In all honesty, City don't give anything good back to football. Crazy transfer prices, making footballers even more greedy, buying success rather than building it through astuteness...

[Immoral King Brian Blessed]

Does this deal include shirt sponsorship?

[Billy The Kid.]

There has never been one before, there is no benchmark, we are setting it and its as simple as that.

The only benchmark you are setting is the fact that Man City have the biggest fucking idiot in any fanbase, across any continent in the world

I.E..... fucking YOU

[SMD]

There fans are worse than the rag scum

http://forums.bluemoon-mcfc.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=226545


Hi Ciddy fans

That's fucking hilarious, they spent how much on Bridge, Given, Toure, Adebayor, Santa Cruz and Lescott? Oh and Jo.

[PJG]

Watching America v Man City now..out of boredom..didn't realise Mancini's son also played for City

[Mouth]

I'm struggling to understand, considering these new financial rules that are coming in soon, just what Man City are trying to do? Can someone enlighten?

webuyanyplayer.com from fifty quid to a hundred grand.............