SUPERTOON Posted Tuesday at 18:29 Share Posted Tuesday at 18:29 13 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: The are also some likely good reasons for lack of visible movement at the moment, like waiting for the outcome of the Man City associated party transactions case and the potential complexity and sensitivity of developing around Leazes Park and/or Terrace. Maybe, but Eales literally said it was imminent 2 months ago. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnbull2000 Posted Tuesday at 18:47 Share Posted Tuesday at 18:47 (edited) 30 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: The are also some likely good reasons for lack of visible movement at the moment, like waiting for the outcome of the Man City associated party transactions case and the potential complexity and sensitivity of developing around Leazes Park and/or Terrace. Or maybe this https://www.football365.com/news/newcastle-pif-sell-buy-liverpool-henry Quote And now former Everton chairman Keith Wyness insists he is “hearing” that there is a possibility that PIF could attempt to sell Newcastle and buy Liverpool as they see more of a chance of progress at the Anfield club. Knowing our luck, it'll probably happen too. Would certainly help explain the lack of progress recently. Edited Tuesday at 18:48 by Turnbull2000 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted Tuesday at 18:52 Share Posted Tuesday at 18:52 I'd never heard of Keith Wyness so I looked him up on Wikipedia and he seems a bit of a...character. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Jinx Posted Tuesday at 18:53 Share Posted Tuesday at 18:53 Oh I’d love it to happen just to see those scouse cunts try and justify the flip on their 2+ years of virtue signalling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubaricho Posted Tuesday at 19:07 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:07 The “but Eales said it was imminent!!” schtick is getting so old. Who gives a fuck what he said? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted Tuesday at 19:11 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:11 1 minute ago, cubaricho said: The “but Eales said it was imminent!!” schtick is getting so old. Who gives a fuck what he said? It wasn't just Eales, which is what I find interesting. The COO, who normally you'd assume has no business talking to the press, was put out for interviews a number of weeks ago to talk about the situation around SJP. Why? Why not just let him sit in his office and do COO stuff? It's one thing Eales mouthing off, he's basically the face of the board now Amanda has gone but why send this guy out? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloGeordio Posted Tuesday at 19:12 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:12 Eddie and Mitchell kissed and made up, all good in the hood again. Oh hang on now this 💩 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted Tuesday at 19:14 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:14 6 hours ago, TRon said: If it was purely an investement, I'm sure they could have picked options which would give a lot more return for less risk. It's a vanity project IMO, and the rest of the world knows it. Precisely why you had everyone in the world up in arms about sportswashing. Does anyone seriously think they bought Newcastle Utd to finish 8th in the league while clubs owned by bitter rivals take all the trophies and the glory? Newcastle are the perfect investment - we’ve already trebled in value. Much higher risk to investment would have been buying one of the big clubs. I don’t think this looks anything like a vanity project at the moment - so far this looks like an investment; there is a clear reluctance to throw real money around, and three years is a long time. I’ll come back to them until the evidence changes - where are the sponsors? Where is the training ground? Where is the academy? Where is the plans for a super stadium? To date, we’ve seen a level of investment which pretty much any new owner of a PL club with potential would have made. There’s nothing so far to suggest vanity purchase / sportswashing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted Tuesday at 19:16 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:16 5 hours ago, Dokko said: Pif are just waiting on the citeh court cases to make their next move. If the closer sponsor one comes back in citehs favour, then it's shackles off. No excuses to pump money in and blow psr out the water. If citeh win and we keep the same tactic, then people are correct, we're not a priority and never will be. They could have lined up sponsors two or three years ago, and replaced them with bigger deals next summer if the Man City case comes off. There was nothing stopping them doing this - everyone seems to be clinging on to the idea that something is holding them back. What use would new sponsorship be now that the summer window has closed? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SUPERTOON Posted Tuesday at 19:17 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:17 9 minutes ago, cubaricho said: The “but Eales said it was imminent!!” schtick is getting so old. Who gives a fuck what he said? Quite a few people tbh. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted Tuesday at 19:18 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:18 5 hours ago, Keegans Export said: I asked this in the FFP thread but I'm not clear on what Man City are actually arguing against. The "related-party" transactions pre-date our takeover I think, City seem to be challenging "associated-party" transactions but I'm not sure what the difference is between those two? It isn’t the magic bullet that most seem to be assuming it is. ‘Fair market value’ rules for sponsorship will remain in place Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted Tuesday at 19:20 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:20 54 minutes ago, et tu brute said: Stop talking sense man Didn’t you say that if the new sponsors weren’t in place by the end of the previous window that you’d also be asking questions? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloGeordio Posted Tuesday at 19:20 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:20 1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said: It isn’t the magic bullet that most seem to be assuming it is. ‘Fair market value’ rules for sponsorship will remain in place So what kind of bullet is it, and more importantly what’s in it for us? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted Tuesday at 19:22 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:22 Just now, PauloGeordio said: So what kind of bullet is it, and more importantly what’s in it for us? It’s a rubber bullet It would take the rules back to the way that they were in Oct ‘21 - there would still be clear limitations re sponsorship deals. PIF aren’t suddenly going to be able to have one of their companies become the official NUFC bog seat providers for £100m per season Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted Tuesday at 19:24 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:24 1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said: It isn’t the magic bullet that most seem to be assuming it is. ‘Fair market value’ rules for sponsorship will remain in place If City win their ATP case, the fair market value rules are out the window. How couldnt they be? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack27 Posted Tuesday at 19:24 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:24 I also don’t fancy being mediocrely ran despite being heavily sports washed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted Tuesday at 19:24 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:24 1 minute ago, PauloGeordio said: So what kind of bullet is it, and more importantly what’s in it for us? Well those clubs that proposed the APT rules must have thought such a rule was needed to strangle our growth. It’s not known as the Newcastle Rule’ for nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted Tuesday at 19:25 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:25 7 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said: Quite a few people tbh. You could make a pretty strong argument that the single biggest failure of club leadership (this applies to Eales, Eddie*, Mitchell, and anyone in the comms department) in the last few months is the lack of understanding at how important their messaging is. Words matter. (*maybe not Eddie as I think he knew exactly what he was doing; it was just maybe a little misguided in his case) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted Tuesday at 19:26 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:26 Just now, Scoot said: If City win their ATP case, the fair market value rules are out the window. How couldnt they be? Because they’re going after the associated party rules, not FMV - there were already rules in place re FMV. A lot seem to be assuming that a Man City victory means that we can suddenly get sponsorships at a vastly inflated level. We won’t be able to do that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stifler Posted Tuesday at 19:27 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:27 34 minutes ago, Keegans Export said: I'd never heard of Keith Wyness so I looked him up on Wikipedia and he seems a bit of a...character. Looks like he’s made a few articles up for Football Insider recently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted Tuesday at 19:27 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:27 2 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: Well those clubs that proposed the APT rules must have thought such a rule was needed to strangle our growth. It’s not known as the Newcastle Rule’ for nothing. It does hamper us. But it doesn’t mean ‘all bets are off’. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted Tuesday at 19:29 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:29 (edited) 3 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: Because they’re going after the associated party rules, not FMV - there were already rules in place re FMV. A lot seem to be assuming that a Man City victory means that we can suddenly get sponsorships at a vastly inflated level. We won’t be able to do that. They were attempting to prevent us from getting increased numbers of sponsors from PIF companies and the wider Gulf area, if City win they can no longer do that. Edited Tuesday at 19:30 by FloydianMag Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted Tuesday at 19:31 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:31 That Wyness stuff is so dumb. He was on a podcast where he mentioned that Henry and PIF were together to negotiate PGA/LIV stuff and also that there have been some comments from NUFC recently about the rules / ceiling, etc. And the rest is very much 2+2=13. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted Tuesday at 19:33 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:33 (edited) 18 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said: Because they’re going after the associated party rules, not FMV - there were already rules in place re FMV. A lot seem to be assuming that a Man City victory means that we can suddenly get sponsorships at a vastly inflated level. We won’t be able to do that. From what's been reported though, unless I've completely misread it it several times, City are looking to scrap the ATP rules as a whole, not just the latest set if rules. If that's the case FMV rules go out the window too. From the Times. https://archive.is/LeeIS At next week’s hearing, which has provoked bitter divisions between clubs, City will attempt to end the league’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules, which they claim are unlawful, and seek damages from the Premier League. Introduced in December 2021 in the wake of the Saudi-led takeover of Newcastle United, the rules are designed to maintain the competitiveness of the Premier League by preventing clubs from inflating commercial deals with companies linked to their owners. The rules dictate that such transactions have to be independently assessed to be of “fair market value” (FMV). If ATP rules go, FMV goes with it. It's the same thing. And finally. If City are successful in their claim — and some rival clubs fear they will be — it could enable the richest clubs to value their sponsorship deals without independent assessment for the league, vastly boosting the amount of money they can raise and therefore giving them far greater sums to spend on players. Edited Tuesday at 19:44 by Scoot Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Izakaya Posted Tuesday at 19:34 Share Posted Tuesday at 19:34 5 hours ago, Dokko said: Pif are just waiting on the citeh court cases to make their next move. If the closer sponsor one comes back in citehs favour, then it's shackles off. No excuses to pump money in and blow psr out the water. If citeh win and we keep the same tactic, then people are correct, we're not a priority and never will be. Any evidence for this other than pure hope and faith? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now