Jump to content

PIF and RB Sports & Media


Yorkie

Recommended Posts

38 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

I think at least one of the charges is relating to Etihad's shirt and/or stadium sponsorship - the accusation is that Etihad themselves only put up a small percentage of the sponsorship money, the rest was put in by the owners but disguised as coming from Etihad.

 

So instead of the owners putting in the money themselves, they put it in via Etihad, artificially increasing the club's income therefore allowing more flexibility to spend within FFP regulations. 

Oh yeah never argued that, like I originally said its all sorts of dodgy shit they have done. I mean their related party shot is hilarious 

Link to post
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, madras said:

There was both. Hidden payments going out AND inflated sponsorships (and vagueness over where some of the money for trem originated) coming in.

That was my point. 115 man, was all parts of the club

Link to post
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Fezzle said:

How does hidden payments off the books inflate income? 

 

 

Because it doesn't count as a negative on the books in regard to profit. The books is what FFP looks at. You hide payments to show you were more profitable than you really were.

Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Which brings us back to why should owners be prevented from investing in the club they own by artificial constructs like FFP?

 

They're prevented as it upsets the other owners of businesses they're directly competing with. Which is absolute fucking bollocks and anti-competitive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Which brings us back to why should owners be prevented from investing in the club they own by artificial constructs like FFP?

 

 

I think we know what the thought was behind it. Not sure it's working worth shite but I understand what they were trying to do. Honestly, with nothing putting a drag on spending City and Newcastle could bury the league every year if they wanted to. Would PIF spend the money? If they wanted to, they could buy anyone in the world. I'm not defending FFP but I do kinda see where it might go which maybe isn't that far off where it is now considering the head start some clubs had.

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Fezzle said:

That was my point. 115 man, was all parts of the club

 

It might be 115 instances of payments being hidden, as in the Etihad situation, there may also be multiple charges relating the same breach, for example both for hiding the payments and the breach of FFP if income hadn't been inflated.

 

Ultimately ut wss likely to be all about getting around FFP.

 

These aren't criminal charges, it's not alleged that they broke the law, it would all have about being able to spend more within FFP, there would have been no other reasob for them to do it.

 

 

Edited by Jackie Broon

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

I think we know what the thought was behind it. Not sure it's working worth shite but I understand what they were trying to do. Honestly, with nothing putting a drag on spending City and Newcastle could bury the league every year if they wanted to. Would PIF spend the money? If they wanted to, they could buy anyone in the world. I'm not defending FFP but I do kinda see where it might go which maybe isn't that far off where it is now considering the head start some clubs had.

It was always thus when Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool were winning titles over the last 40 years interspersed by the odd club picking up a title every now and again. Someone richer turned up at Chelsea and Man City, then us and the self entitled bastards plotted and schemed to protect what they thought was their right to regularly win trophies, and now we have FFP and FMV. Fuck them, time for them to move aside for another 3-4 wealthier clubs to have their day in the sun.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

It was always thus when Arsenal, Man U and Liverpool were winning titles over the last 40 years interspersed by the odd club picking up a title every now and again. Someone richer turned up at Chelsea and Man City, then us and the self entitled bastards plotted and schemed to protect what they thought was their right to regularly win trophies, and now we have FFP and FMV. Fuck them, time for them to move aside for another 3-4 wealthier clubs to have their day in the sun.

 

 

 

THAT I agree with, when Newcastle were taken over suddenly rules had to change. It was directed right at them too. You would have thought they would be more subtle but it was pretty brazen.

 

 

Edited by McDog

Link to post
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

Because it doesn't count as a negative on the books in regard to profit. The books is what FFP looks at. You hide payments to show you were more profitable than you really were.

So income remains the same? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fezzle said:

So income remains the same? 

 

 

Yes it does, but the outgoing payments are not correct.. Therefore the bottom line is altered. It's about profitability, right? That expense is hidden making them look more profitable that they really are and allowing them to spend more.

 

 

 

 

Edited by McDog

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

Yes it does, but the outgoing payments are not correct.. Therefore the bottom line is altered. It's about profitability, right? That expense is hidden making them look more profitable that they really are and allowing them to spend more.

 

 

 

 

 

Now to do with my point but aye. Madras is correct 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Fezzle said:

Now to do with my point but aye. Madras is correct 

 

 

I guess look at it this way. If Eithad was happy to pay 100M a season, just making up numbers, why would the owners subsidize that? Just let them pay it. If they said "We will pay 50M" and the owners  chucked in another 50M behind the scenes and it was concealed as coming from their sponsor then it is 150% getting them income they would not have had and did not honestly report.

 

 

Edited by McDog

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 28/12/2023 at 07:40, El Prontonise said:

PIF's investments in sport etc are purely for geopoltiical purposes.

 

Saudi Arabia has one profitable business and that's Aramco, other than that it's the more unproductive economy in the world.

 

 

 


Domestic purposes also a significant factor. Lots of young Saudis to keep content.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

I guess look at it this way. If Eithad was happy to pay 100M a season, just making up numbers, why would the owners subsidize that? Just let them pay it. If they said "We will pay 50M" and the owners  chucked in another 50M behind the scenes and it was concealed as coming from their sponsor then it is 150% getting them income they would not have had and did not honestly report.

 

 

 

They are they owners in all but name

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, madras said:

There was both. Hidden payments going out AND inflated sponsorships (and vagueness over where some of the money for trem originated) coming in.

 

 

Exactly, hidden payments going out affect profitability and adding money to sponsor deals without reporting it as such is also manipulating the books.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

I know, similar to our owners. Difference is they pulled this shit and either we didn't or haven't been caught yet. I believe the former.

Doesn't change anything about my original point regarding unregistered payments

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Fezzle said:

Doesn't change anything about my original point regarding unregistered payments

 

 

Discussion has run it's course although your point about dodgy sources of payments, it 100% affects FFP calculations. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Fezzle said:

Again not my point. But enjoy

 

 

I guess I missed your point. Reading your comments, I certainly thought I understood what you were trying to say. Have a great evening though.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Completely off topic, but when our takeover got denied - did Nick DeMarco actually help with the appeal process or did Masters just approve it after they settled the BeOutQ thing? Meaning DeMarco didn't actually do anything?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Menace said:

Completely off topic, but when our takeover got denied - did Nick DeMarco actually help with the appeal process or did Masters just approve it after they settled the BeOutQ thing? Meaning DeMarco didn't actually do anything?

He made some fabulous bread.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Menace said:

Completely off topic, but when our takeover got denied - did Nick DeMarco actually help with the appeal process or did Masters just approve it after they settled the BeOutQ thing? Meaning DeMarco didn't actually do anything?

The takeover was approved days after KSA paid a $1bn settlement for BEOutQ.  NDM and the appeal process had nowt to do with it.

 

9 minutes ago, madras said:

I wonder if PIF would have gone ahead with the takeover had they known about FMV etc ? and I wonder if we've lived up to expectations as a project (ie size of sponsorship deals, corporate reach etc) ?

We can only speculate, but I have my suspicions that they might have thought twice.  They can’t have predicted the PL’s reaction and ongoing attempts to block every route to grow the club.  

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...