OpenC Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 1 minute ago, Shearergol said: Because the idea of paying for sponsorship is to get money into the club to spend. If they didn't charge they'd not be getting the money in Well I understand that much I just wonder if there's a real disadvantage to a less lucrative sponsor (but still presumably loads better than our current incumbents) but just let them advertise their primary but maybe banned one for nowt Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 1 minute ago, HTT II said: Nor do they or anyone else, it’s just football’s way of pretending they care about clubs not going above and beyond their means financially to the detriment of others, unless it’s to the detriment of others they don’t like/want/care about. It’s all complete and utter bull shit and was proved by Man City being allowed back into the CL, the minute any half decent lawyer challenges this bogus shit, nowt would stand up or stick. It’s nothing but an empty threat mainly to keep the smaller little insignificant clubs in check, but guess what, we are the big boys in Toon now and they fucking hate it. As @Jackie Broon said earlier, they should be careful what they wish for as there are lawyers who think that FFP could go if a legal challenge was mounted. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scoot Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 14 minutes ago, nbthree3 said: Looks like we're going Saudia Love this. A nice big sponsorship deal, not linked to our owners, worth multi millions of pounds. That'll get the other 19 clubs thinking of a new rule they'll have to vote in favour of. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-421 Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 (edited) I know the idea was seemingly to have 'Vision 2030' as the prominent club/shirt sponsor, and presumably be highly paid for it, but can we not just have that as a sleeve sponsor or something, and just be paid the 'market rate' for that, and then be paid our 'main' sponsors fee from the airline or whatever for the front of shirt / stadium name? Edited October 19, 2021 by TK-421 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OpenC Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Just now, TK-421 said: I know the idea was seemingly to have 'Vision 2030' as the prominent shoirt sponsor, and presumabley by highly paid for it, but can we not just have that as a sleeve sponsor or something, and just be poaid the 'market rate' for that, and then be paid our 'main' sponsors fee from the airline or whatever for the front of shirt / stadium name? Aye, that's what I meant Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peppe Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Scoot said: Love this. A nice big sponsorship deal, not linked to our owners, worth multi millions of pounds. That'll get the other 19 clubs thinking of a new rule they'll have to vote in favour of. They'll ban airline sponsors next Edited October 19, 2021 by Peppe Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 4 minutes ago, OpenC said: Well I understand that much I just wonder if there's a real disadvantage to a less lucrative sponsor (but still presumably loads better than our current incumbents) but just let them advertise their primary but maybe banned one for nowt We should announce UNICEF as our new sponsor, with all earnings going to charity. Then launch "Newcastle TV" which gets a shocking number of subscriptions all across the Emirates for a huge amount of income. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ankles Bennett Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 I worry that this is all an attempt to draw the KSA into interfering with this so the EPL can argue the legal assurances are inadequate and so they will expel us from the EPL or deduct points that ensure we get relegated and are then refused promotion back into the EPL whilst the PIF hold majority ownership!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 I wonder how they decide what is a fair amount for spo sponsorship ? I remember reading about Man Utd having a deal which I think was more than our main sponsors at the time purely to be associated with a Thai tyre brand or some such. Ie the tyre makers gave Man utd million s just to use their crest etc officially in Thailand. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HTT II Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Peppe said: They'll ban airline sponsors next Without a doubt, think about all them the poor gambling sponsors who could miss out if they allowed that. Mind Man City and Arsenal will still be allowed to fly high! Edited October 19, 2021 by HTT II Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-421 Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 1 minute ago, Shearergol said: We should announce UNICEF as our new sponsor, with all earnings going to charity. Then launch "Newcastle TV" which gets a shocking number of subscriptions all across the Emirates for a huge amount of income. Aye, wonder how much Amnesty Int'l will pay to sponsor us?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HTT II Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Just now, TK-421 said: Aye, wonder how much Amnesty Int'l will pay to sponsor us?? They’d kill to be associated with our club in some official capacity once we take off! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Superior Acuña Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ankles Bennett said: I worry that this is all an attempt to draw the KSA into interfering with this so the EPL can argue the legal assurances are inadequate and so they will expel us from the EPL or deduct points that ensure we get relegated and are then refused promotion back into the EPL whilst the PIF hold majority ownership!! You'd have to think the ownership will know not to fuck with that given the cost. But can just see us winning our first trophy in generations then being stripped of it. Edited October 19, 2021 by Inferior Acuña Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
xLiaaamx Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 SABIC would be possible too. Said last night I don't think Aramco is because of Yasir. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LV Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 29 minutes ago, Inferior Acuña said: You'd have to think the ownership will know not to fuck with that giving the cost. But can just see us winning our first trophy in generations then being stripped of it. That would just be so us Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-421 Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 32 minutes ago, xLiaaamx said: SABIC would be possible too. Said last night I don't think Aramco is because of Yasir. Sure I read SABIC is a subsidiary of Aramco, so the PL 18 would probably try and veto that too. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 8 hours ago, deejeck said: Just reading there that USM have already paid Everton a £30m deposit for the naming rights of the new stadium, which would fly in the face of what they're all trying to do here. Nothing more than a disruption technique by the looks of it. PL just rotten to the core - clubs seem to be hell bent on keeping Newcastle down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheHoob Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 2 hours ago, Ankles Bennett said: I worry that this is all an attempt to draw the KSA into interfering with this so the EPL can argue the legal assurances are inadequate and so they will expel us from the EPL or deduct points that ensure we get relegated and are then refused promotion back into the EPL whilst the PIF hold majority ownership!! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sima Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Weird how we're not hearing the 'it would be so unfair on the fans (who are completely blameless) if x punishment was handed out' around this... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordie Ahmed Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 (edited) 3 hours ago, TK-421 said: I know the idea was seemingly to have 'Vision 2030' as the prominent club/shirt sponsor, and presumably be highly paid for it, but can we not just have that as a sleeve sponsor or something, and just be paid the 'market rate' for that, and then be paid our 'main' sponsors fee from the airline or whatever for the front of shirt / stadium name? If Vision 2030 has links to PIF then we can't have that based on what the 18 clubs have voted for. The issue isn't even about market rate they have voted to ban any sponsorship with links, which is ludicrous and hopefully a half decent lawyer rips it apart Edited October 19, 2021 by Geordie Ahmed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbo_11 Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Retrospectively will this not result in a number of questions about current Premier League clubs and their sponsorships related to their owners? I imagine the Crystal Palace sleeve sponsorship by FaceBank would be questioned based on the investor John Textor being involved in the club as would Everton, Leicester City and Man City. The game is long gone and now the pressure on Hoffman is being reported based on other clubs you'll probably see some awful decisions. Clubs voting that intended on creating a Super League 6 months ago to the detriment of those that have voted with them now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieDazzler Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Obviously it's targeted at us but how does this affect say Leicester, kit and stadium are for the owners company. Seems you we would win any legal battle quite quickly if they are allowed to continue? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAK Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 24 minutes ago, TK-421 said: Sure I read SABIC is a subsidiary of Aramco, so the PL 18 would probably try and veto that too. Isn’t the ban on owners sponsoring clubs through their other companies so for example PIF can’t use Disney to sponsor us. Aramco is separate from PIF as is SABIC. Not sure why Vision 2030 can’t sponsor us as well as it’s a government initiative and not part of PIF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manxst Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 5 minutes ago, GeordieDazzler said: Obviously it's targeted at us but how does this affect say Leicester, kit and stadium are for the owners company. Seems you we would win any legal battle quite quickly if they are allowed to continue? The proposed new rules would only take effect on any new sponsorship deals, and those already in place like Leicester, Man City etc would be allowed to continue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manxst Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 1 minute ago, SAK said: Isn’t the ban on owners sponsoring clubs through their other companies so for example PIF can’t use Disney to sponsor us. Aramco is separate from PIF as is SABIC. Not sure why Vision 2030 can’t sponsor us as well as it’s a government initiative and not part of PIF. PIF don’t own Disney, just have minority shareholdings in it? 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