MANCHESTER - Etihad Stadium (47,405)

[playolive]

hello,

How many meters between pitch and first row ?

thks...

[Mast3r_42]

Hello everybody. This stadium is so beautiful! I can see it during Manchester City games in the premier league. This stadium is used for concerts? if I'm not wrong I believe oasis have played there. Greetings from Colombia.

[gavstar00]

City of Manchester Stadium no more!

Manchester City Football Club and Etihad Airways have today announced a 10-year comprehensive partnership agreement significantly expanding their existing commercial relationship.
The deal was signed today by Garry Cook, CEO of Manchester City FC and James Hogan, CEO of Etihad Airways before the Manchester City first team squad departed on a pre-season tour to the United States.

Etihad Airways has also announced the introduction of twice-daily flights between Manchester and Abu Dhabi from August 1, reflecting the growing demand for travel between the two cities.

Key elements of the comprehensive partnership agreement are as follows:

Etihad Stadium and Campus
The City of Manchester Stadium will be renamed the Etihad Stadium effective immediately, forming the centre piece of a newly-named Etihad Campus, which encompasses a large part of the Sportcity site in East Manchester, the popular City Square entertainment space and additional existing and planned facilities.

On current trends and with the added benefit of UEFA Champions League football in 2011-12, global visibility of the Etihad Stadium will be dramatically enhanced and up to two million visitors to the Etihad Campus are expected during the year.
Shirt Sponsorship
Etihad Airways has extended its shirt sponsorship deal reflecting an increased media value due to the Club's improved on-pitch performance in the 2010-11 season, qualification for the UEFA Champions League, growing international retail network and a commitment to further enhance the already impactful visibility of the Etihad logo on all home and away shirts moving forward.

Media Cooperation
MCFC and Etihad Airways will expand cooperation on media outreach and content creation initiatives including the provision of increased MCFC content, match coverage and DVD material on Etihad's in-flight entertainment system and website. Both parties will also collaborate on joint media initiatives in shared target markets such as India, China, the United States, the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates.

Business Cooperation
MCFC and Etihad Airways will draw upon their existing customer databases and loyalty schemes to create new opportunities for targeted marketing initiatives tailored to the commercial priorities of both parties.

The two organisations will also explore business cooperation at an operational level drawing upon the hospitality, customer service, ticketing and training capabilities of both parties to exchange relevant expertise and potentially deliver shared recruitment, training and call centre services from the Etihad Campus in the future.

Community Cooperation
Through its flagship City in the Community program, MCFC will partner with Etihad on joint community initiatives in the East Manchester area, in the UK and internationally. International CITC initiatives such as the delivery of youth football programs in disadvantaged areas will leverage the two parties' shared international interests.

International Cooperation
MCFC and Etihad will work together to build their respective profiles in key markets around the world benefiting from the natural alignment that already exists in shared target markets such as India, China and the United States, in addition to the other target markets of each organisation.

MCFC and Etihad will also cooperate within their home markets of the United Kingdom and the United Arab Emirates respectively with the new MCFC-branded Etihad Airways A330-200 plane to be used as a flagship on the Manchester-Abu Dhabi route.

Garry Cook, CEO of Manchester City Football Club, said: "We are delighted to be expanding our relationship with Etihad Airways through this comprehensive partnership agreement. Most importantly, in addition to delivering significant revenue at a key stage in the Club's evolution, the agreement creates exciting opportunities for our two organisations to cooperate more deeply commercially and on media and community initiatives in the future."

James Hogan, CEO of Etihad Airways, said: “This is a game-changing partnership agreement that redefines the traditional sports sponsorship paradigm. It is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for two iconic brands that share the same vision to promote far-reaching global awareness and business growth.

“Etihad's work with Manchester City Football Club has already yielded a significant return on our investment and we are thrilled to build on our relationship. Their well-established name and loyal fan base have allowed us to tap into a new and increasing global audience. In addition to being a sensible alignment for our brand from a business perspective, it is also one that we can get very excited about, especially at a time when MCFC's winning attitude is bringing increased success for the team on the national and international stage."

The deal builds on Etihad’s already strong commitment to Manchester. The extra flights will be followed by the opening of a call centre in the city employing up to 160 people in 2012. The airline also opened a new First and Business Class lounge at Manchester Airport in November 2010 for its premium passengers.

Sir Richard Leese, Leader of Manchester City Council, said: "The relationship between Etihad Airways and Manchester City Football Club further supports Manchester’s international profile and global connectivity and the city’s ability to attract leading brands to invest and create job opportunities. It is great news for Manchester, reinforcing our sporting, transport and economic growth priorities and is particularly welcome news for east Manchester.”

Charles Johnston, Property Director at Sport England, said: "This announcement is positive for grassroots sport and people in Manchester. The re-negotiated stadium agreement will generate further investment in community sport and sports facilities in the local area.”

To coincide with the signing of the comprehensive partnership agreement, Manchester City Football Club has also announced plans to conduct a public consultation process in the near future on the proposed development of a new youth training and football development facility in East Manchester.

http://www.mcfc.co.uk/News/Club-news...p-announcement

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by gavstar00

City of Manchester Stadium no more!

In other words, they need to find ways to skirt UEFA's Financial Fair Play Rules in order to keep buying players who otherwise wouldn't come to City unless they were paid well beyond market value.

If Chelsea or City are allowed to win a CL trophy under this financial doping I'll give up hope in the professional game. This excess is making the MLS single-entity model look exceptional.

[gavstar00]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

In other words, they need to find ways to skirt UEFA's Financial Fair Play Rules in order to keep buying players who otherwise wouldn't come to City unless they were paid well beyond market value.

If Chelsea or City are allowed to win a CL trophy under this financial doping I'll give up hope in the professional game. This excess is making the MLS single-entity model look exceptional.

It's shamless isn't it! Not subtlety about it whatsoever. To City's credit, it's the obvious play given that Uefa's FFP system was so half assed in the first place it was bound to be open to abuse. What I find hilarious is how easy it is to get away with it. Next up, the Millhouse LLC Arena@The Bridge.

Football's fucked, I've seen the difference in the 15-20 odd years I've been going over to London for games. As Dylan once said "Money doesn't talk, it swears"

[jay stew]

Can someone explain?

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by jay stew

Can someone explain?

Traditionally, a football club operates on the revenue it generates via media contracts, sponsorships, gate receipts, etc. There have been incidents in the past where owners have supplemented team revenues to boost their squad, but in the modern professional era such use of outside funding to enhance team pay has been pretty marginal.

Since Roman Abromovich purchased Chelsea FC he's "invested" more than $1 BILLION US dollars into the club for salaries and player purchases. In other words, he's using personal funds to pay not only above what Chelsea could afford on its own, but in many instances above and beyond what any other club on the planet could afford. Even at the increased value for the club now he's technically lost at least half that amount because it cannot be recouped.

While this has virtually lifted Chelsea to a global brand over a few years but has also created a hyper inflated market for top players. Now City is doing the same thing, and those clubs are able to lure players from other teams, especially competitors, because they can pay wages scales beyond the normal market. Some abide by this because they know the current football market does (regrettably) favor the existing power clubs. They see this as a welcome challenge to the oligopoly enjoyed by the likes of Man U. But the clubs hurt in the process are the likes of Villa, Spurs and Everton who might be legitimatly doing better in the league and possibly qualifying for Europe, if not for these clubs' financial ability to lure more and better talent. All thanks to outside funding.

The sad thing is both clubs were solid enough that they don't need to be doing this.

Yes, the current system of league revenue payouts and UEFA distribution needs amending to address the funding imbalance, but failing to curtail the influence of outside revenues only exacerbates the problem.

[KingmanIII]

So now we have two Etihads?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docklands_Stadium

[www.sercan.de]

how much per year?

[bigbossman]

£10-15 million

[bigbossman]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

In other words, they need to find ways to skirt UEFA's Financial Fair Play Rules in order to keep buying players who otherwise wouldn't come to City unless they were paid well beyond market value.

Tbh the figures they are talking are hardly huge and if they were they would fall foul of UEFA's fair value test.

From the guardian

"The naming rights could provide an early test, however, for Uefa's FFP panel, which requires any sponsorship deal with a party related to the club's owners to pass a "fair value" test."

I don't see anything financially abnormal with this deal, it's not the club who creates the value its the competitions they play in (or have the potential to) and how good the team is. In this case City play in the world's most visible domestic league and Europe's premier club competition, as well as having one of the largest home media markets in Europe.

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

Traditionally, a football club operates on the revenue it generates via media contracts, sponsorships, gate receipts, etc. There have been incidents in the past where owners have supplemented team revenues to boost their squad, but in the modern professional era such use of outside funding to enhance team pay has been pretty marginal.

Since Roman Abromovich purchased Chelsea FC he's "invested" more than $1 BILLION US dollars into the club for salaries and player purchases. In other words, he's using personal funds to pay not only above what Chelsea could afford on its own, but in many instances above and beyond what any other club on the planet could afford. Even at the increased value for the club now he's technically lost at least half that amount because it cannot be recouped.

While this has virtually lifted Chelsea to a global brand over a few years but has also created a hyper inflated market for top players. Now City is doing the same thing, and those clubs are able to lure players from other teams, especially competitors, because they can pay wages scales beyond the normal market. Some abide by this because they know the current football market does (regrettably) favor the existing power clubs. They see this as a welcome challenge to the oligopoly enjoyed by the likes of Man U. But the clubs hurt in the process are the likes of Villa, Spurs and Everton who might be legitimatly doing better in the league and possibly qualifying for Europe, if not for these clubs' financial ability to lure more and better talent. All thanks to outside funding.

The sad thing is both clubs were solid enough that they don't need to be doing this.

Yes, the current system of league revenue payouts and UEFA distribution needs amending to address the funding imbalance, but failing to curtail the influence of outside revenues only exacerbates the problem.

Whilst I don't disagree with the sentiments of this post, I will disagree with where the blame lays. Although you reference it at the end you seem to think the hyper wage inflation etc is all the fault of the Nouveau riche like Chelsea and City when it is totally and without doubt the fault of the Champions League and the bosman rule.

The champions league revenue is as much outside revenue as owners income imho. At the start you say traditionally clubs raised money from media and sponsorship when that isn't true, it's actually when those started to factor in football that things started to go awry. I can understand why clubs would want outside investment when they're having to compete with clubs being doped by the champions league, Man U and Arsenal are more to blame than City and Chelsea. Tbh I find the protestations quite hypocritical as likes of Spurs, Villa and Everton (who you reference) would never have turned this investment down and the majority of their fans would have the same attitude as city fans.

The Bosman rule inflated the wages, widened the player pool for the wealthy clubs and made it easier for the wealthy clubs to get the best players. You claimed that both clubs were "solid enough" but as I recall it Chelsea were on the brink of collapse before Ambramovich came in after spending a load of dosh just to keep up with United and Arsenal

All financial fair play will do is cement the status quo as there is no provision to make revenue distribution fair. If UEFA really were trying to help they would've done them both at the same time but as was documented it was the big clubs who called for financial restrictions in the first place to stop clubs like Man CIty threatening their cosy little world.

[KingmanIII]

Originally Posted by GunnerJacket

Traditionally, a football club operates on the revenue it generates via media contracts, sponsorships, gate receipts, etc. There have been incidents in the past where owners have supplemented team revenues to boost their squad, but in the modern professional era such use of outside funding to enhance team pay has been pretty marginal.

Since Roman Abromovich purchased Chelsea FC he's "invested" more than $1 BILLION US dollars into the club for salaries and player purchases. In other words, he's using personal funds to pay not only above what Chelsea could afford on its own, but in many instances above and beyond what any other club on the planet could afford. Even at the increased value for the club now he's technically lost at least half that amount because it cannot be recouped.

While this has virtually lifted Chelsea to a global brand over a few years but has also created a hyper inflated market for top players. Now City is doing the same thing, and those clubs are able to lure players from other teams, especially competitors, because they can pay wages scales beyond the normal market. Some abide by this because they know the current football market does (regrettably) favor the existing power clubs. They see this as a welcome challenge to the oligopoly enjoyed by the likes of Man U. But the clubs hurt in the process are the likes of Villa, Spurs and Everton who might be legitimatly doing better in the league and possibly qualifying for Europe, if not for these clubs' financial ability to lure more and better talent. All thanks to outside funding.

The sad thing is both clubs were solid enough that they don't need to be doing this.

Yes, the current system of league revenue payouts and UEFA distribution needs amending to address the funding imbalance, but failing to curtail the influence of outside revenues only exacerbates the problem.

Clubs like Chelsea and Citeh wouldn't have to undertake such measures if UEFA instituted a wage cap of sorts -- we'd see a much more even distribution of talent across the top-flight Euro leagues -- right now it's pretty much the haves (the G-14 and the dopers) and the have-nots (everyone else).

[bigbossman]

Originally Posted by KingmanIII

Clubs like Chelsea and Citeh wouldn't have to undertake such measures if UEFA instituted a wage cap of sorts -- we'd see a much more even distribution of talent across the top-flight Euro leagues -- right now it's pretty much the haves (the G-14 and the dopers) and the have-nots (everyone else).

I disagree wage caps aren't about creating competition or distributing talent they are about control wages. You have to remember wage caps do not control out of football earnings, and tbh you can earn more in sponsor deals at Manchester United than you could at Aston Villa so unless Aston Villa can pay enough to make up for those lost earnings a Europe wide cap wouldn't work.

In reality it's about two things, controlling movement and incentivising playing. Controlling movement creates fair distribution of players (I personally like the idea of more rigid squad size caps and squad recruitment rules) and incentivising playing would be restricting wages of players who don't play, by offering a basic salary and win and draw bonuses so that sitting on the bench at United or Barcelona doesn't pay at all, at least relative to starting for other clubs in their leagues.

[GunnerJacket]

Originally Posted by bigbossman

I don't see anything financially abnormal with this deal, it's not the club who creates the value its the competitions they play in (or have the potential to) and how good the team is. In this case City play in the world's most visible domestic league and Europe's premier club competition, as well as having one of the largest home media markets in Europe.

Oh, I don't think this will violate the FFP rules. It's a mere thing in and of itself, just the principle I'm fussing about.

... when it is totally and without doubt the fault of the Champions League and the bosman rule.

No disagreement about this, and as I've touted before the system should be changed. I simply see the Chelsea and City issue as a simple ill (relatively) easily cured that's otherwise being permitted through apathy, angst, etc. Just because one aspect (CL money) is wrong shouldn't allow this.

Tbh I find the protestations quite hypocritical as likes of Spurs, Villa and Everton (who you reference) would never have turned this investment down and the majority of their fans would have the same attitude as city fans.

If so, this is why the trend should be curtailed for fear of where we're headed. In the meantime those clubs have seemingly been the most impacted by the financial largesse of City, either by losing players to their outlandish wage deals or missing out on the CL.

You claimed that both clubs were "solid enough" but as I recall it Chelsea were on the brink of collapse before Ambramovich came in after spending a load of dosh just to keep up with United and Arsenal

I'll rephrase: Both clubs were certainly big enough that they could grow organically without the need for such intervention. That one or both may had been mismanaged is another matter.

All financial fair play will do is cement the status quo as there is no provision to make revenue distribution fair.

Sadly, I concur. UEFA and League revenues must be distributed more evenly as a start.

Originally Posted by KingmanIII

Clubs like Chelsea and Citeh wouldn't have to undertake such measures if UEFA instituted a wage cap of sorts...

Politically and logistically difficult. More importantly I think other measures can combine to yield 90% of the effective intent without as much fuss or draconian policy.

- - -

Meanwhile, I'm sorry for straying OT. I've said my peace. Regardless of the name and the club, it's one of the better venues in England right now.

[bigbossman]

I take your points gunnnerjacket and yes I agree way off topic.

Originally Posted by www.sercan.de

how much per year?

It looks like it's a lot more than previously thought

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2...etihad-airways

Manchester City bank record £400m sponsorship deal with Etihad Airways

• Uefa poised to assess fairness of the 10-year arrangement
• City consulted with Uefa to ensure deal breaks no rules


Manchester City will bank up to £400m under their new sponsorship arrangement with Etihad Airways, making it the largest deal of its kind in sport and reinforcing City's position as a football club with unprecedented financial power.

The 10-year agreement, which means City's ground is renamed the Etihad Stadium, will be worth more than twice the previous record, JP Morgan Chase's $300m (£187m) for the new Madison Square Garden, while simultaneously demonstrating the growing disparity between the top clubs in English football.

To put it into context, the deal Arsenal struck with Emirates in 2004 was valued at £90m over 15 years. Around £48m of that came via shirt sponsorship, with the naming rights worth only £2.8m a year. Chelsea and Tottenham have both scoured the market for a deal in the region of £10-15m a year but found no serious interest. Newcastle have also been unable to find a sponsor since the club's owner, Mike Ashley, tested the waters with a short-term arrangement in the 2009-10 season that resulted in their ground taking the name of his sportswear business as the sportsdirect.com@St James' Park Stadium.

Etihad's deal includes a 10-year extension to their shirt sponsorship at City, as well as financial backing for what will be known as the Etihad Campus, a vast area of land around the stadium that already includes the City Square fans' village, and has other major development planned, including a new training ground and sports science centre.

Garry Cook, the City chief executive, described it as "one of the most important arrangements in the history of world football", made even more remarkable because City do not own the stadium. Manchester city council allowed City to negotiate the naming rights as part of an improved rental agreement, agreed this year, which means the club will pay £20m over the next five years to an authority in the grip of financial cuts.

City must now convince Uefa that the amounts involved do not contravene the incoming financial fair play regulations and, specifically, the condition that stipulates sponsors with close links to club owners pay a fair price.

Etihad are owned by the Abu Dhabi government and the airline's association with the City owner, Sheikh Mansour, a member of the Abu Dhabi royal family, will almost certainly prompt Uefa's Club Financial Control Panel, under the chairmanship of the former Belgian prime minister Jean-Luc Dehaene, to investigate.

A Uefa spokesman said: "We are aware of the situation and our experts will make assessments of fair value of any sponsorship deals using benchmarks."

Under the terms of financial fair play, clubs have to show they can break even in the medium term if they are to take part in European competitions and, for City, that represents a significant issue given that their last financial figures reported a £121m loss and the next accounts, to be published in September, are expected to be worse.

The club have, however, made extensive inquiries of their own, consulting with Uefa in the process, to ensure the Etihad deal fits in with the rules and cannot be construed, in essence, as a different twist to 'mates' rates'.'

A significant part of the deal will go towards developing the Etihad Campus and, crucially, Uefa does not count money spent on improving infrastructure, regenerating surrounding areas and youth development when it comes to totting up losses. Although the club have not been willing to provide the media with the precise breakdown of where the money will be spread, they will present the figures to Uefa if necessary.

Nonetheless, City face the possibility of other clubs raising the matter with Uefa. Arsenal's Supporters' Trust has already signalled its intention to ask the London club to request that Uefa look into it as a priority and deliver an early verdict.

Tim Payton, the Trust spokesman, said: "The deal at Manchester City stretches credulity to the limit. The numbers just don't stack up."

[R.K.Teck]

It's not like Mansour renamed it Mansour stadium in a £2billion 10 year deal though, that would be a way for him to continue 'investing' as well as complying to the Uefa rules, is £15m per year really that much when you think how much they are paying for players!!

[kerouac1848]

It's £40m a year, vastly more than clubs with bigger 'brands', although using Arsenal as example is a bit of journalistic licence as it's well known they hugely undersold their naming rights.

It looks like it is packaged together with other elements though and that changes things. It isn't £400 just for stadium naming rights, so the comparison with MSG is slightly misleading, as JP Morgan Chase aren't getting their name on any shirts for a start. Until we know the entire breakdown of how much is being spent on what it's difficult to say if UEFA can throw out the deal, but it seems unlikely.

[bolsouru]

which is the total annual budget of manchester city
how much pay television to the club in a season?

[GunnerJacket]

Some info here:

Turnover for the year ended 31st May 2009 increased by 6% to £87.0m (2008:£82.3m), with this increase being offset by a significant increase in operating expenses to £121.2m (2008:£83.9m) primarily driven by increased playing staff costs.

This resulted in a Net Operating Loss of £34.2m (2008:£1.6m) and a Net Loss for the Year after amortisation of player contracts and financing charges of £92.6m (2008:£32.6m).

Match day attendances were up to 42,890 from an average of 42,081 in the previous season, with ticketing revenues ahead by £1.8m mainly as a result of the extended UEFA Cup run. TV Revenues were up 12% to £48.3m mainly as a result of UEFA cup performance, offset partially by a lower league placing than in the previous year.

...and here.

Their income of £125m was entirely eclipsed by the wage bill which, for all staff, rose to £133m, up from £83m. That meant the club spent £8m more than their entire turnover on wages alone.

[Hansadyret]

It's £40 million/year for both stadium naming and shirt right?

Not that crazy when Liverpool and Man Utd get £20 million for just the shirt. I don't see how UEFA can throw it out and defend it.