Liverpool FC Forum

by **metalhead** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:35 am

How ironic, Etihad in english means United

so Manchester City have called their stadium the United Stadium

:Oo:

by **Bad Bob** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:54 am

by **Greavesie** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 11:56 am

not only that, they're sponsoring themselves, doesn't the same guy own the two? So financial fair play is right out of the window then?

by **metalhead** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 12:04 pm

No, Mubadala and Etihad airways aren't owned by the same person, but both are owned by the Abu Dhabi royal family

by **zarababe** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:25 pm

metalhead wrote:How ironic, Etihad in english means United

so Manchester City have called their stadium the United Stadium

what abunch of hoe's

by **Boocity** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 10:00 am

metalhead wrote:No, Mubadala and Etihad airways aren't owned by the same person, but both are owned by the Abu Dhabi royal family

It should be looked into by UEFA, its just a way of pumping money into the club to get round the fair play rules, they should look at whether the money is really coming from the airline business or external sources

by **aCe'** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:18 pm

Etihad doesnt mean united.. it means 'unity' or 'union' .. saw a couple of websites running with it... poor journalism !

by **aCe'** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 12:23 pm

Boocity wrote:
metalhead wrote:No, Mubadala and Etihad airways aren't owned by the same person, but both are owned by the Abu Dhabi royal family

It should be looked into by UEFA, its just a way of pumping money into the club to get round the fair play rules, they should look at whether the money is really coming from the airline business or external sources

O.o ...

You mean they should investigate the airlines to see if the money is from their revenue as opposed to someone pumping the money into his company ?

Taking it too far there... If anything, I'm against the whole financial fair play nonsense.. The bigger clubs will always find a way of making extra revenue and its the smaller clubs with small stadia and low followings who will be stuck in mediocrity.

Football is finally starting to realize its potential as a business and whether people like it or not it's just how things are today. Mess up with the system and it will backfire big time imo.

by **Boocity** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 1:55 pm

aCe' wrote:
Boocity wrote:
metalhead wrote:No, Mubadala and Etihad airways aren't owned by the same person, but both are owned by the Abu Dhabi royal family

It should be looked into by UEFA, its just a way of pumping money into the club to get round the fair play rules, they should look at whether the money is really coming from the airline business or external sources

O.o ...

You mean they should investigate the airlines to see if the money is from their revenue as opposed to someone pumping the money into his company ?

Taking it too far there... If anything, I'm against the whole financial fair play nonsense.. The bigger clubs will always find a way of making extra revenue and its the smaller clubs with small stadia and low followings who will be stuck in mediocrity.

Football is finally starting to realize its potential as a business and whether people like it or not it's just how things are today. Mess up with the system and it will backfire big time imo.

That's the whole thing they are not making money they are having money pumped in by a rich benefactor, whatever your feelings the rules are coming in and this makes a farce of it. Why should we and other clubs have to be constrained by the rules when others flagrantly mock them

by **aCe'** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 2:18 pm

Boocity wrote:
aCe' wrote:
Boocity wrote:
metalhead wrote:No, Mubadala and Etihad airways aren't owned by the same person, but both are owned by the Abu Dhabi royal family

It should be looked into by UEFA, its just a way of pumping money into the club to get round the fair play rules, they should look at whether the money is really coming from the airline business or external sources

O.o ...

You mean they should investigate the airlines to see if the money is from their revenue as opposed to someone pumping the money into his company ?

Taking it too far there... If anything, I'm against the whole financial fair play nonsense.. The bigger clubs will always find a way of making extra revenue and its the smaller clubs with small stadia and low followings who will be stuck in mediocrity.

Football is finally starting to realize its potential as a business and whether people like it or not it's just how things are today. Mess up with the system and it will backfire big time imo.

That's the whole thing they are not making money they are having money pumped in by a rich benefactor, whatever your feelings the rules are coming in and this makes a farce of it. Why should we and other clubs have to be constrained by the rules when others flagrantly mock them

Thats the thing though... we arent... and neither are any of the other big clubs.... We wont be, and similarly neither will the other big clubs... Liverpool, Chelsea, ManCity, ManUtd, Chelsea, Madrid, Barcelona...etc etc are constantly improving sponsorship deals and breaking merchandise and ticket records...

Prices of match tickets are already increasing as is, if you tell the big clubs they can only spend what they make directly from club activities and disregard sponsorships then that would automatically rule out any side that isnt 'big enough' from signing talented players/coaches/staff...

Football Associations will start negotiating higher TV deals, big clubs will increase merchandise and ticket prices knowing the demand will always be there, and football will become a game for the rich and powerful... I thought that was the exact opposite of what they were trying to achieve...

Technically, what ManCity did there is nothing against the rules.. Not now and not in the future. Similarly, our American owners managed to get us sponsorship deals from American companies that were willing to pay top dollar because of their association with our owners... Man Utd at some point did the same and will undoubtedly be forced to do it yet again if such constraints are placed.... What will the smaller clubs do ?

I think we are moving towards a more balanced game and nothing that could/will be done will make that process any faster... Many people are starting to realize the amount of money that can and IS made in football and are trying to get in on it. The US and Asia are key in that. You have the smaller size improving in terms of spending ability largely due to motivated owners trying to make money, running clubs as a business.. If done right, its a win win situation. Leagues all around Europe, Asia and the Americas are becoming more and more competitive..

I just dont see it working...

by **Greavesie** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 2:55 pm

aCe' wrote:Etihad doesnt mean united.. it means 'unity' or 'union' .. saw a couple of websites running with it... poor journalism !

it can mean unity, united, union or simply friendship.

Loads of Arabic words have multiple meanings, united is one of them

Loads of Arabic experts have been arguing the toss over it

by **ethanr** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 4:12 pm

If it was a £150 million a year deal, than yes that would be fishy.... But it's not. So I don't see anything wrong with it. I'm confident that with our owners and all their connections, we could get an even bigger, better deal.

by **metalhead** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 4:33 pm

aCe' wrote:Etihad doesnt mean united.. it means 'unity' or 'union' .. saw a couple of websites running with it... poor journalism !

errr... I'm an arab, talk and understand arabic and it also means united

by **metalhead** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 4:36 pm

Greavesie wrote:
aCe' wrote:Etihad doesnt mean united.. it means 'unity' or 'union' .. saw a couple of websites running with it... poor journalism !

it can mean unity, united, union or simply friendship.

Loads of Arabic words have multiple meanings, united is one of them

Loads of Arabic experts have been arguing the toss over it

friendship means Sohba

by **Greavesie** » Sat Jul 09, 2011 6:27 pm

metalhead wrote:
Greavesie wrote:
aCe' wrote:Etihad doesnt mean united.. it means 'unity' or 'union' .. saw a couple of websites running with it... poor journalism !

it can mean unity, united, union or simply friendship.

Loads of Arabic words have multiple meanings, united is one of them

Loads of Arabic experts have been arguing the toss over it

friendship means Sohba

I had a feeling you'd come into this thread and gun me down

Liverpool FC Forum

Etihad stadium

Who is online