Usmanov

[catcherintherye]

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.

Yes I mean there doesn't seem to be an awful lot of information to suggest their £60million p/a sponsorship was that much of a problem. The issue was their owner was paying most of it.

We have a situation where separate companies, with separate boards are choosing to sponsor our club. Thats a completely different set of circumstances and one that is almost impossible to frame as they can with City.

What City did was very reckless. Had they have given all the money from Etihad UEFA would not have been able to pursue this with any expectation of winning. It would be argued it's an independent legal entity. In a court of law, which are not interested in speculation, conspiracy or opinion it would be very difficult to prove otherwise.

Unless Usmanov starts handing over money individually and also buys shares in Everton at the same time, we will not be in the situation City are.

 

[little elfin]

Break the law is different from find a loophole

 

[Neiler]

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.

Agreed mate, Id be made up 15 mill myself, we could hold that until the stadium move and hopefully a more consistent European profile, then reassess. I also think its all very interesting that some of these deals seem to be happening since Carlo came in, hes done wonders for our marketability and profile.

Agree completely this market bar is set very very high, 15 million is actually really poor, but reflects years of us being really remedial in this particular market. Nothing to stress about. Be a very good news FFP story in fact, given the nature of the an increase in income.

 

[catcherintherye]

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.

No I understand that. We have often been. However what City and UEFA are now doing is very serious and legal stuff. If you make a mistake, or try to carry out a grudge, you are going to get majorly sued. As long as sponsorship keeps coking from independent companies, does not start at an unrealistically high level, then there is very little UEFA can do about it.

 

[catcherintherye]

Id be made up 15 mill myself, we could hold that until the stadium move and hopefully a more consistent European profile, then reassess. I also think its all very interesting that some of these deals seem to be happening since Carlo came in, hes done wonders for our marketability and profile.

Agree completely this market bar is set very very high, 15 million is actually really poor, but reflects years of us being really remedial in this particular market. Nothing to stress about. Be a very good news FFP story in fact, given the nature of the an increase in income.

Yes I mean the clubs historic poor performance gives us a lot of leeway. I'd be happy with £15million- it would signify a step in the right direction.

I think with all our contracts I hope we have opt outs available and we stress that if we achieve success we want more money. They are the sort of deals I'd go for. NEC would be a brilliant brand to be on board with, given their scope and size in the eastern market as well.

 

[roydo]

Whilst this is an interesting debate, (value/fair/etc), we are looking at it from one perspective; UEFA's.

USM, or any of the associated companies, whilst having Moshiri as part owner ish, will be able to demonstrate to regulators the expected increase in demand for whatever product or service they want to sell. For many years I was very cynical about the true value to companies backing sports teams, in terms of improved results. Like before I knew about it, I could not fathom why AON, (a pretty obscure insurance type business) would lob so much at United a few years back.

But, I had a client who did exactly that for F1. And the metrics they can demonstrate, especially for a Western company wanting to break the Eastern market, or in our case, vice versa, are quite startling in their accuracy.

So in essence, the two parties, EFC and USM/A N Other, could jointly deliver a good response to any Fair Value stuff, within reason like.

 

[Tim UpperBullen]

c

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.

Clearly if there is sponsoring of toilets to be done in the Bullens Road the only sensible place to start would be the Upper

 

[Neiler]

Yes I mean the clubs historic poor performance gives us a lot of leeway. I'd be happy with £15million- it would signify a step in the right direction.

I think with all our contracts I hope we have opt outs available and we stress that if we achieve success we want more money. They are the sort of deals I'd go for. NEC would be a brilliant brand to be on board with, given their scope and size in the eastern market as well.

Ive noticed a trend in the last while with clubs breaking contracts early to go with a better offer, i think Spurs have done it and Mordor did recently to as you say the clever ploy might to have incentive based deals with a basic fee or early break clauses or low compo break clauses.

Id be made up with NEC, even just for the nostalgia, they were a great consistent sponsor at the time and have evloved in global reach, id heard a bit on feelers between them and us a number of months ago but thought it was all rumor to be honest. I think it was Johnson who did the Danka deal that moved us away from NEC.

 

[matty1878]

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.

Cheers mate

 

[PeregrineT]

We've gone from people crying out that hes not coming, to crying out that hes too involved.

 

[BigDunc1985]

Whilst this is an interesting debate, (value/fair/etc), we are looking at it from one perspective; UEFA's.

USM, or any of the associated companies, whilst having Moshiri as part owner ish, will be able to demonstrate to regulators the expected increase in demand for whatever product or service they want to sell. For many years I was very cynical about the true value to companies backing sports teams, in terms of improved results. Like before I knew about it, I could not fathom why AON, (a pretty obscure insurance type business) would lob so much at United a few years back.

But, I had a client who did exactly that for F1. And the metrics they can demonstrate, especially for a Western company wanting to break the Eastern market, or in our case, vice versa, are quite startling in their accuracy.

So in essence, the two parties, EFC and USM/A N Other, could jointly deliver a good response to any Fair Value stuff, within reason like.

Fair value is relative to what is already out there. Nobody is going to believe an Everton shirt sponsorship is worth the same as a Manc one. Whereas if the Mancs doubled theirs tomorrow, we could more than double ours as a result.

 

[CRIMHEAD]

FMV isn't impossible or even that difficult to determine. It's an important part of virtually every company's books on the planet.

 

[degsy]

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.

Whistle Blower, aka, jealous rs.

Similar to a lot of big cases, they do you more for lying about it than actually doing it...the act of being caught in a lie opens you up to further, deeper investigation

 

[Toffeelover]

Ive noticed a trend in the last while with clubs breaking contracts early to go with a better offer, i think Spurs have done it and Mordor did recently to as you say the clever ploy might to have incentive based deals with a basic fee or early break clauses or low compo break clauses.

Id be made up with NEC, even just for the nostalgia, they were a great consistent sponsor at the time and have evloved in global reach, id heard a bit on feelers between them and us a number of months ago but thought it was all rumor to be honest. I think it was Johnson who did the Danka deal that moved us away from NEC.

Would NEC wish to re-engage with us though?

 

[anton66]

Don't see a problem with a brand trying to establish/advertise in a different country and throwing millions at it. The P/L is global and is a great market for advertising, so what is a fair price? Anyway, this deal is for naming rights, so a new sponsorship deal will also be limited to this fair price. We will be punished for getting much-needed investment.