Mancini wants more money?!?!?

So other clubs have been able to have huge sponsorship deals for donkeys years and now City can't?

No worldwide fan base?

Why can't an owner put into a club as much of their own money as they want?

You must be a seething Red?

Yes I am seething only 8 points clear by 15:30.... grrrrrrrrrr. I will answer your last question first, I do not have a problem with owners putting as much money as they want into a club it is there money they can do what they want.

The problem is the rule makers have decided this won't be happening anymore so your point is moot.

How did a club with no recent success or worldwide fan base manage to get a world record sponsorship deal to help meet these rules??

Anyone with a brain knows the answer, so when will FIFA publish the results of their investigation?

Is there a rule somewhere that says a sponsor can only go to a club with recent success? If so maybe the FA Cup is enough? or would you like it to be a bit more restricted? Should this be applied to Formula 1 as well? In which case maybe we can have some races with 4 cars.

When you say there is no worldwide fanbase please can you expand on this? How many fans do City have worldwide and what is your requirement before a club can be sponsored?

I'm sure the FIFA investigation results will be published soon with the verdict of "no case to answer".

You're also assuming that when Mancini asks for more money that this comes from the owners? He may well just want the funds received from selling players to be made available for him to spend in the transfer market...Tezez, Adebayor, Dzecko spring to mind.

maybe Manchester city council could buy city's training ground for £400m and give it back to them - that would seem fairer than a big sponsorship deal

The FFP is clearer designed to protect the big boys

Manchester United - £40 mill "training" kit sponsorship deal :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2011/aug/22/manchester-united-kit-deal-dhl

Maybe the OP would like to restrict what can and can't be sponsored as well ?

so man u can out spend everyone else but when it returns it isnt ok ???

Hit the nail on the head Ibrahima They just don't like it in the poor house

The FFP is a terrible.  It will stagnate the development of the game.

Most clubs are operated out of passions.  FFP just kills it instantly.

a fraud, should have got the bullet long time ago. Look at the team he has and fergie has. Its all down to management and he clearly hasnt got it.

FFP just protects barca and madrid

they both get over 125m tv money and teams like gatafe get £2m, fair isnt it.

Exactly.  FFP protects the status quo.  The biggest clubs with the biggest revenues will be the biggest clubs with the biggest revenues in the future.  It would make it impossible for smaller clubs to achieve success.

Only outside investment can create change, and FFP now prevents it.

Apr 8, 2012 -- 11:03AM, Ernie__Bert wrote:

a fraud, should have got the bullet long time ago. Look at the team he has and fergie has. Its all down to management and he clearly hasnt got it.

Finally, an acceptance that City have the best team

Personally, I don't see what the problem is.  If an investor wants to pump £1BN into a football club surely he should be ENCOURAGED to do so!

Yes Mr. Angry, but the previous worlds richest clubs don't want it, they want to maintain their monopoly of being able to buy and pay for the worlds best players....United in the last 20 years under Ferguson being one of these clubs.

Agree, what is the difference with 500m asians spending £2 each and one person spending 1billion ??

also apparently Ferguson is a better manager than anyone having succesfully got one of the worlds richest clubs to win some silverware...amazing scenes

As long as he pumps in CASH and doesn't pump in DEBT then where's the problem? If it all goes tits up it doesn't screw over the club, just the sponsor.

It would be a ludicrous decision for FIFA to start getting involved in controlling clubs commercial activities. Their objective has to be to get money into football and then find a way of making sure it filters down to the lower leagues and clubs, not restrict the amount of money coming into the sport. Where would it end? Will they come up with a list of what can and can't be sponsored, and by whom, and then set a maximum amount that can be sponsored for each item, eg stadium sponsorship. Who is to say that City's sponsorship is overvalued or indeed that sponsorship can't come from companies that have connections with the owners? FIFA's objective from the FFP, as I understand it, is to ensure the financial stability of a football club. I don't think anyone in their right mind would believe that City are financially unstable and as the previous poster says there is no debt being created here.

So back to my original question, when will we see the results of the investigation into Manchester City's world record sponsorship deal with Etihad. The Etihad who have family connections with the owners of Manchester City. The reason you sponsor a team/company is to make money. Why were there no other sponsors (apart from City connected Etihad) chomping at the bit to pay this amount of money to sponsor City? When will FIFA give us the answer??

When they amend the ruling will be the answer.

fifa should just stop teams with large debts from entering their competitions, very simple to manage.

No idea about the "results" mrpickles. It was August last year, I believe, that they were going to look into it. As far as I'm aware there is no breach of the rules by Manchester City. If UEFA amend the rules they will have to put in a timeframe for these new rules, imo. I don't see how they can backdate the rules to meet a situation that has occurred since they were put in place.

Top 5 sponsorship deals prior to Man City :

2002 Man United and Nike $486 million over 13 yrs
2005 Juventus and Tamoil $265 million over 10 years
2010 Barcelona and Qatar Foundation $235 million over 5 years
Barcelona and Nike $210 million over 5 years
2008 Chelsea and Adidas $160 million over 10 years

(Man City - $636 million over 10 years)