Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Tsunami said:

None of them were bothered about The Spirts Direct Arena of that tatty advertising all over the stadium from our previous owner though….

 

Oh yeah, party related sponsorship is sound as long as the other PL clubs think the offending club is getting £10 and a curly wurly.

 

 

Edited by NE27

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, STM said:

Whatever the top sponsorship deal is, surely we will be allowed to match it?

 

You would think (plus an amount for deal inflation since it was signed), but im guessing not.

 

Would be a very dangerous path for the league to dictate who and for how much clubs can do deals with

 

 

Edited by geordie_b

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Fantail Breeze said:

I mean I can’t see how this is legal unless teams like Leicester and Man City have to remove their current owner-based sponsorship arrangements.

 

 

 

Anti competitive, as Charnley allegedly pointed out. It’s impossible for some clubs to have these sponsorship deals currently in place, but then refuse to let another club have a similar deal from this point in time onwards. Methinks DeMarco might be earning some more money in the very near future…

Link to post
Share on other sites

We love hoying the anti competitive accusation about like! Mind you, we have every right.

 

As said, be interesting to see if Leicester change the name of their ground and shirt sponsor. Fucking laughable if not. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest neesy111
3 minutes ago, Kanji said:

Why the hell is this a "1-month" thing? This makes my blood boil because it's so fucking bent. It's reactionary response less than 10 games into a season? Fuck right off. 

It's temporary until they get more rules in place.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bearing in mind whatever leverage the consortium's legal team had to cause the takeover to get pushed through so quickly, I have to say I actually have a half glass full feeling in that there's a reasonable chance this won't stick. Too much hypocrisy to not use as leverage. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Massive can of worms tbh

 

Are Arsenal allowed to continue with the Emirates cup?

Are Liverpool allowed to play lucrative games at Fenway Park?

Will Tottenham have to get rid of their NFL partnership as the Glazers have an interest in the NFL?

 

The smaller clubs are already going to get shafted by the ban on betting sponsors. Clubs have to be allowed to make money how they want and at a fair market rate

 

 

Edited by geordie_b

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Awaymag said:

oh this is getting interesting.   I really think Masters and Hoffman will be gone soon.   Also, how can these clubs have private meetings without NUFC attending?

 

All 20 clubs were involved. Lee Charnley was there representing NUFC. Went to a vote and was 18-2 to stop these dodgy sponsors 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pokerprince2004 said:

 

All 20 clubs were involved. Lee Charnley was there representing NUFC. Went to a vote and was 18-2 to stop these dodgy sponsors 

I refer the right honourable gentleman to the aforementioned article and in particular, the following section.

 

Straight after it, the 19 clubs met on their own to discuss the financial implications of having the Saudis as competitors. It led to the draft of the temporary ban on related party transactions – Newcastle would be notified of this – and then to Monday’s meeting.

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...