Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Locked thread
PirateBob
Jun 14, 2003

It's a minimum of £750m.

Here's a better look at other clubs deals:



City can't get more than £12m per year before the 2019/20 season :cawg:

PirateBob fucked around with this message at 13:11 on Jul 15, 2014

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

PirateBob
Jun 14, 2003

Eau de MacGowan posted:

Yes PirateBob, poor Manchester City and their want for money.

You realise United have just enabled Etihad to claim fair market value and dump a poo poo ton more 'fair play' 'sponsorship' into City, right?

1. It's not about the money per se, it's about the size of the clubs. City are still tiny. You'd have to be dumb to believe I'm referring to spending power.

2. How will they claim fair market value without having any fans?

PirateBob fucked around with this message at 09:23 on Jul 16, 2014

PirateBob
Jun 14, 2003

oilcheck my rear end posted:

Insert fat joke here.


People aren't saying that maximizing revenue is bad, they're saying that all of these clubs are getting hit with all these FFP rules and that the difference between the adidas deal and gobs and gobs of oil money is negligible.

When did the sponsorship get announced? Was Man Utd publically traded at the time?

Hahahahaha

  • Locked thread