• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Football and money

glasgowspur said:
the easy shut down to this should be that your pay is what the punter is willing to pay to watch. when they can fill 60,000 grounds at £1000 per season they they will be paid tyhey same as those who do.
it is a bit like busker with a mouthie standing on the high street asking for the same money as bob dylan selling out wembley.
Click to expand...

Well thats it, no one watches it live and no one watches it on tele so the game does not make the money, thats not mans fault, its not womans fault, its just not a product people want to pay to watch. Thems the punches
 
Grays_1890 said:
Women moaning about the lack of equal prize money in football, what a joke they are.

Its taken over 100 years for the mens game to be where it is and its a huge commercial success and money driver, therefore the clubs get money out from what they put in, when the womans game does that they can start to earn the same money.
Click to expand...

While I do agree, the prizes (and wages etc) in the mens game reflect the money it attracts, which is exactly the same for the womens game (which is actually a pretty good definition of fair!) I also think it shouldnt be unreasonable to ask the FA to use their money to help build the womens game.

If prize money etc were increased it could incentivise more women teams, players and ultimately quality.

That is not to say for a second I think that means parity with the mens game.
 
Grays_1890 said:
Women moaning about the lack of equal prize money in football, what a joke they are.

Its taken over 100 years for the mens game to be where it is and its a huge commercial success and money driver, therefore the clubs get money out from what they put in, when the womans game does that they can start to earn the same money.
Click to expand...
If you compare earnings to worth across all the women in all of football, then they're nearly all massively underpaid.

But if Karen Brady gets even minimum wage then her wage to talent disparity will balance it all out.
 
Last edited:
The deal covers five football clubs including ones in the US and China. City will get by far the biggest share, but the actual value is hard to guess.

Puma is German with some French investment. Is there any reason to believe that any Emirati ruling families have an influence? That was the reason some of the other deals were bogus.
 
jts1882 said:
Is there any reason to believe that any Emirati ruling families have an influence?
Click to expand...
Yes. It is City.
They pay them who pay them who ensure they don't do that to them but they will buy that so that they get that so those guys get the thing they wanted so everyone wins. Allegedly.
 
jts1882 said:
The deal covers five football clubs including ones in the US and China. City will get by far the biggest share, but the actual value is hard to guess.

Puma is German with some French investment. Is there any reason to believe that any Emirati ruling families have an influence? That was the reason some of the other deals were bogus.
Click to expand...
They've probably agreed to make mahoosive orders from sport shops in Abu Dhabi.
 
Have Puma got any major clubs on their books?

Could be around that. As memory serves Nike and Adidas have all the big boys tied up, City are up for grabs, maybe Puma have just gone silly in an attempt to secure their own marquee team?
 
LemonadeMoney said:
They've probably agreed to make mahoosive orders from sport shops in Abu Dhabi.
Click to expand...

That's not impossible, but the per capita purchases would be remarkable.

The reason I asked about Puma is that the others fit rather simple pattern, one that wouldn't fool Baldrick. There is a simple reason why they have lucrative sponsorship deals with Etihad Airways, Etisalat, Visit Abu Dhabi, and Aabar. It's much harder to dismiss Puma as legitimate.

Deals with, among other companies, Etihad Airways, Etisalat and Visit Abu Dhabi, have been negotiated and signed. Money has poured into the club like water into the Niagara Basin. If nothing else, I would love to have seen the PowerPoint presentation that persuaded Aabar to invest so lavishly. This is an investment company based in Abu Dhabi with holdings in aviation, energy, manufacturing and technology, so you can totally see that they would be keen to throw millions into a football club in northwest England.

City like to tell us that they are now a global franchise, with a worldwide audience and unlimited aspirations. This, after all, is the explanation for how the club have managed to finance some of the most extravagant expenditure in the history of sport. It is all coming from their own self-generated revenues, partnerships with companies looking for a “synergistic association”.

And yet, if so, why do so many of these partners conform to such a curious pattern? For a club with such global reach, why do such a high percentage of sponsors seem to hail from a tiny sliver of land situated between Oman and Qatar? It is like in Harold Pinter’s play The Caretaker, where the tramp keeps repeating the phrase, “I gotta go to Sidcup.” City’s sponsorship department gotta go to Abu Dhabi.
Click to expand...
Source: Emirates Marketing Project deserve European ban if guilty
 
jts1882 said:
That's not impossible, but the per capita purchases would be remarkable.

The reason I asked about Puma is that the others fit rather simple pattern, one that wouldn't fool Baldrick. There is a simple reason why they have lucrative sponsorship deals with Etihad Airways, Etisalat, Visit Abu Dhabi, and Aabar. It's much harder to dismiss Puma as legitimate.


Source: Emirates Marketing Project deserve European ban if guilty
Click to expand...

Need to register, but here's the article, someone posted it on FB:

Matthew Syed in the Times

I would love to meet the staff in Emirates Marketing Project’s sponsorship department. They must be geniuses down there. They have taken a relatively small club in global terms, with a smallish fanbase, and turned them into a commercial powerhouse with no precedent in organised sport.
Companies that have had no association whatever with football, and for whom the commercial upsides are quite obscure (at least to me) have been falling over themselves to sign deals with the club. “To talk well and eloquently is a very great art,” Mozart once said. Well, the guys at the sponsorship office must be positively Shakespearean.
Deals with, among other companies, Etihad Airways, Etisalat and Visit Abu Dhabi, have been negotiated and signed. Money has poured into the club like water into the Niagara Basin. If nothing else, I would love to have seen the PowerPoint presentation that persuaded Aabar to invest so lavishly. This is an investment company based in Abu Dhabi with holdings in aviation, energy, manufacturing and technology, so you can totally see that they would be keen to throw millions into a football club in northwest England.
City like to tell us that they are now a global franchise, with a worldwide audience and unlimited aspirations. This, after all, is the explanation for how the club have managed to finance some of the most extravagant expenditure in the history of sport. It is all coming from their own self-generated revenues, partnerships with companies looking for a “synergistic association”.
And yet, if so, why do so many of these partners conform to such a curious pattern? For a club with such global reach, why do such a high percentage of sponsors seem to hail from a tiny sliver of land situated between Oman and Qatar? It is like in Harold Pinter’s play The Caretaker, where the tramp keeps repeating the phrase, “I gotta go to Sidcup.” City’s sponsorship department gotta go to Abu Dhabi.

Perhaps the tone of this column is a tad sarcastic, but then I have always found the City project rather fantastical. The football is beautiful but the balance sheet has long seemed more like something from a Gilbert & Sullivan farce.
For years, we have been expected to believe that a club owned by a chap with untold wealth, and which has spent without inhibition, has been operating on a purely commercial basis. Nothing to see here, guv. Now, of course, the club are in the midst of an investigation by Uefa. The original allegations from last November by Der Spiegel were strongly denied by the club. Last week, more leaked documents emerged, including one pertaining to Aabar, that financial investment company. An email from director Simon Pearce allegedly said: “As we discussed, the annual direct obligation for Aabar is £3 million. The remaining £12 million required will come from His Highness.”

The allegation, then, is that the sums transferred by Aabar were gerrymandered by Sheikh Mansour, the owner, who was providing vast subsidies in defiance of Uefa rules. The implication is that City’s sponsorship department, far from being candidates for a gushing case study in the Harvard Business Review, are really a back-office function channelling illicit funds through plausible front companies.
In a different email, Graham Wallace, then City’s chief operating officer and who was writing in September 2012, allegedly wrote: “What we therefore need is that monies we are attributing to [City’s sponsors] Etisalat, ADTA, Aabar and Etihad . . . are physically remitted to us by those businesses . . . to avoid any related party influence/control considerations.”

This is not the only inquiry City are facing, of course. They may also be the subject of an FA inquiry after it was alleged that they misled the governing body over the third-party ownership of a player, Bruno Zuculini. Just last week, we also discovered that the FA will be investigating allegations that Emirates Marketing Project paid Jadon Sancho’s agent £200,000 in connection with the England forward’s move from Watford when he was 14.

Now, I should state two things clearly. The first is that I have nothing against City per se. They play beautiful football and have some wonderful fans. The second is that City strenuously deny all the accusations, sticking to the mantra they have trotted out since last year. “We will not be providing any comment on out-of-context materials purported to have been hacked or stolen from City Football Group and Emirates Marketing Project personnel and associated people. The attempt to damage the Club’s reputation is organised and clear.” They are nothing if not consistent.
But one’s admiration for the way City play football should not shade into the acceptance of shady behaviour off the pitch, if such behaviour can be proved via due process. And neither should one’s disagreement with the strictures of Financial Fair Play, which favours established clubs at the expense of arrivistes such as City, shade into condoning the serial violation of those same strictures. If you want to change the rules, you should lobby to do so, not break them instead.
And that is why if City are found guilty they should not be given the customary slap on the wrist, but thrown out of the Champions League. That would deprive the competition of a wonderful team, but it would also send an important message that the powerful and wealthy are sometimes inclined to forget. Rules only make sense if they are enforced.
 
nelto said:
Need to register, but here's the article, someone posted it on FB:

Matthew Syed in the Times

I would love to meet the staff in Emirates Marketing Project’s sponsorship department. They must be geniuses down there. They have taken a relatively small club in global terms, with a smallish fanbase, and turned them into a commercial powerhouse with no precedent in organised sport.
Companies that have had no association whatever with football, and for whom the commercial upsides are quite obscure (at least to me) have been falling over themselves to sign deals with the club. “To talk well and eloquently is a very great art,” Mozart once said. Well, the guys at the sponsorship office must be positively Shakespearean.
Deals with, among other companies, Etihad Airways, Etisalat and Visit Abu Dhabi, have been negotiated and signed. Money has poured into the club like water into the Niagara Basin. If nothing else, I would love to have seen the PowerPoint presentation that persuaded Aabar to invest so lavishly. This is an investment company based in Abu Dhabi with holdings in aviation, energy, manufacturing and technology, so you can totally see that they would be keen to throw millions into a football club in northwest England.
City like to tell us that they are now a global franchise, with a worldwide audience and unlimited aspirations. This, after all, is the explanation for how the club have managed to finance some of the most extravagant expenditure in the history of sport. It is all coming from their own self-generated revenues, partnerships with companies looking for a “synergistic association”.
And yet, if so, why do so many of these partners conform to such a curious pattern? For a club with such global reach, why do such a high percentage of sponsors seem to hail from a tiny sliver of land situated between Oman and Qatar? It is like in Harold Pinter’s play The Caretaker, where the tramp keeps repeating the phrase, “I gotta go to Sidcup.” City’s sponsorship department gotta go to Abu Dhabi.

Perhaps the tone of this column is a tad sarcastic, but then I have always found the City project rather fantastical. The football is beautiful but the balance sheet has long seemed more like something from a Gilbert & Sullivan farce.
For years, we have been expected to believe that a club owned by a chap with untold wealth, and which has spent without inhibition, has been operating on a purely commercial basis. Nothing to see here, guv. Now, of course, the club are in the midst of an investigation by Uefa. The original allegations from last November by Der Spiegel were strongly denied by the club. Last week, more leaked documents emerged, including one pertaining to Aabar, that financial investment company. An email from director Simon Pearce allegedly said: “As we discussed, the annual direct obligation for Aabar is £3 million. The remaining £12 million required will come from His Highness.”

The allegation, then, is that the sums transferred by Aabar were gerrymandered by Sheikh Mansour, the owner, who was providing vast subsidies in defiance of Uefa rules. The implication is that City’s sponsorship department, far from being candidates for a gushing case study in the Harvard Business Review, are really a back-office function channelling illicit funds through plausible front companies.
In a different email, Graham Wallace, then City’s chief operating officer and who was writing in September 2012, allegedly wrote: “What we therefore need is that monies we are attributing to [City’s sponsors] Etisalat, ADTA, Aabar and Etihad . . . are physically remitted to us by those businesses . . . to avoid any related party influence/control considerations.”

This is not the only inquiry City are facing, of course. They may also be the subject of an FA inquiry after it was alleged that they misled the governing body over the third-party ownership of a player, Bruno Zuculini. Just last week, we also discovered that the FA will be investigating allegations that Emirates Marketing Project paid Jadon Sancho’s agent £200,000 in connection with the England forward’s move from Watford when he was 14.

Now, I should state two things clearly. The first is that I have nothing against City per se. They play beautiful football and have some wonderful fans. The second is that City strenuously deny all the accusations, sticking to the mantra they have trotted out since last year. “We will not be providing any comment on out-of-context materials purported to have been hacked or stolen from City Football Group and Emirates Marketing Project personnel and associated people. The attempt to damage the Club’s reputation is organised and clear.” They are nothing if not consistent.
But one’s admiration for the way City play football should not shade into the acceptance of shady behaviour off the pitch, if such behaviour can be proved via due process. And neither should one’s disagreement with the strictures of Financial Fair Play, which favours established clubs at the expense of arrivistes such as City, shade into condoning the serial violation of those same strictures. If you want to change the rules, you should lobby to do so, not break them instead.
And that is why if City are found guilty they should not be given the customary slap on the wrist, but thrown out of the Champions League. That would deprive the competition of a wonderful team, but it would also send an important message that the powerful and wealthy are sometimes inclined to forget. Rules only make sense if they are enforced.
Click to expand...

You do realise that is the article my post quoted?
 
Squad-values.png


http://www.football-observatory.com/IMG/sites/b5wp/2018/253/en/
 
nelto said:
Yes mate, but I thought that you had to be registered on The Times site to read the full article. Somebody put it up on FB, so I just did a copy and paste...

Apologies.
Click to expand...

No, the apologises should be mine. I misread your post and why you posted it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back