Unbelievable

This ref

Get in!

That is offside sadly

Please be onside

Beilliant goal

Not a pen, but def a foul

Ffs ref

Ffs

Something tells me you don’t understand the interest free owner loans excluded from PSR situation. It’s not a loophole we could have exploited.

Did he not feature quite heavily before the team started struggling, and doing quite well at that? Think he just suffered with being overplayed, like most others, and especially excusable since he’s not physically the finished product yet.

Serves the PL right for bending over backwards for a bunch of snakes I suppose.

You can’t make something that is unlawful go away by making a deal with one affected party. Other clubs including us would sue next.

Meaning now is the perfect time to tighten the scews on the PL and propose some (more) big sponsorships for ratification. If the PL turn them down or stall them (even pointing towards their own rules being found unlawful) that nicely sets the PL up for even more damage payment liability.

Our own actions evidently ate not (entirely) dependent on City’s. If the rules are declared void, we may claim for damages for any deals we may have had turned down or kicked down the road even if City don’t. Equally we may push through sponsorship deals even if City don’t. It will be fascinating to see how we operate over the next few weeks and months while this unfolds. We’ve been compliant so far, but I hope we are as ruthless as the PL has been at stopping us when their house of cards crumbles.

Silverstone just a few months ago referred to it not making sense to make short term deals that hurt the club’s ling term prospects. His exact words: ”“Our job is to make sure we now maximise the value and future value of Newcastle United. We don’t want to do deals now that in one to two years — when we get closer to our ambitions — are undervalued. It’s a fine balance but we need to find the right partners at the right value”

How do you know which companies the club’s commercial department are having talks with? What we do know is that the PL has out a regulatory framework in place that was specifically designed to prevent us (and any other club in our situation) from doing commercial deals with companies if they deem the value of said deal a threat to clubs with current bigger commercial deals. How is that not preventing us from growing organically? Edit: I guess you may be using a very narrow definition of “organic growth”. For me non-organic growth would be growth subsidised directly by a club’s owners. These rules however, through loosely defined “associated parties” and non-transparancy combined with non-accountability of the vetting process, also prohibit indirect investment, which is madness. Of course any prospective sponsor of a football club associates with the club and its owners, or they would sponsor generic events or any other club. At grassroots level it is often local businesses that sponsor events, be they sports, cultural or whatever. They have an association of some sort, often geographical, but also in terms of personal preference of the sponsors’ leadership, company strategy, etc. If you decline any entity sponsorship from parties that hold an interest in them and only allow sponsorship from companies that might as well sponsor a rivalling entity, then clearly you are clipping that entities’ wings.

In an industry where commercial success largely follows (sustained) sporting success, how ever is a club going to catch up if some regulator says one club cannot have a sponsor (with any association to its ownership even if logically commercial interest would be higher from those regional parties thanks to its association with the owners’ interest, with burden of proof on the club side to prove otherwise and without any argumentative justification required for rejection upon ratification no less) that is more than a quarter or half the value of another club’s sponsor due specifically to their existing differences in revenue? That is a self sustaining/defeating principle if ever I saw one.

Rejected or stalled, as per the ruling. what makes you think this is particularly difficult to prove for any club? They would know what deals they have submitted for ratification, which were rejected outright or lowered without justification/evidence (again, as per the ruling) and which were stalled unreasonably (longer than 2 months I believe as per the ruling). Any club could have such a list drawn up within the hour if pressed.

Mate, I think all most level headed Newcastle fans would want to see is to have our owners allowed to use their financial might to create an even battle field. Just cap yearly revenue on footballing cost so that each club has the same limitations and it comes down to who runs the best operation. It’s more or less how the F1 budget cap works and after a few years in existence lo and behold the competitiveness is insane and all teams are making a profit (self sustainability).

I don't think this case has that much bearing on the 115 case tbh, considering those breaches were before this APT nonsense came in IIRC?

Wasn't aware of that. What is the timeline for this. Also, in light of this, seems even more absurd that the PL would want to rush some band aid patches through in the next forthnight.

I don't think this is as absurd as you make it sound. The tribunal found that a) the PL created rules that by their very design/intent are anti-competitive, b) found that the PL did not apply its own rules diligently (stalling on commercial deals and not providing evidence for their decisions) and c) that if sponsorship deals are to be subject to FMV, then so should owner loans have been all this time, meaning more clubs would have fallen foul to PSR and should have been docked points (which wll be of particular interest to those clubs who have been docked points in recent years). Also there is the matter of lost revenue that City can sue for. It's not just a matter of patching up the wording of a few rules to make this go away. There are holes in the hull of their PSR ship now and clubs will seek to benefit from this either by seeing decisions reversed, suing for lost revenue or pushing for the rules as they should have lawfully been to be applied consistently and retrospectively.

I said the club (!) knows. Don’t you think the club will know what sponsorship deals they put forward or what happened to them..?

It absolutely does. For weeks you’ve been going on that nothing would come of this, surely it was a PL win as there was silence, etc. You’ve been proven spectacularly wrong and still you keep downplaying the significance of City shooting massive holes in this dodgy regulation framework that, as per the judgement, was specifically designed to be anti-competitive in parts, and therefore unlawful.

You don’t think Man City and NUFC have that proof? In City’s case we even know 3 sponsorships were rejected, one after stalling their own procedure unlawfully for 12 months.