So City have signed a deal selling the naming rights to their stadium. It’s believed to be worth up to 100 million a year covering the stadium name, shirt sponsorship and some other stuff relating to the complex around the ground. MEN link

That pretty much sorts out their FFP problems in a jiffy. I don’t know the exact relationship between their owners and Etihad but I imagine it is pretty close.

Financially we are very much being left in City’s wake. It’s amazing how our once incredible wealth now compares to City’s Blackburn’s did to ours.

I really disliked the idea of changing the name of the Bridge but it seems that it is essential that we try and secure more sponsorship through this avenue. Although I do think that the club has been trying but not getting any offers worth accepting.

i have reaad that the new name of there stadium is arabic for united. :D

Edited July 8, 201113 yr by hennerzcfc

City basically took a massive dump on UEFA by making that deal.

They are going to make more than a double per year than Arsenal in their Emirates deal. Say what you want about Gooners but they've been fairly successful club over the last couple of decades, consistently in the CL, etc.

How can City, a club that just won their first trophy in over thirty years justify a such a fantastic deal especially considering the ties to their owners? It's a joke and everyone knows it.

In any case, the whole UEFA Financial Fairplay Regulation is a bunch of nonsense. Clubs like Real and Barca were allowed to get away with everything for decades and no one questioned their legitimacy. Italian top clubs have a history of corruption scandals and their owners pumped fortunes into them for eons.

And yet only when Chelsea and City got wealthy owners big spending suddenly became an issue.

In any case, the whole UEFA Financial Fairplay Regulation is a bunch of nonsense. Clubs like Real and Barca were allowed to get away with everything for decades and no one questioned their legitimacy. Italian top clubs have a history of corruption scandals and their owners pumped fortunes into them for eons.

And yet only when Chelsea and City got wealthy owners big spending suddenly became an issue.

UEFA are concerned about keeping the status quo. They don't want any clubs picking up sugar daddies and upsetting the historical powers. Platini is also a right cnut with his anti-English sentiments.

Any chance Roman can sponsor SB without changing the name but still paying 100+ million a year?

This would really sicken me. I understand money has become the biggest factor in football, but imagine playing at Samsung Bridge ffs. All for the sake of some stupid rules UEFA dreamed up on one of their trips.

Apparently top Europe's top clubs will petition Uefa to block Manchester City's new stadium sponsorship deal. How pathetic and hypocritical is that, these so called top clubs have made money at the expense of others for years, especially Madrid and Barcelona. If it includes those 2 then the hypocrisy will stink to high heaven.

A great big middle finger to UEFA... I love it!

If only Roman could find some puppet company to pay us £100m a year to change our stadium name to St. Amford Bridge.

Maybe we should let someone who really likes puns call it London Bridge....

But then again, we wouldn't want it to fall down, would we.