PIF and RB Sports & Media

[Gazzaschicken]

3 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

I think we’ll put this to the test immediately and announce some big deals. Reject them and they’ll be facing another anti competition case. 
 

Isn't the size of the deal comparative to the company its with as well? 

 

Imagine Saudi aramco trying to sponsor us and the Premier league being like "no Mr 1 of the largest companies in the world that's too much money" doesn't paint a very good picture for the epl does it. 

 

I think this is just to appease the big six by putting some flimsy rule in place 

[SAK]

They can’t stop us, go to Saudi Arabia during preseason play a couple of friendlies get paid £200m. Jobs a good un.

[number37]

Yeah, I'm sure the Big Five & Tottenham have played those International Champions Cup friendlies in recent years all over the world for crazy money. 

 

We played Crewe Alexandra at Queen Ethelburga's instead. 

[Manxst]

6 minutes ago, SAK said:

They can’t stop us, go to Saudi Arabia during preseason play a couple of friendlies get paid £200m. Jobs a good un.

Comes under the fair comparison regs I think I saw a previous poster say. 

[madras]

Is there a limit to the amount of "Global partners" a club can have ? Look at Man Utd's list, Aeroflot, Apollo tyres, HCL (Who they ?), is it possible to get round by not having just 1 large sponsor but a loads of smaller ones ?

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by madras

[duo]

2 hours ago, Miggys First Goal said:

Oh well, previous deals are going to fuck us. 
 

 

how do you even agree 'fair market value'?  Utter farce

[Numbers]

The value of something is how much someone is prepared to pay surely, not sure how this would stand up in court.

[Willow]

33 minutes ago, STM said:

Can't even think about this shit when we are going to spend a year in the championship.

 

Agreed, it really puts a downer on everything that normally I'd be super happy about. You never know, we may gan radge in January and win every single remaining game

[Geordie Ahmed]

39 minutes ago, Manxst said:

Comes under the fair comparison regs I think I saw a previous poster say. 

Is that definite? 

 

Not sure how a friendly tournament can be covered? 

 

I mean even if it is then what's to stop us selling a player to a Saudi club for a daft price? They can't regulate the fees clubs pay for players

 

If the owners want to then there will be creative ways around it

[Fantail Breeze]

You’d imagine there will be multiple backdoors, as there are for all of the crappy rules in football.

[Jackie Broon]

9 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

Is that definite? 

 

Not sure how a friendly tournament can be covered? 

 

I mean even if it is then what's to stop us selling a player to a Saudi club for a daft price? They can't regulate the fees clubs pay for players

 

If the owners want to then there will be creative ways around it

 

Well these are the definitions as they were before today:

 

“Associated Party” means a Person that is associated with or related to the Club in the terms detailed below. A Person (or where the Person is an individual, an associate of that Person or a close member of that Person’s family) is an Associated Party in respect of a Club:

 

(a) if that Person:

(i) owns shares or holds a loan interest of any kind in the Club or an entity in the same group of companies as the Club;

(ii) has Control over the Club;

(iii) exercises influence over the Club, or an entity in the same group of companies as the Club; or

(iv) is an Official, Director, consultant or advisor of the Club or an entity in the same group of companies as the Club, or

 

(b) if any of the following conditions apply:

(i) the Person and the Club are members of the same group of companies;

(ii) the Person and the Club, whether directly or indirectly, receive funds of any sort, are controlled, jointly controlled, or influenced by the same government, public or state-funded body or by the same party;

(iii) one entity (or any individual employed by or contracted to that entity) has influence or the ability to exert influence over the other entity;

(iv) one entity is an associate or joint venture of the other entity (or an associate or joint venture of a member of a group of which the other entity is a member);

(v) the Person and the Club are joint ventures of the same third party;

(vi) one entity is a joint venture of a third entity and the other entity is an associate of the third entity;

(vii) the Person and the Club is controlled or jointly controlled by a Person identified in paragraph (a);

(viii) the Person identified in paragraph (a) has influence over the Club or is a member of the key management personnel of the Club (or of a parent of the Club); or

(ix) the Person, or any member of a group of which it is a part, provides key management personnel services to the Club.

 

In considering whether a Person is an Associated Party in respect of a Club, the League will direct its attention to the substance of the relationship and not merely the legal form. References in this Rule to the ability to ‘influence’ an entity include the ability to influence but not control financial and operating policy decision making, whether by share ownership, holding of a loan interest, statute, appointment, employment, agreement or by other means;

 

“Associated Party Transaction” means:

 

(a) an agreement or a transfer of resources, rights, services or obligations, whether directly or indirectly between a Club and an Associated Party, regardless of whether a price has been charged and regardless of whether it is recorded in a written agreement in any form; or

(b) any transaction of any kind that is conducted otherwise than at Arm’s Length, where the total financial value of the consideration (including the fees to be paid, services to be provided and/or value in kind to be supplied) due to the Club is in excess of £1 million in aggregate, whether in relation to an individual Associated Party Transaction or a series of Associated Party Transactions.

 

In considering whether a transaction is an Associated Party Transaction, the League will direct its attention to the substance of the transaction and not merely the legal form;

 

[Thumbheed]

Not sure if I should be concerned but I'm not at all tbh. 

 

We clearly have money to spend irrespective of sponsorship deals, so building success from any initial outlay should increase the value of any forthcoming sponsorship deals in the future. 

 

We already have some of the highest viewing figures in the UK and we're now marketable in one of the richest countries in the world and in all probability will soon have mass global appeal once we start spending some dollar over the next few years. 

 

Should we be on the projectory that we hope to be in 2 or 3 years time, then market value will be in line with the teams we're hoping to eventually compete with no? 

 

What am I missing?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Thumbheed

[et tu brute]

Staveley has already put a shot across the bows with the letter to the other clubs. This will go to the courts (possibly a joint legal submission with Man City) as it’s totally anti-competition and restraint of trade

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by et tu brute

[Wilson]

It's bollocks like.

 

That's pretty much my input.

 

Just blatant foot stamping which doesn't sound like it holds any legal weight....but I know nowt really.  Just sounds like a complete piss take.

[Rafalove]

Same. Don’t have a clue about the legal precedent at all. Apparently our sponsorship is limited to similar sized clubs, so similar to what Villa have. 

[Dr.Spaceman]

How the hell do you determine the size of a club from a legal standpoint?

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

How the hell do you determine the size of a club from a legal standpoint?

It’s daft. Like we could easily show our figures from just before Ashley showing it wasn’t a million miles off Spurs & Arsenal to show our potential income when the club tries to actually make money.

[Dr.Spaceman]

I guess if nowt else it puts an end to the stupid debate of who's bigger than who 

[Wilson]

You can't be sponsored as much as our favourite 6!  To be allowed that you must be as glamourous as our favourite 6!  To be as glamourous as our favourite 6 you must spend like them!  To spend like them you must be worthy of similar levels of sponsorship as them!  

[Scoot]

It amazes me the brass neck these big 6 have like. They don't even try and hide what they're doing. It's unbelievable.

[Guest]

Like who’s to say how much having their sponsor is worth to a Saudi company owned by its national investment fund knowing the publicity they’ll get?

[midds]

Imagine Staveley agreeing a £20m a year shirt sponsorship deal then going back a week later and being forced to renegotiate it and being limited to only coming out with £12m a year. It's fucking ludicrous

[AyeDubbleYoo]

There’s absolutely no way a lawyer from another company can decide what your commercial deals should be worth, surely? Has to be absolutely full of holes. 
 

I mean, I suppose as long as we can spend what Man City have already, it’s cool. 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by AyeDubbleYoo

[McDog]

9 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

There’s absolutely no way a lawyer from another company can decide what your commercial deals should be worth, surely? Has to be absolutely full of holes. 
 

I mean, I suppose as long as we can spend what Man City have already, it’s cool. 

 

 

 

 

 

I think if neither Newcastle nor the premier league do something outrageous nothing bad will come of this. In effect, don't announce a 10 Billion dollar sponsorship deal and the PL shouldn't try and cut in half anything like Man City or Man U is doing. 

[CaliMag]

This and cancelling parachute payments, I a waiting for an emergency meeting to abolish the January transfer window, but just for this season.