Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

 

Usmanov

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yorkie89 said:
So with having this deal in place the record losses we were about to publish don’t mean a lot or have I got that wrong? Obviously it’s 105m losses over 3 seasons the FFP look at is it?
Click to expand...

We were not imminently falling foul of FFP anyway as you have a 3 year wait. We have just reduced our debts by 30% with 1 deal tonight though.
 
Brisan123 said:
How many times do we have to explain this to you
Listen closely and then report back to headquarters
An object or possession is only worth what someone is prepared to pay for it
You might value your house at 200,000 but if someone offers you 500,000 that’s what it’s worth
Can you see where this is going
No
I’ll explain further mare you still listening
Feel free to interrupt if I lose you
Usmanov offered way over the market price for Kronkes shares knowing full well Kronke would not sell
By offering this amount he now set a new value for Arsenal and told Kronke how much the club was worth in his eyes
Kronke wanted to buy Arsenal outright so he could incorporate it in the states ( basically means register it )
So now to buy Usmanov out he had to pay well over market price because Usmanov had set the new value
Kronke could not say no because he needed to incorporate Arsenal in America so he could use them and their cash flow as collateral for loans for his other sporting franchises

Any questions ????
Click to expand...
I was under the impression that Kroenke could dictate the price due to being the majority shareholder owning over a certain %.
 
catcherintherye said:
It's being briefed this is not a naming rights deal.

I'd suggest this is a payment to secure a period of exclusivity with the club. So if someone wants to bid, unless USM give their blessing they cannot go ahead. In general they would pay USM a fee then pay the club a fee on top. USM could care whatever they want to get out of the agreement.

If the company was growing radically it would make some sense. However we know what this is.

Naming rights will be done on top of this. I suspect it will be a longer term deal, with it all paid up front. I wouldn't be surprised if we negotiated a 20 year deal at 15 million per/a but any figure can be added in. Alternatively they may just do it in 5 year blocks, that can help top up any potentially losses we have.

If they get this past UEFA though then they are in a strong position. 30 million for a period of exclusivity would suggest a very valuable naming deal.
Click to expand...
Maybe the 30 m is just a maker and letting UEFA know just how valuable the naming rights of BMD are to them
UEFA call them in and they say
Listen lads this is that important to USM and crucial to our growing footprint that we were prepared to pay 30m just to book a seat at the table , and no we don’t think 80m a year for 5 yrs is excessive
 

catcherintherye said:
It's being briefed this is not a naming rights deal.

I'd suggest this is a payment to secure a period of exclusivity with the club. So if someone wants to bid, unless USM give their blessing they cannot go ahead. In general they would pay USM a fee then pay the club a fee on top. USM could care whatever they want to get out of the agreement.

If the company was growing radically it would make some sense. However we know what this is.

Naming rights will be done on top of this. I suspect it will be a longer term deal, with it all paid up front. I wouldn't be surprised if we negotiated a 20 year deal at 15 million per/a but any figure can be added in. Alternatively they may just do it in 5 year blocks, that can help top up any potentially losses we have.

If they get this past UEFA though then they are in a strong position. 30 million for a period of exclusivity would suggest a very valuable naming deal.
Click to expand...
Basically it’s paying a premium to skip the queues at Disney land innit
 
ForeverBlue92 said:
How much do City get per year for their naming rights of the Etihad?

I personally think naming rights will be about £20 million a year but would laugh my cock off if Usmanov did a £40 million or so deal.

Heads would fall off.
Click to expand...

Man City was £200m for 10 years but that included the stadium.

Man U is £150 over 8 years for Carrington from AON.
 
catcherintherye said:
We have secured a sponsorship deal, just as they do. They do it more than anyone, so if thats their view, maybe they should just shut down.
Click to expand...

Hope so, it’s pretty obvious it’s financial doping, not that I have problem with that.

I think the regulatory rule is you have to show that it’s the market rate, as far as I know.

Spurs and West Ham are having trouble finding a naming parter at all, we have Mosh’s best mate paying 10s of millions for the option.

Luckily the PL are pretty ineffective when it comes to this, do they really want to open that can of worms.

Haha we’re up to our necks in it here.
 

catcherintherye said:
It's being briefed this is not a naming rights deal.

I'd suggest this is a payment to secure a period of exclusivity with the club. So if someone wants to bid, unless USM give their blessing they cannot go ahead. In general they would pay USM a fee then pay the club a fee on top. USM could care whatever they want to get out of the agreement.
Click to expand...

Yes the 30m is for an exclusive naming rights option but Usmanov has already agreed terms on the annual value of stadium sponsorship when it's built in 2023, presumably with an agreed adjuster mechanism for inflation etc.

Could be anything but reportedly lower than the 25m/yr Spurs hope to attract - this is just one reporter's angle though (a known red) so I wouldn't give too much credance to the second part of his info.

But yes the 30m only for the option is my understanding.
 
Chris O'Connor said:
Yes the 30m is for an exclusive naming rights option but Usmanov has already agreed terms on the annual value of stadium sponsorship when it's built in 2023, presumably with an agreed adjuster mechanism for inflation etc.

Could be anything but reportedly lower than the 25m/yr Spurs hope to attract - this is just one reporter's angle though (a known red) so I wouldn't give too much credance to the second part of his info.

But yes the 30m only for the option is my understanding.
Click to expand...

Spurs are having trouble getting a name, rather than 1 paying 25m a year.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome

Join Grand Old Team to get involved in the Everton discussion. Signing up is quick, easy, and completely free.

Register
Back
Top