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...
Unbelievable Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Just now, Nobody said: 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? All the other owners will have secured long term deals before voting through this new rule man. They’re so pathetically transparent. Can’t wait until our owners take the PL and the 18 clubs who voted in favour to court for anti-competitive behaviour and see them all slapped with multi million pound penalties. There’s absolutely no way this will stand any legal challenge at all. What are they even thinking? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Just now, Unbelievable said: All the other owners will have secured long term deals before voting through this new rule man. They’re so pathetically transparent. Can’t wait until our owners take the PL and the 18 clubs who voted in favour to court for anti-competitive behaviour and see them all slapped with multi million pound penalties. There’s absolutely no way this will stand any legal challenge at all. What are they even thinking? They've categorically stated it "isn't a knee jerk reaction to the Newcastle takeover", I'm happy to take their vested interest word for it and put this all down as the biggest coincidence of all time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 It doesn't matter whatever they vote. What matters is legislation in the UK which supercedes any rule of any organisation within its territories. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Honestly don't know what they're thinking or trying to do here. I get the fact they're trying to stop SA from investing into Newcastle directly, that's apparent and obvious. It also means that bringing in this rule also means that none of the current owners can do the same to their own clubs either. The rule has to apply to all clubs so every single sponsorship deal at every club needs to be looked at. It cuts that route off funds for all clubs. If 1 club finds a workaround then the rest just follow suit and copy. If no clubs find the workaround then each club is no better off for having a minted owner. It's fucking bullshit and money will win out, as always. Loopholes will be there and when you're able to hire the smartest legal minds on the planet then there will be a solution. Money wins. Every fucking day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbheed Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 (edited) 10 minutes ago, SAK said: I didn’t read anywhere that having the same chairman was blocked, lots of senior managers have directorships across different companies? The Guardian has it down as the clubs voting to "temporarily ban commercial arrangements that involve pre-existing business relationships". As for the point about senior managers having directorship over a number of companies, well I assume the ban would include them too, but not preexisting commercial arrangements, conveniently enough. Suppose the bottom line is though that this won't stand up to any sort of scrutiny anyway. Edited October 19, 2021 by Thumbheed Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manxst Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10109455/Premier-League-taking-legal-advice-ban-clubs-sponsored-companies-linked-owners.html PL taking legal advice before making the sponsorship ban permanent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest neesy111 Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 I get the feeling the PL will want to help us here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 (edited) Hate that inference that it must be sound because we're the only ones that voted against it from that sky prick How many clubs would have voted against Abramovich and Man City given the chance? 19 probably. "Treason doth ne'er prosper, what's the reason, for if all prosper, none dare call it treason" Its an absolute disgrace, makes a mockery of sport and business but because it suits them, that's fine. Maybe 18 clubs can go after Chelsea and Man City next, I mean why not? if we all agree on a way to stuff them up its sound right. "That bloke that qualified for the 100m final with record times can begrudingly participate in the final but isn't allowed to run as fast as the medal posistions" Edited October 19, 2021 by Wolfcastle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyc35i Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 What’s the point of football now if new owners can’t invest in their business to make that business more successful. In order to sign these bigger commercial deals in the future, you have to spend money to get better players and become successful on the pitch. You can’t get better without spending shit loads of money and no matter how morally corrupt football is now, you can’t just draw a line in the sand and be done with it - that only benefits the richest and top teams and closes off any competition 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