Uefa hands out first financial fair play penalties

[sbrustad]

1. It will only be investigated as a 'related party' if it is considered not be of market value.it is worth noting that two of the biggest, if not biggest, sponsors of Bayern Munich own shares in the club. As Bayern are on of the driving forces behind the regs you can see why this caveat was added.

2. Sheikh Mansour doesn't own Etihad.

His family does though, his half-brother is the chairman of Etihad. I guess it doesn't matter to FIFA, but it really should.

 

[Murder She]

His family does though, his half-brother is the chairman of Etihad. I guess it doesn't matter to FIFA, but it really should.

It doesn't change the fact he doesn't own it. My understanding is that the regs state Mansour would have to have control over Etihad. Having family on the board of Etihad does not indicate that.

As I stated above, the deal would only be investigated if it was considered not to be of market value. That is, essentially, the first test.

I think the FFPR rules are a disgrace simply because they are a blatant attempt at maintaining the status quo. City and Chelsea will not suffer at the hands of UEFA. The regs are being put in place to prevent a club being bankrolled to such an extent in the future and it upsetting the G14.

 

[Bus-Conductor]

1. It will only be investigated as a 'related party' if it is considered not be of market value.it is worth noting that two of the biggest, if not biggest, sponsors of Bayern Munich own shares in the club. As Bayern are on of the driving forces behind the regs you can see why this caveat was added.

2. Sheikh Mansour doesn't own Etihad.

Sheikh Mansour (along with his family) effectively does. Him and his family control state funds. Etihad is a state funded company formed by Royal Decree. His brothers are all on the board of directors.

Barca have just signed a 125m 5 year deal with Qatar. Do you think that Makes City's 400m ten year deal look like market value ?

 

[kishman]

Didnt it come out that the sponsorship deal was mainly to do with the new training facilities and rebuilding around the ground

I dont understand what united have done? and the fair play doesnt kick in yet so Chelsea wont be investigated

I meant City!

 

[beats1]

Sheikh Mansour (along with his family) effectively does. Him and his family control state funds. Etihad is a state funded company formed by Royal Decree. His brothers are all on the board of directors.

Barca have just signed a 125m 5 year deal with Qatar. Do you think that Makes City's 400m ten year deal look like market value ?

As said before from what I read its not £400million, its unknown what it is but that £400million includes the new development around the city/ground

 

[SpurSince57]

As said before from what I read its not £400million, its unknown what it is but that £400million includes the new development around the city/ground

Imagine the lawyers Sheikh Yerbooti can afford. Now imagine the lawyers UEFA can afford.

 

[Murder She]

Sheikh Mansour (along with his family) effectively does. Him and his family control state funds. Etihad is a state funded company formed by Royal Decree. His brothers are all on the board of directors.

Barca have just signed a 125m 5 year deal with Qatar. Do you think that Makes City's 400m ten year deal look like market value ?

Re your first point: UEFA would have to prove it. That is even before it us not considered market value.

As for market value, City's sponsorship covers naming rights for the stadium and the whole complex (incl training facilities, college, commercial area etc..), shirt sponsor and corporate partnership. it is a unique deal so there is little to compare it with.

What measure could be used to test fairness in this instance?

 

[Bus-Conductor]

Re your first point: UEFA would have to prove it. That is even before it us not considered market value.

As for market value, City's sponsorship covers naming rights for the stadium and the whole complex (incl training facilities, college, commercial area etc..), shirt sponsor and corporate partnership. it is a unique deal so there is little to compare it with.

What measure could be used to test fairness in this instance?

I have no illusion that it would be almost impossible to litigate in a court of law (and the possibility of taking on the UAE in law would be a non starter with their resources) if it ultimately came to that, but FIFA/UEFA don't have to do that in the first instance, they are effectively a law unto themselves.

And at the very least, it should be under investigation shouldn't it ?

 

[Murder She]

I have no illusion that it would be almost impossible to litigate in a court of law (and the possibility of taking on the UAE in law would be a non starter with their resources) if it ultimately came to that, but FIFA/UEFA don't have to do that in the first instance, they are effectively a law unto themselves.

And at the very least, it should be under investigation shouldn't it ?

Do not get me wrong, I am not making a value judgement. I am simply stating that UEFA regs do not allow them to call-in City's sponsorship deal with Etihad.

My own opinion is that FFPRs are a nonsense.Yes, the money in football is obscene. However, let's not kid ourselves here. The regs are in place to retain the status quo.

When clubs look to raise revenues they will use fans as one of the sources. The fans will be
expected to pay more. Pay more for tickets, merchandise, TV subscription fees etc..

It's just a shame UEFA do not put as much effort into tackling racism and dealing with those associations who do not address these problems.