Peter Doherty (AGAIG) wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:Socrates wrote:Ted Hughes wrote:Particularly interesting is the specific bit that it's MENA, Russia, India, and Serbia.
Meaning we have other deals for other regions.
This is where Platini & his mates will end up eating shit.
while the Etihad deal has been agreed to be fair value, we already agreed that any increase in second tier sponsorships from Abu Dhabi will not be included in future breakeven calculations
No mention of not taking on new sponsors from Abu Dhabi as far as I can see, (no way on earth would that be legal) just not increasing the smaller related ones we already have which would destroy the effect of any sanction or wage cap before it happened.
So it has no relevence here at all & no relevence to any other future sponsorship deals . (This one has no related party by the way.)
Those regions are not mentioned by accident, we are going to see huge increases in sponsorship, as was always the case since the day this bollocks arrived, & there is fuck all UEFA can do about it.
Forgotton how to spell relevance for some reason but you know what i mean.
Can we increase the Etihad deal this year, Ted? Especially now it's been accepted and is hugely undervalued in my opinion compared to the deals the rags and arsenal have recently brokered?
Absolutely no idea how the Etihad deal has been structured, I know nowt whatsoever about it.
But it seemed to be suggested that it could be increased year by year when news first broke of course. Interesting that there is no mention from UEFA that it can't be, but they have mentioned the other two smaller deals must not be increased. So presumably if we did have an greement with Etihad to increase the deal, we could do.
I imagine it will go up significantly when the Campus opens, but I'm just guessing.