Usmanov

Status
Not open for further replies.
I might be wrong about this, but I'm pretty sure the "fair market value" thing only applies to "associated entities". So if USM want to sponsor us, they can, but only within those guidelines.

If it was NEC or whoever, they can pay whatever they want.

You know that really annoys me "Fair market value", just another way of keeping the richest clubs even richer and the non elite clubs in their place.
 
Why
It does not have to be USM
IT could be NEC for 40 m

Megafon:How much will this job cost
NEC :2 Billion US dollars.
Megafon : Here is 2.5 billion dollars, now we have a small favour to ask you
I hope you’re right mate, would be great for us financially.
 
He can't sponsor us for whatever he wants it has to be a sensible amount, he'll never be allowed to sponsor the piss pots in lower bullens for 10 million a year. If the sky 6 start complaining about his sponsorship being over market value then we'll get investigated and likely punished.

How are you going to make a legal case for what is a fair market value, if he sponsors things where a market does not exist?

I'd also add, legally the club can make a very straightforward and easy argument that we are 4th most successful in terms of leagues won, joint 1st for the number of years we have held the top division title, most seasons, 2nd most points, the only club to be founder members of the FL and PL (while maintaining an ever present place) and have had the 2nd longest unbroken run in the top flight. Objectively, and from a legal standpoint it is a very clear argument that commercially we ought to be somewhere between 1st to 4th in terms of sponsorship values.

The club have radically underperformed to the market test over the last 20 years. This would be any legal conclusion drawn from Everton finally negotiating deals befitting of our status (Ie in or around the top 4 deals).
 
Exactly, if say for instance, NEC who have no ties to the club want to offer £40m to be shirt sponsers, then who gives them the right to say to them, nah put your money away, you'll only have to pay £20m. Despite both of us agreeing on the terms.
In theory nothing at all, but if it is obviously an attempt to get around the rules a club will be caught which if you accept the premise of FFP is fair enough. I'm a bit torn about the whole thing, it wasn't long ago that I thought it would maybe create a level playing field over time, but it's clear that is not going to happen because of the way the whole thing is structured, which appears to make it even more difficult for clubs to break through.

In essence, I think football has always been at the mercy of money men, when we had Moores as an owner we enjoyed the benefit but if he was taking over today would we be able to fully exploit our good fortune? I reckon that whenever the authorities step in to make a situation fairer the law of unintended consequences tends to kick in, VAR anyone?
 

Exactly, if say for instance, NEC who have no ties to the club want to offer £40m to be shirt sponsers, then who gives them the right to say to them, nah put your money away, you'll only have to pay £20m. Despite both of us agreeing on the terms.

They have absolutely no legal right to do that. The day UEFA did that is the day FFP gets brought down. No European court would ever support the idea that a bureaucrat could start dictating what the market value of a company is worth to an independent company and it's shareholders. Not only would FFP be brought down, but as Ive indicated previously, there will be severe litigation that they would face, if any of their judgements were deemed to have impacted the brand of either (in this instance NEC or Everton).

City stand a decent chance of winning their case and they have a much murkier set of circumstances than the ones set above.

If NEC wanted to sponsor Everton for £200million per year they could do so and there wouldn't be a taunt UEFA could do about it.
 
They have absolutely no legal right to do that. The day UEFA did that is the day FFP gets brought down. No European court would ever support the idea that a bureaucrat could start dictating what the market value of a company is worth to an independent company and it's shareholders. Not only would FFP be brought down, but as Ive indicated previously, there will be severe litigation that they would face, if any of their judgements were deemed to have impacted the brand of either (in this instance NEC or Everton).

City stand a decent chance of winning their case and they have a much murkier set of circumstances than the ones set above.

If NEC wanted to sponsor Everton for £200million per year they could do so and there wouldn't be a taunt UEFA could do about it.

I haven’t a clue about these things mate, why do you think city would stand a chance of winning it?
 
I haven’t a clue about these things mate, why do you think city would stand a chance of winning it?

Well for one they seem very confident in taking it to both the CAS and wider than that to the European court if that fails (which seems to be reported). They will be getting advised by top legal people, and they wouldn't be pursuing that avenue if they didn't feel there was a chance of winning.

More broadly though, because FFP is a poorly designed set of rules that is in breach of many of the founding principles of European law. In spite of the PR job currently being done in the press for FFP it is a set of rules that bakes in inequality. There also seem to be aspects of the law that infringe upon shareholders rights to spend the money as they choose (which again is frowned upon).

Think of it this way, imagine if tennis introduced a set of rules that formally allowed one player to spend more money on training, or use of facilities, or air travel than another player. Then imagine the 2nd player spent the same as the first on air travel (so bought himself a 1st class ticket). Then the governing body of tennis said he couldn't do that, because he wasn't as successful as player 1, and fined him/restricted his opportunities. They would have a very clear case to be had legally, irrespective of what the rules say. That is the essence of what FFP allows. It allows for some companies to spend more money than others. This fails the anti-competitive test.

The reason why it's murky with City is (from what I can see)
1) Made very elementary mistakes
2) Are being charged it seems for lying on their accounts as opposed to the level of infringement.
3) There is a whistle blower that is strengthening UEFA's hand.

If the case is that City have fabricated accounts, and this can be proved, then a lot of the above I have mentioned isn't strictly relevant. City could argue that the fabrication was as a result of the flawed set of rules, but thats in no way a given that the law would side with them. It could go either way.

They also seemingly have Sheikh Monsours fingerprints all over the transactions, as opposed to a company's. So again, the position that this is an infringement of a company's (or it's shareholders rights) to spend what they wish on what they wish is lost. UEFA are in quite a strong position to say it's not a company, it's an individual, the same individual that owns the club. While it's a grey area, there is far more scope that allows games to limit the amount of investment single individuals can make into a sport to make it fair.


There is a lot of points and counter points in this. It's worth noting City are challenging most of what UEFA are saying, and we may only begin to see the true state of play once we move into an impartial court. However that would be my reading of it above. In a broad sense City have a great chance, as FFP is flawed on a number of levels, but their specific case looks pretty weak.
 

All true, but there are limits on how much can be put in through sponsorship.
it has to reflect the market.

I've put something above on this. Firstly if a market for something doesn't exist good luck trying to prove it isn't "market price" in a court of law.

Secondly, Everton's place in terms of sponsorship ought to be a lot larger, objectively than it is. We can increase our funds substantially in terms on sponsorship and still be comfortably within what a market test would allow.

Finally, City seem to be being charged on the basis of poor accountancy, than the level of what the deals are.
 
I've put something above on this. Firstly if a market for something doesn't exist good luck trying to prove it isn't "market price" in a court of law.

Secondly, Everton's place in terms of sponsorship ought to be a lot larger, objectively than it is. We can increase our funds substantially in terms on sponsorship and still be comfortably within what a market test would allow.

Finally, City seem to be being charged on the basis of poor accountancy, than the level of what the deals are.
I think your comments about the scale of Irkutsk sponsorship are fair enough.
I just have this spider sense that somehow we’ll be clobbered to make a point. We’re always the scapegoat for this sort of stuff.
 
I've put something above on this. Firstly if a market for something doesn't exist good luck trying to prove it isn't "market price" in a court of law.

Secondly, Everton's place in terms of sponsorship ought to be a lot larger, objectively than it is. We can increase our funds substantially in terms on sponsorship and still be comfortably within what a market test would allow.

Finally, City seem to be being charged on the basis of poor accountancy, than the level of what the deals are.

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 for one they seem very confident in taking it to both the CAS and wider than that to the European court if that fails (which seems to be reported). They will be getting advised by top legal people, and they wouldn't be pursuing that avenue if they didn't feel there was a chance of winning.

More broadly though, because FFP is a poorly designed set of rules that is in breach of many of the founding principles of European law. In spite of the PR job currently being done in the press for FFP it is a set of rules that bakes in inequality. There also seem to be aspects of the law that infringe upon shareholders rights to spend the money as they choose (which again is frowned upon).

Think of it this way, imagine if tennis introduced a set of rules that formally allowed one player to spend more money on training, or use of facilities, or air travel than another player. Then imagine the 2nd player spent the same as the first on air travel (so bought himself a 1st class ticket). Then the governing body of tennis said he couldn't do that, because he wasn't as successful as player 1, and fined him/restricted his opportunities. They would have a very clear case to be had legally, irrespective of what the rules say. That is the essence of what FFP allows. It allows for some companies to spend more money than others. This fails the anti-competitive test.

The reason why it's murky with City is (from what I can see)
1) Made very elementary mistakes
2) Are being charged it seems for lying on their accounts as opposed to the level of infringement.
3) There is a whistle blower that is strengthening UEFA's hand.

If the case is that City have fabricated accounts, and this can be proved, then a lot of the above I have mentioned isn't strictly relevant. City could argue that the fabrication was as a result of the flawed set of rules, but thats in no way a given that the law would side with them. It could go either way.

They also seemingly have Sheikh Monsours fingerprints all over the transactions, as opposed to a company's. So again, the position that this is an infringement of a company's (or it's shareholders rights) to spend what they wish on what they wish is lost. UEFA are in quite a strong position to say it's not a company, it's an individual, the same individual that owns the club. While it's a grey area, there is far more scope that allows games to limit the amount of investment single individuals can make into a sport to make it fair.


There is a lot of points and counter points in this. It's worth noting City are challenging most of what UEFA are saying, and we may only begin to see the true state of play once we move into an impartial court. However that would be my reading of it above. In a broad sense City have a great chance, as FFP is flawed on a number of levels, but their specific case looks pretty weak.
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.
 
I've put something above on this. Firstly if a market for something doesn't exist good luck trying to prove it isn't "market price" in a court of law.

Secondly, Everton's place in terms of sponsorship ought to be a lot larger, objectively than it is. We can increase our funds substantially in terms on sponsorship and still be comfortably within what a market test would allow.

Finally, City seem to be being charged on the basis of poor accountancy, than the level of what the deals are.
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
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top