Usmanov

[blueblue]

What is fair market value ?

If a club can get extra resources transferred into the club from whatever source then that surely should not be the problem. It is how that money is spent that needs to be looked at.

If FFP prevents a club from getting investors who are prepared inject verifiable money for the purposes of developing the club as a whole then surely it must be breaking trade restriction laws.

 

[nsno-chris]

Nightmare????????

The point was if city are having this much trouble getting money into the club with the "most expensive lawyers in the world" how will usmanov do it especially with revenues and wage bill and losses at their current levels

It's a Fair question.

you literally don’t understand do you???

explain why you think they were banned and how this remotely close to any new sponsorship deal

 

[Yarrgh]

I think the premier League are due to look at the usmanov deal in the summer, interesting to see if this man city investigation has any influence on our deal.

Has Usmanov done a personal deal with us? Must be really serious if the premier league have decided to look into it in about 3 or 4 months' time. You know because that seems like the time to investigate it, rather than as soon as the deal had been done if wrong doing was suspected.

I'd say it was like the police arriving 5 weeks after a robbery was reported, but unfortunately that sounds like a rather realistic scenario nowadays.

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

Has Usmanov done a personal deal with us? Must be really serious if the premier league have decided to look into it in about 3 or 4 months' time. You know because that seems like the time to investigate it, rather than as soon as the deal had been done if wrong doing was suspected.

I'd say it was like the police arriving 5 weeks after a robbery was reported, but unfortunately that sounds like a rather realistic scenario nowadays.

"Now dont go destroying any evidence in the meantime you cheeky villains, you!"

 

[Bungle]

Nightmare????????

The point was if city are having this much trouble getting money into the club with the "most expensive lawyers in the world" how will usmanov do it especially with revenues and wage bill and losses at their current levels

It's a Fair question.

I don't make the rules sadly mate, it's reminds me all too much of @mikewex giving Damo a good pasting at this point.

I've tried to look away, I've covered the kids eyes cos I don't want them to see the brutality of it. All the best, we pray for a full recovery.

 

[nsno-chris]

Pray for @havrey0123

or in @bigbadjeff case: prey on @havrey0123

 

[Goat]

Has Usmanov done a personal deal with us? Must be really serious if the premier league have decided to look into it in about 3 or 4 months' time. You know because that seems like the time to investigate it, rather than as soon as the deal had been done if wrong doing was suspected.

I'd say it was like the police arriving 5 weeks after a robbery was reported, but unfortunately that sounds like a rather realistic scenario nowadays.

The story he linked suggests that the Premier League do a review every year of every club.

But the fact that City have been charged for breaches in 2012-16 suggests that the process is really slow.

 

[mickefc]

I think the premier League are due to look at the usmanov deal in the summer, interesting to see if this man city investigation has any influence on our deal.

Half term again

 

[catcherintherye]

It has to be in line with the size of the club, you can't just increase the sponsorship to what ever you want.

City have one of the biggest revenues and even they can't get in as much money as they need legally. Despite winning trophies

Well yes which what I am arguing. Everton are (at worst) the 4th biggest team, so would be entitled to around the 4th biggest sponsorship, to be at the point where you would expect us to be in the market.

City don't seem to be being published for the size of the deals either. They seem to be being punished for being extremely clumsy early on and then potentially lying in their accounts. There doesn't seem to be a lot of challenge about the size of sponsorships.

 

[catcherintherye]

The story he linked suggests that the Premier League do a review every year of every club.

But the fact that City have been charged for breaches in 2012-16 suggests that the process is really slow.

It's also reported the investigation was only re-opened in 2019 when someone whistle blew in 2018. It is not unreasonable to suggest, in spite of what UEFA now believe to be multiple breaches, had it not been for the whistle blower they would never have been charged.

If City take this to the CAS and it tarts getting really nasty, even if UEFA win they will be reluctant to try it again with another side. This will be costing them a lot of money and also a lot in terms of reputation. While I think City will come out of it badly, we will certainly see what skeletons UEFA have once it gets into open impartial court

 

[Disgruntledgoat]

Well yes which what I am arguing. Everton are (at worst) the 4th biggest team, so would be entitled to around the 4th biggest sponsorship, to be at the point where you would expect us to be in the market.

City don't seem to be being published for the size of the deals either. They seem to be being punished for being extremely clumsy early on and then potentially lying in their accounts. There doesn't seem to be a lot of challenge about the size of sponsorships.

This is exactly the issue.

They said to the league that their Etihad sponsorship was worth 59m.

Turns out it was worth 8. With the 51 coming from their owner.

So they underreported ffp by 50mil every single year. Then lied about it.

Then said "one down, five to go" when a member of the ffp panel died.

 

[catcherintherye]

Very well put, and certainly would have shamed my pathetic three line effort of an explanation.
City are that laid back about the matter that it's either breathtaking arrogance, or everything you say above.

Thanks mate, I'm sure your explanation would be a good one too!

City seem very confident about this. There is a lot of misinformation flying about and different versions of whats gone on, and obviously what UEFA say compared to what City say will massively change what the outcome might be. I don't think this is a foregone conclusion either way.

 

[Neiler]

Well yes which what I am arguing. Everton are (at worst) the 4th biggest team, so would be entitled to around the 4th biggest sponsorship, to be at the point where you would expect us to be in the market.

City don't seem to be being published for the size of the deals either. They seem to be being punished for being extremely clumsy early on and then potentially lying in their accounts. There doesn't seem to be a lot of challenge about the size of sponsorships.

Dont think we will get anything near that, realistically mate i think 15 mill a year. Sasha has done well of late and largely gone under the radar but our commercial performance has really improved.

I just cant see a company knowing we ere getting 9 million a season doing anything bar doubling that at best, think 15 mill is realistic myself, perhaps with add ons based on performances.

 

[catcherintherye]

It's a nice idea but I'm pretty sure UEFA's advisors at Deloitte who helped them draft FFP would've thought of this. I mean if a guy on the internet can (and apologies if you are actually a financial/ legal wizard!), then I'm sure the nerds they hire could.

Also, I'm sure I read in the Guardian that City did have to reduce the level of sponsorship they took from some of the other 'related party' UAE companies because they weren't fair market value.

Edit- this relates to your first para

Well it's a fair point and don't worry I am not a financial or legal wizard!

Deloitte will work on behalf of UEFA and will work to a brief. They can't iron out or magically transform contradictions within the law though. To be honest catching people out to a "market value test" is an extremely problematic venture. It doesn't matter who you are, or how qualified. I'm sure Deloitte would hold such a view privately but if you're being paid well you do your best to provide what cover you can for your client.

However how do you set the value of a footballer. Most people on here would want 150+ for Richarlinson. You read half the comments from other fans we would be lucky to get 50m. Good luck trying to assign a market value.

In instances where no market exists this becomes even more difficult. I doubt any lawyer in the world could credibly make a case for something being unrealistic in a market if the market doesn't exist. They would likely try to link it to other things, and suggest there is an overlap so a comparison can be done, but as I say, it's hardly a credible line for litigation or defence.

 

[catcherintherye]

Dont think we will get anything near that, realistically mate i think 15 mill a year. Sasha has done well of late and largely gone under the radar but our commercial performance has really improved.

I just cant see a company knowing we ere getting 9 million a season doing anything bar doubling that at best, think 15 mill is realistic myself, perhaps with add ons based on performances.

No I agree with you, I am just arguing the hypotheticals. I agree we will probably see an uplift to around £15m but I suggest there may be clauses within it that mean if milestones are hit we get more. I also think contracts will be a bit shorter and have opt outs within them (as we may have seen with Sports Pesa).

For everyone getting concerned with FFP, they will have no interest in Everton having a sponsorship deal at £15m p/a. Any accurate analysis would conclude it was objectively substantially below our market value. There is nothing to worry about.