PIF and RB Sports & Media

[BlackandWhite]

“True market value” is so widely open to interpretation, too. Who decides “true market value”, how is it assessed, is it assessed the same for everyone, etc. There’s so much to decide what does/doesn’t add/subtract from true market value in the context. Also, what independent market experts will be employed to determine it? 
 

It’s such BS. Imagine the firm I work in being offered a €5 million sponsorship deal in the morning, and the firm down the road from us protest and say “You can’t have that; it makes you more rich than us and gives you an advantage”. We’d laugh in their face, and even joke that they can try sue us for securing a better backing than them.
 

Get fucked is what all these clubs shitting their pants at stronger competition can do.

[midds]

It's a kneejerk decision/rule that's been rushed through without proper thought. Having access to the finest legal minds on the planet means it's either unenforceable or there's some loopholes that can and will be exploited. Quite why the likes of Everton, West Ham, Wolves etc voted this through when it cuts off the cash as they themselves are trying to catch the clutch of clubs above them remains a mystery. They'd actually be better off voting for no restrictions at all then at least they could pump in as much as they wanted but nevermind. Pretty sure the richest people on the planet will have/find a solution to this minor issue, they generally do. 

[et tu brute]

They’re trying to bulldozer this through by using a voting system, which is trying to enforce a rule totally against anti-competition law. I very much expect that the new owners will be enforcing this to the league through legal correspondence, with the threat that any such action is unlawful and will result in immediate lawsuits being filed to the anti-competition law courts. 

[LionOfGosforth]

Yeah who'd have thought PL clubs would ever make a rash decision and rush into something without due care or thought, or the knock-on affect, unheard of. 

[Nobody]

23 hours ago, BlueStar said:

Some of our new Saudi fans confused and appalled in the replies

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone who is against that can fuck right off. Really happy to see the club retweet that like. Would love "I am a footballer and I'm gay" to become a slogan. 

[LRD]

5 hours ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

http://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jan/14/alisher-usmanov-naming-rights-everton-new-stadium

 

It’s mentioned in here but doesn’t state the figure:

 

The club also revealed that the Russian billionaire Alisher Usmanov, a business partner of the majority shareholder Farhad Moshiri, has strengthened his ties with the club after agreeing to pay £30m up front for an exclusive option on naming rights for their new stadium. Usmanov’s holding company USM already sponsors Everton’s training ground.

 

Great, we can sell OPTIONS to rename our stadium, our training ground, the carpark, TV screens, overseas academies, retail outlets.

[Conjo]

I haven't really paid attention to the discussion around sponsorship money, but I'm a bit surprised and confused at how it would be enforced. Surely there's no requirement for any club to disclose commercial deals to other clubs? So if we were to announce a new sponsorship deal without disclosing the value of it, can we just not tell the other clubs that it's within true market value and reject any request for information on the value of the deal?

[Jackie Broon]

23 minutes ago, Conjo said:

I haven't really paid attention to the discussion around sponsorship money, but I'm a bit surprised and confused at how it would be enforced. Surely there's no requirement for any club to disclose commercial deals to other clubs? So if we were to announce a new sponsorship deal without disclosing the value of it, can we just not tell the other clubs that it's within true market value and reject any request for information on the value of the deal?

 

No, the PL rules require clubs to submit accounts with that information each season.

 

The rules allow the PL to discount any income over fair market value from the FFP calculation.

 

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[Conjo]

Understood, thanks for clarifying.

[Abacus]

The world's cameras seem to be on us now, and our profile across the Middle East to name but one whole region, means that sponsorships will have far greater value to start with. You could make arguments all day long about this kind of thing and if challenged could drag it through the courts anyway, I'd guess.

 

To be honest, if the proposal is that any sponsorship deal needs to be with x% of the highest in the league, I'm alright with that. At least it puts us on a more level playing field - so if it's fair, OK.

 

But I wouldn't be surprised if the likes of Liverpool and Man U for instance attempt to argue that they are higher profile and should automatically have a higher sponsorship banding, in a similar way to trying to pull up the drawing re the ESL and always get their Champions League money.

 

At that point, other clubs with ambitions might start to object too. I see a new billionaire has started investing in West Ham as just one example. I can't imagine he'd be delighted that his investment is instantly worth less because there is an inbuilt disadvantage to ever growing his club's worth.

[andyc35i]

I find it rather strange that all the PL clubs have voted to enforce rules that mean the top clubs can never be caught. To grow commercially, you need to buy top players to help market the brand around the world and also to get better on the pitch to further increase your global brand appeal. Nobody has a chance to catch the top four commercially if they can’t be allowed to spend money to get a higher profile.

 

I don’t want us to be like Chelsea and Man City, but I don’t think it’s fair that the league is now a closed shop. There needs to be a happy medium and this proposal is not the way forward 

[mrmojorisin75]

Just now, andyc35i said:

I find it rather strange that all the PL clubs have voted to enforce rules that mean the top clubs can never be caught. To grow commercially, you need to buy top players to help market the brand around the world and also to get better on the pitch to further increase your global brand appeal. Nobody has a chance to catch the top four commercially if they can’t be allowed to spend money to get a higher profile.

 

I don’t want us to be like Chelsea and Man City, but I don’t think it’s fair that the league is now a closed shop. There needs to be a happy medium and this proposal is not the way forward 

 

afaik they haven't voted for anything yet, they've only voted to stop us doing anything for the time being the details beyond the next few weeks need to be ironed out and we're a part of the process

[Jackie Broon]

13 minutes ago, andyc35i said:

I find it rather strange that all the PL clubs have voted to enforce rules that mean the top clubs can never be caught. To grow commercially, you need to buy top players to help market the brand around the world and also to get better on the pitch to further increase your global brand appeal. Nobody has a chance to catch the top four commercially if they can’t be allowed to spend money to get a higher profile.

 

I don’t want us to be like Chelsea and Man City, but I don’t think it’s fair that the league is now a closed shop. There needs to be a happy medium and this proposal is not the way forward 

 

Yeah, it makes absolutely no sense for anyone other than Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs and maybe Chelsea. The rules devalue all of the other clubs and condemns them to being also-rans. They're pulling up the drawbridge on themselves just to prevent another club from competing with the big six.

[mrmojorisin75]

1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Yeah, it makes absolutely no sense for anyone other than Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs and maybe Chelsea. The rules devalue all of the other clubs and condemns them to being also-rans. They're pulling up the drawbridge on themselves just to prevent another club from competing with the big six.

 

You have no idea what the rules will be, calm down.

[Jackie Broon]

1 minute ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

 

You have no idea what the rules will be, calm down.

 

The current FFP rules already have that effect, they just don't seem to have been particularly rigidly enforced.

 

They've already unanimously voted for a temporary rule to ban new related party sponsorship and whatever is proposed at the next meeting will not make FFP any more equitable for the clubs outside of the bix 6.

[mrmojorisin75]

8 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

The current FFP rules already have that effect, they just don't seem to have been particularly rigidly enforced.

 

They've already unanimously voted for a temporary rule to ban new related party sponsorship and whatever is proposed at the next meeting will not make FFP any more equitable for the clubs outside of the bix 6.

 

Again, you don't know this.  I share your skepticism but nothing is fact yet. 

 

Once again I'll repeat if the end product is anything like Edwards suggested it'll be fine, if it's not I would imagine it'll face a legal challenge.

[loki679]

Relegation would be an advantage

[Jackie Broon]

1 minute ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

 

Again, you don't know this.  I share your skepticism but nothing is fact yet. 

 

Once again I'll repeat if the end product is anything like Edwards suggested it'll be fine, if it's not I would imagine it'll face a legal challenge.

 

I'd say that the current rules are fact, they restrict related party sponsorships to fair market value. Clubs outside of the big 6 voted for that, but how could they ever bridge this sort of gap in 'fair market value'? The model of FFP that they have already voted for has already pulled up the drawbridge on them.

 

[mrmojorisin75]

the fuck are you talking about?  there's been some temporary shit put in place cause they've shat themselves, the actual rules haven't been decided on yet and nufc will be part of drawing them up

 

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by mrmojorisin75

[Jackie Broon]

4 minutes ago, mrmojorisin75 said:

the fuck are you talking about?  there's been some temporary shit put in place cause they've shat themselves, the actual rules haven't been decided on yet and nufc will be part of drawing them up

 

 

 

 

No need to get aggressive, I'm talking about the current rules about related party sponsorships have been in place for years:

 

A.1.163. “Related Party Transaction” means a transaction disclosed in a Club’s Annual Accounts as a related party transaction or which would have been disclosed as such except for an exemption under the accounting standards under which the Annual Accounts were prepared;

 

Pursuant to Rules E.18 to E.20, the Board may require further information from the Club including (but not limited to):

 

a) confirmation that Club Own Revenue Uplift has been calculated on a like-for-like basis; and

b) satisfactory evidence that revenue included within the calculation of Club Own Revenue Uplift has not been artificially inflated.

 

In addition, the Board may adjust a Club Own Revenue Uplift by assessing any revenue within it from Related Party Transactions to Fair Market Value. As set out in the definition of Club Own Revenue Uplift (Rule A.1.33), the Board must give the Club the opportunity to make submissions before it does so.

[madras]

17 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

No need to get aggressive, I'm talking about the current rules about related party sponsorships have been in place for years:

 

A.1.163. “Related Party Transaction” means a transaction disclosed in a Club’s Annual Accounts as a related party transaction or which would have been disclosed as such except for an exemption under the accounting standards under which the Annual Accounts were prepared;

 

Pursuant to Rules E.18 to E.20, the Board may require further information from the Club including (but not limited to):

 

a) confirmation that Club Own Revenue Uplift has been calculated on a like-for-like basis; and

b) satisfactory evidence that revenue included within the calculation of Club Own Revenue Uplift has not been artificially inflated.

 

In addition, the Board may adjust a Club Own Revenue Uplift by assessing any revenue within it from Related Party Transactions to Fair Market Value. As set out in the definition of Club Own Revenue Uplift (Rule A.1.33), the Board must give the Club the opportunity to make submissions before it does so.

But how would they argue if, for example, we get in Ten Hag and Overmars, spend 100million in January, because of links with Saudi Arabia become the biggest club in the Middle east and start building a larger following in the far East.......how much are we allowed to be sponsored for then ?

[Jackie Broon]

41 minutes ago, madras said:

But how would they argue if, for example, we get in Ten Hag and Overmars, spend 100million in January, because of links with Saudi Arabia become the biggest club in the Middle east and start building a larger following in the far East.......how much are we allowed to be sponsored for then ?

 

I'm not concerned about us getting around it, I'm sure we will one way or another whatever they do. My point is more about clubs outside of the big six voting in favour of rules that are basically designed to stop them from ever bridging the financial gap to the big 6.

[madras]

Just now, Jackie Broon said:

 

I'm not concerned about us getting around it, I'm sure we will one way or another whatever they do. My point is more about clubs outside of the big six voting in favour of rules that are basically designed to stop them from ever bridging the financial gap to the big 6.

Oh right, see your point. Could it be  more to stop others escaping their mini league to the top mini league possibly ? Though as you say there always seems to be ways round it.

[Jackie Broon]

13 minutes ago, madras said:

Oh right, see your point. Could it be  more to stop others escaping their mini league to the top mini league possibly ? Though as you say there always seems to be ways round it.

 

There will be ways around it for us, we've got the power and wealth of a nation ruled by an absolute monarchy behind us, they'll be able to get unconnected Saudi companies to sponsor us with no paper trail. That's not the case for other clubs owned by rich individuals. I think the clubs outside of the big six are just focussed on being overtaken by us, but they can't see the wood for the trees that the FFP rules as they are only really benefit the big six.

 

 

Edited October 29, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[Dokko]

Wakey wakey