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...
et tu brute Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 1 minute ago, Manxst said: 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. Jowell will have an absolute field day (any anti-competition QC would) if they go ahead with this. I'd be very surprised if the legal letters were not already winging their way down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAK Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Just now, Manxst said: 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. Which would never hold up in court. The Athletic story states Man City abstained based on strong legal advice that it was illegal what was being hatched. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokerprince2004 Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 (edited) 12 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? Any existing deals in place are fine and its only new sponsors from today that arent allowed. Its absolute bollocks and obviously just a way to stop us getting money. It was alright for City to be sponsored by Etihad, Arsenal to be sponsored by Emirates, Leicester with King Power, Palace etc etc but when NUFC might get cash an emergency meeting is called and new law put in place to block it 4 minute video on Sky this morning explaining it all Edited October 19, 2021 by Pokerprince2004 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyc35i Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Disney, Facebook or Uber won’t be sponsoring us, it’s not about their minority stakes in global companies. It’s about kicking us in the gonads and stopping major Saudi companies being used a way of pumping money into the club to get around FPP. It’s completely uncompetitive to stop commercial opportunities and the whole thing will get messy when end up with Aramco on our shirts next year Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieDazzler Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 3 minutes ago, Manxst said: 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. I get that but surely just that fact would make any legal defense of it paper thin. You'd have effectively created a law to sanction one club, who've not even done anything yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manxst Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Just now, Pokerprince2004 said: Any existing deals in place are fine and its only new sponsors from today that arent allowed. Its absolute bollocks and obviously just a way to stop us getting money. It was alright for City to be sponsored by Etihad, Arsenal to be sponsored by Emirates, Leicester with King Power, Palace etc etc but when NUFC might get cash an emergency meeting is called and new law put in place to block it Hope Charney still has De Marco's number Not to mention us being sponsored by Sports Direct under Ashley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Just now, Pokerprince2004 said: Any existing deals in place are fine and its only new sponsors from today that arent allowed. Its absolute bollocks and obviously just a way to stop us getting money. It was alright for City to be sponsored by Etihad, Arsenal to be sponsored by Emirates, Leicester with King Power, Palace etc etc but when NUFC might get cash an emergency meeting is called and new law put in place to block it Hope Charney still has De Marco's number De Marco isn’t an anti competition lawyer, Danny Jowell is the person to instruct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAK Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, andyc35i said: Disney, Facebook or Uber won’t be sponsoring us, it’s not about their minority stakes in global companies. It’s about kicking us in the gonads and stopping major Saudi companies being used a way of pumping money into the club to get around FPP. It’s completely uncompetitive to stop commercial opportunities and the whole thing will get messy when end up with Aramco on our shirts next year But as Aramco aren’t owned by PIF this new rule can’t stop them sponsoring us. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN23O0VK Edited October 19, 2021 by SAK Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 1 minute ago, GeordieDazzler said: I get that but surely just that fact would make any legal defense of it paper thin. You'd have effectively created a law to sanction one club, who've not even done anything yet. Conceived at a meeting that one club wasn't invited to. The PL already have the power to recalculate the FFP figure based on what it considers a fair market value for any related party transactions so this new rule is not needed anyway. The only thing it would do is entrench the self fulfilling position where the big 6, and Man U in particular, get massive sponsorship deals and everyone else gets a pittance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 I really can’t think of any other business where an owner can’t put in their own money to strengthen that business, or for a competitor prevent them from doing so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordie Ahmed Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Not sure if the details were released but if (unlikely if) the club decided to say fuck them, we'll go ahead with the sponsorship anyway. I assume expulsion from the league or points deduction would be the punishment? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbheed Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 7 minutes ago, SAK said: But as Aramco aren’t owned by PIF this new rule can’t stop them sponsoring us. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN23O0VK Al-Rumayyan is the chairman though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Just now, Geordie Ahmed said: Not sure if the details were released but if (unlikely if) the club decided to say fuck them, we'll go ahead with the sponsorship anyway. I assume expulsion from the league or points deduction would be the punishment? I think it would probably just be that the income wouldn't count towards the FFP calculation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 I'm assuming the King power Leicester sponsorship ends at some point in the not too distant future. Surely they wouldn't then just be allowed to extend it at that point? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 10 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: I really can’t think of any other business where an owner can’t put in their own money to strengthen that business, or for a competitor prevent them from doing so. Just organised crime, which is basically what this is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAK Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 6 minutes ago, Thumbheed said: Al-Rumayyan is the chairman though. I didn’t read anywhere that having the same chairman was blocked, lots of senior managers have directorships across different companies? 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