Jump to content

PIF and RB Sports & Media - Darren Eales to step down from CEO after being diagnosed with blood cancer.


Yorkie

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, bowlingcrofty said:


Why though? That rule was brought in basically so we didn’t sponsor ourselves through the back door. If it’s not a RPT then surely fair market value is whatever someone is willing to pay.

I think they were/are worried about the global "influence" of PIF, that they could encourage a non-related party to go well above market value. These rules stop that from happening (in theory).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Keegans Export said:

I think they were/are worried about the global "influence" of PIF, that they could encourage a non-related party to go well above market value. These rules stop that from happening (in theory).

Fair market value for a team that’s got to a final and potentially/on track to get CL qualification in the biggest league in the world, and has been on telly most weeks. That’s fair market value for now I reckon. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What's annoying for them clubs is that when they cooked up the "fair market value" bullshit, they hadn't envisaged us finishing in the top 4 so quick.

 

Ironically, when we finish 3rd... we should be scrutinising Spurs and Chelseas next commercial deals.

 

"Hold on, Spurs and Chelsea finished in 7th and 10th, there's no way they should be getting so much money."

 

Could backfire rather quickly. [emoji38]

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

I think they were/are worried about the global "influence" of PIF, that they could encourage a non-related party to go well above market value. These rules stop that from happening (in theory).


Fair enough - can understand that. Still not sure how it would stand up in court like. Seems a very arbitrary way of deciding who can be sponsored what. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, STM said:

What's annoying for them clubs is that when they cooked up the "fair market value" bullshit, they hadn't envisaged us finishing in the top 4 so quick.

 

Ironically, when we finish 3rd... we should be scrutinising Spurs and Chelseas next commercial deals.

 

"Hold on, Spurs and Chelsea finished in 7th and 10th, there's no way they should be getting so much money."

 

Could backfire rather quickly. [emoji38]

 

Chelsea getting that £5 million Wakey Wines sponsorship eventually. [emoji38]

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, STM said:

What's annoying for them clubs is that when they cooked up the "fair market value" bullshit, they hadn't envisaged us finishing in the top 4 so quick.

 

Ironically, when we finish 3rd... we should be scrutinising Spurs and Chelseas next commercial deals.

 

"Hold on, Spurs and Chelsea finished in 7th and 10th, there's no way they should be getting so much money."

 

Could backfire rather quickly. [emoji38]

This is exactly it, this season has shocked them 

 

When Spurs get £40m there is absolutely no way they can object to £25m, it's very modest actually 

Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, I some times forget that this is really the first proper full season under this new regime. And look at what we've achieved in such a short period of time.

 

Where are we going to be five years from now? A decade from now?

We're actually going to be fucking massive.

 

The sleeping giant has been awoken yet. It's still snoring. They'll all know when the giant is awake. And it will be glorious.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, TheHoob said:

Hadn't heard of that before but you can see this seasons breakdown here: 

 

https://editorial.uefa.com/resources/0277-158b0bea495a-ba6c18158cd3-1000/20220704_circular_2022_47_en.pdf

 

Sliding scale from 1.1ish million to 36ish based on a 10 year coefficient, cool cool. One of a few different pools of payments like Yorkie said, but the joint biggest by the looks of it.

 

 

 


anyone who thinks anything UEFA do is for the good of all teams (such as FFP) needs to give their head a shake. 
 

It shows how greedy the super league lot were as UEFA do everything to help them in any case 

Link to post
Share on other sites

UEFA have made concessions for years to appease out of fear of a breakaway league. It's not them that's the issue, it's the cabal of big clubs who have pushed the agenda.

 

 

Edited by ponsaelius

Link to post
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, STM said:

What's annoying for them clubs is that when they cooked up the "fair market value" bullshit, they hadn't envisaged us finishing in the top 4 so quick.

 

Ironically, when we finish 3rd... we should be scrutinising Spurs and Chelseas next commercial deals.

 

"Hold on, Spurs and Chelsea finished in 7th and 10th, there's no way they should be getting so much money."

 

Could backfire rather quickly. [emoji38]

 

Oh my God now I'm just imagining us being able to twist the knife in to these arseholes once we've overtaken them. :lol: Thanks for awakening me to this dream. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ToonAbroad said:

Understand it's only a 2 year deal, so gives a decent boost to current numbers but also will not be long to arrange a bigger deal once hopefully two seasons of CL football are under the belt to justify a bigger number. Apparently there was an offer of 22m for 5 years on the table too so this seems like a good outcome I think. 

Yeah, this is what I’ve been expecting - a series of short term deals which keep jumping up in value by significant amounts.  The next one in 2025 will no doubt be in the Spurs / Arsenal / Chelsea category; the one after that in Man City territory.  This is why this will take 5-10 years, as the owners said from the off.

 

Howe and the players have hit the accelerator on the plans with what they’ve achieved - I reckon we’ve shaved a year or so off what we thought we’d need.

 

The PIF money will likely be used for infrastructure and loss absorption.  Their contacts will be used for getting big sponsorship bucks - which is why I was always puzzled by the assumptions that the sponsors would be Aramco etc at this point.  Why draw down more criticism and more eyes when you can easily get the same money elsewhere during the building process?

 

Once we get where we’re going though, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Saudi sponsorship all over the shop - like Man City, whose deals are similar to but just a bit bigger than Man Utd and Liverpool. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ponsaelius said:

UEFA have made concessions for years to appease out of fear of a breakaway league. It's not them that's the issue, it's the cabal of big clubs who have pushed the agenda.

 

 

 


Uefa are supposed to be in charge though, they’ve allowed the corrupt cabal to dictate to them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wait til we add in our official mattress partner - then the chocolate partner, tractor partner, official cambodian beer partner and wipe wipes for men partner.

 

Theres ways to inflate overall income.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Lazarus said:

Just wait til we add in our official mattress partner - then the chocolate partner, tractor partner, official cambodian beer partner and wipe wipes for men partner.

 

Theres ways to inflate overall income.

Training ground sponsor, Stadium associate! 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought our deal would be closer to spuds.

 

it’s a bit bullshit when Boehly will probably give Chelsea a 100m a year deal for corner flag sponsorship from Todd Boehly craft figurines or some bollocks like that to cover them

Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Lazarus said:

Just wait til we add in our official mattress partner - then the chocolate partner, tractor partner, official cambodian beer partner and wipe wipes for men partner.

 

Theres ways to inflate overall income.

 

image.thumb.png.91027cee8afa6be2a4eddd0a26cc9e29.png

Link to post
Share on other sites

Genuine question.  Why would we choose to be sponsored by a company outside of Saudi? I could understand somewhat if it were a British/well known Worldwide company but being sponsored by another Middle Eastern countries company seems peculiar.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Mazzy said:

Genuine question.  Why would we choose to be sponsored by a company outside of Saudi? I could understand somewhat if it were a British/well known Worldwide company but being sponsored by another Middle Eastern countries company seems peculiar.

Reduce the scrutiny perhaps 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder if it's someone PIF have investments in? How would that work and would that be treated the same way as a PIF owned company? 

 

Obviously win win for PIF as even if they don't own the company their shares will increase with our exposure you would expect. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...