Usmanov

[gwladysnight]

At the time Arsenal agreed that deal, Chelsea were getting £4m a year for their shirt sponsorship, so that was the yardstick at that point in time. To suggest the stadium sponsorship somehow devalued the value of their shirt is utter nonsense.

In is a rising market trying to compare the end of one shirt sponsorship deal with the start of another is rank stupidity. In a rising market a sponsorship deal is at it's strongest in the first year and it's weakest in it's final year.

That is why I specifically compared deals that started within a year of each other. You didn't.

Stadium rights deals come from the States and evolved because of a lack of shirt sponsorship. Sponsors want exclusivity and want to avoid being associated with a brand that may become toxic. Expecting a Stadium rights deal not to impact on shirt sponsorship is like cutting a shirt in half and expecting the sponsor of each half to pay full whack.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

In is a rising market trying to compare the end of one shirt sponsorship deal with the start of another is rank stupidity. In a rising market a sponsorship deal is at it's strongest in the first year and it's weakest in it's final year.

That is why I specifically compared deals that started within a year of each other. You didn't.

Stadium rights deals come from the States and evolved because of a lack of shirt sponsorship. Sponsors want exclusivity and want to avoid being associated with a brand that may become toxic. Expecting a Stadium rights deal not to impact on shirt sponsorship is like cutting a shirt in half and expecting the sponsor of each half to pay full whack.

You compared different clubs shirt deals completed at different times. Whereas your assertion was that a stadium naming rights deal automatically devalued that clubs shirt sponsorship. You’ve offered absolutely nothing to support that assertion.

I have no idea what nonsense point you’re even attempting to make in relation to Everton and this thread in any case, as it’s highly likely that USM willl provide us with both given recent developments.

But keep dredging for a negative angle though, you weary bore.

 

[mahermi1]

You compared different clubs shirt deals completed at different times. Whereas your assertion was that a stadium naming rights deal automatically devalued that clubs shirt sponsorship. You’ve offered absolutely nothing to support that assertion.

I have no idea what nonsense point you’re even attempting to make in relation to Everton and this thread in any case, as it’s highly likely that USM willl provide us with both given recent developments.

But keep dredging for a negative angle though, you weary bore.

You are flogging a dead horse there mate, he has only one agenda.

 

[gwladysnight]

You compared different clubs shirt deals completed at different times. Whereas your assertion was that a stadium naming rights deal automatically devalued that clubs shirt sponsorship. You’ve offered absolutely nothing to support that assertion.

I have no idea what nonsense point you’re even attempting to make in relation to Everton and this thread in any case, as it’s highly likely that USM willl provide us with both given recent developments.

But keep dredging for a negative angle though, you weary bore.

Your stupidity knows no bounds. Your original assertion was that Stadium naming rights would pay for the repayment of Stadium costs.

Spurs with the probably the best Stadium on the planet can't get close to their aim of £25m per season in naming rights. That is with a Stadium that was built to facilitate NFL games.

Suggesting that naming rights are going to pay for the new Stadium is absurd. If it was true every Club on the planet would be doing it.

 

[gwladysnight]

You are flogging a dead horse there mate, he has only one agenda.

Yes and the agenda is pragmatism.

 

[Tipp blue]

You are flogging a dead horse there mate, he has only one agenda.

 

[Diogenes the Cynic]

FFP alongside VAR are two of the biggest travesty's in modern football. Appalling answers to probably the right questions.

At some point it's hard to see FFP lasting. A body, that is supposed to represent a bunch of football clubs making value judgements about what is or isn't a "market price" is ridiculous. It's any oxymoron, the market dictates the market price, not some unelected bureaucrat working on behalf of a football club. If somebody in the market is prepared to pay something, and they view it as the value to their business, who is Richard Scudamore, or whoever his replacement is to tell them otherwise. It's anti-competitive and like many things in football would not stand up to legal scrutiny.

I fully understand (and would support) a move to legislate football to make it fairer, but FFP doesn't do that. It entrenches inequality, and the behaviour of (often) Kopites to complain as if breaking an unjust law is some sort of morally haphazard behaviour is absolutely pathetic. Unjust rules are made to be broken.

If they want to regulate it properly, have a salary cap, and pitch it at the median average of the clubs (so around £120m per annum). If we want competitiveness, and fairness, do something thats actually fair. And watch the top 4-5 monied clubs scramble over themselves trying to avoid breaking it. Insist that TV revenues will only be paid to teams who comply with the rules, and anyone breaking them is punished properly. This would stop the obscene wages and make it more affordable.

What we are left with, is a bunch of idiots who have absolutely no credentials to do so making value judgements on what they think the market price ought to be. Which is fine at one level, we are all entitled to our opinion, but thats all it is. There's no scientific fact that a sponsorship for one club is worth more than another. The market decides that. If companies such as USM believe we are worth x amount, thats their choice. It's up to their managers to justify their decisions to their shareholders. Quite why the PL want to go sticking their nose in, as some d rate regulatory body, when they can't even get their own house in order I'll never know.

At the risk of repeating myself, if they want regulation, fairness, sustainability, competitiveness, then lets have a salary where everyone can spend the same money. If we want to allow the market to dictate, let the market dictate. However allowing market forces for some, but regulations for others is grossly unfair.

I may be drunk but that is one of the finest posts ever seen on this or probably any other forum.

(Except for Horse @Bungle)

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Your stupidity knows no bounds. Your original assertion was that Stadium naming rights would pay for the repayment of Stadium costs.

Spurs with the probably the best Stadium on the planet can't get close to their aim of £25m per season in naming rights. That is with a Stadium that was built to facilitate NFL games.

Suggesting that naming rights are going to pay for the new Stadium is absurd. If it was true every Club on the planet would be doing it.

Our de facto owner has just paid £30m to secure the rights to the stadium naming deal, when there wasn’t a queue, yet you want to compare us with Spurs? Hahahaha, try opening your eyes and having a gander down the East Lancs at City and how their owners have driven that club via inflated sponsorship deals like the £400m stadium naming rights deal, that was to avoid the restrictions of FFP whilst the club continued on its upward trajectory, when it’ll become self sustaining. The value of the asset is already about equal to their total investment and they’ve created a club that’s now firmly part of the elite.

As for my supposed stupidity, you’re patently utterly clueless when it comes to business and corporate finance, as you’ve proved it with aplomb. But carry on.

 

[gwladysnight]

Our de facto owner has just paid £30m to secure the rights to the stadium naming deal, when there wasn’t a queue, yet you want to compare us with Spurs? Hahahaha, try opening your eyes and having a gander down the East Lancs at City and how their owners have driven that club via inflated sponsorship deals like the £400m stadium naming rights deal, that was to avoid the restrictions of FFP whilst the club continued on its upward trajectory, when it’ll become self sustaining. The value of the asset is already about equal to their total investment and they’ve created a club that’s now firmly part of the elite.

As for my supposed stupidity, you’re patently utterly clueless when it comes to business and corporate finance, as you’ve proved it with aplomb. But carry on.

Would that be the Man City who have already paid one FFP penalty and have been charged with a second one.

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Would that be the Man City who have already paid one FFP penalty and have been charged with a second one.

Yeah them, who paid a paltry £17m and got their knuckles rapped.

 

[mahermi1]

Yes and the agenda is pragmatism.

Not interested pal.Do go on and I'm sure you will.

 

[gwladysnight]

Yeah them, who paid a paltry £17m and got their knuckles rapped.

Stop lying.

City got a £49m fine.

It was only reduced because City agreed to punitive sanctions. That involved limiting losses to £20m in 2014 and £10m in 2015. It also meant no increase in the wage bill plus the Champions League being reduced from 25 players to 21 players.

 

[maccavennie]

Stop lying.

City got a £49m fine.

It was only reduced because City agreed to punitive sanctions. That involved limiting losses to £20m in 2014 and £10m in 2015. It also meant no increase in the wage bill plus the Champions League being reduced from 25 players to 21 players.

I'm assuming you've got all these details written down in your little Kopite book yeah? Only a sleezy little Kopite ferret would have all these details on hand.

Like seriously, who is arsed what fines City had or paid or sanctions they were given. I'll tell you who was arsed, City fans and sleezy little Kopite ferrets who make every other Clubs business their business, a little bit like your doing eh.

 

[jimmythenut]

Not sure what's wrong with trying to get around FFP rules in order to compete with other super rich clubs who are doing the same.

We could just play nice maybe?

 

[Foot Long Hot Dog]

Stop lying.

City got a £49m fine.

It was only reduced because City agreed to punitive sanctions. That involved limiting losses to £20m in 2014 and £10m in 2015. It also meant no increase in the wage bill plus the Champions League being reduced from 25 players to 21 players.

Now now old chap, accusing me of lying is out of order. As I didn’t lie, I gave you a fact. Their fine of £49m was reduced to the £17m that I quoted, with the rest suspended.

You stated they’d been charged again btw, when they haven’t, they’re merely under investigation.