PIF and RB Sports & Media

[Keegans Export]

8 hours ago, Boey_Jarton said:

"Clubs will have to show multiple offers of similar value"

 

This is not how business works. A sponsorship deal to one party does not necessarily have the same intangible value that it does to another party. It is comparing apples with pears.

 

A Saudi firm may see a lot of value in associating it's brand with a team that is Saudi owned and so will benefit from that exposure. Ryan Reynolds various brands benefit from the synergies created from sponsoring Wrexham.

 

At the risk of being an accountancy bore, the value of an intangible asset is the incremental cashflows that it may generate to your company and has nothing to do with what another company might be willing to pay for it. 

 

 

 

Our deal with Adidas is a great example.

 

The history between the club and Adidas and the nostalgia element amongst the fan base means that Adidas will inevitably make more money from NUFC than Nike, Umbro etc would have, therefore the deal has more value to Adidas than it would any of those companies.

[Whitley mag]

Think the club always knew they’d have to fight their corner at some point, these owners aren’t that clever and collusion will bite them on the arse, it’s just when we decide to pull the trigger.

 

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by Whitley mag

[GeordieDazzler]

I think their fear of us abusing the rules is understandable but long term these actions probably help us. 
 

We continue to build sustainably and it makes us a lot harder to get rid of. We’re a unique prospect as we’ve got a lot of room for natural growth. This isn’t like Saudi trying to turn Bournemouth or similar into a mega club. 

[madras]

2 hours ago, GeordieDazzler said:

I think their fear of us abusing the rules is understandable but long term these actions probably help us. 
 

We continue to build sustainably and it makes us a lot harder to get rid of. We’re a unique prospect as we’ve got a lot of room for natural growth. This isn’t like Saudi trying to turn Bournemouth or similar into a mega club. 

I'm not sure about that. Isn't their  ad hoc  changing of the rules mid season just as much of an abuse ? 

 

I'm just waiting for premiership prize money and tv money to be divided up on co efficient terms like Champs league money.

 

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by madras

[GeordieDazzler]

5 minutes ago, madras said:

I'm not sure about that. Isn't their  ad hoc  changing of the rules mid season just as much of an abuse ? 

 

I'm just waiting for premiership prize money and tv money to be divided up on co efficient terms like Champs leafue money.

 

 

 

You'd never get an majority vote for that. It would be full turkeys for Christmas. 

[Boey_Jarton]

3 hours ago, FloydianMag said:

I watched the Back Pages on Sky Sports News last night, Hope was on and he expects a ban on loan deals to happen but what he did say was ‘clubs will have to show multiple offers of similar value’ being the the one that stands on the toes of Competition Law and we haven’t heard the last of that one.

 

Hope is a bit of a twat at times however it looks like if the club is going to take any legal action that’s the battle they’ve chosen.

I think that is right because the new rules that Hope alluded to ('multiple offers of similar value') would not stand up in any court because they make no economic sense. I don't think this is one to worry about at all. 

 

It can be argued that the loan ruling is also on dodgy grounds (although this one is less clear as the loan of players is very specific to football).

 

It is highly unusual to restrict trade between two willing parties conducting normal and legal business activity (e.g. the loan of a player). It is even more unusual for a market participant to create the particular rules that restrict the trading activity of the competition (and potentially benefit from that restriction).

 

I imagine the club have employed lawyers to debate this point and their initial tactic might be to suggest that any temporary ban is illegal, and Newcastle will seek redress if implemented. They could push the premier league to postpone any rule changes until the summer, at which point, I might expect the club to lobby for the rule to restrict loans between connected clubs, only if they do not represent fair value.

 

Of course, the fair value of a loan is very difficult to prove (much more so than a permanent transfer) and is also an easier way to circumvent FFP, which is why this is (with some justification to be fair) a contentious issue for other clubs. 

 

 

 

 

[FloydianMag]

7 minutes ago, Boey_Jarton said:

I think that is right because the new rules that Hope alluded to ('multiple offers of similar value') would not stand up in any court because they make no economic sense. I don't think this is one to worry about at all. 

 

It can be argued that the loan ruling is also on dodgy grounds (although this one is less clear as the loan of players is very specific to football).

 

It is highly unusual to restrict trade between two willing parties conducting normal and legal business activity (e.g. the loan of a player). It is even more unusual for a market participant to create the particular rules that restrict the trading activity of the competition (and potentially benefit from that restriction).

 

I imagine the club have employed lawyers to debate this point and their initial tactic might be to suggest that any temporary ban is illegal, and Newcastle will seek redress if implemented. They could push the premier league to postpone any rule changes until the summer, at which point, I might expect the club to lobby for the rule to restrict loans between connected clubs, only if they do not represent fair value.

 

Of course, the fair value of a loan is very difficult to prove (much more so than a permanent transfer) and is also an easier way to circumvent FFP, which is why this is (with some justification to be fair) a contentious issue for other clubs. 

 

 

 

 

I believe that the club employed Andy Devine, a lawyer of some standing especially with regard to sports and regulations, hopefully he’ll attend the PL meeting later this month. I can see CAT being involved, again, should the club legally challenge any new rules they put in place.

[David Edgar]

45 minutes ago, Boey_Jarton said:

I think that is right because the new rules that Hope alluded to ('multiple offers of similar value') would not stand up in any court because they make no economic sense. I don't think this is one to worry about at all. 

 

It can be argued that the loan ruling is also on dodgy grounds (although this one is less clear as the loan of players is very specific to football).

 

It is highly unusual to restrict trade between two willing parties conducting normal and legal business activity (e.g. the loan of a player). It is even more unusual for a market participant to create the particular rules that restrict the trading activity of the competition (and potentially benefit from that restriction).

 

I imagine the club have employed lawyers to debate this point and their initial tactic might be to suggest that any temporary ban is illegal, and Newcastle will seek redress if implemented. They could push the premier league to postpone any rule changes until the summer, at which point, I might expect the club to lobby for the rule to restrict loans between connected clubs, only if they do not represent fair value.

 

Of course, the fair value of a loan is very difficult to prove (much more so than a permanent transfer) and is also an easier way to circumvent FFP, which is why this is (with some justification to be fair) a contentious issue for other clubs. 

 

 

 

 

 

Love proper knowledgeable posts like this.

[FloydianMag]

3 minutes ago, David Edgar said:

 

Love proper knowledgeable posts like this.

Agreed.

[madras]

2 hours ago, GeordieDazzler said:

You'd never get an majority vote for that. It would be full turkeys for Christmas. 

You mean like the FMV rules passed ? Like the TV money carve up ? Like the Champs league coefficients payments. 

 

The other clubs could have stopped them all.

[FloydianMag]

11 minutes ago, madras said:

You mean like the FMV rules passed ? Like the TV money carve up ? Like the Champs league coefficients payments. 

 

The other clubs could have stopped them all.

UCL money is UEFA and PL money all clubs get the same share, only extras are TV appearances a final league positions. There hasn’t been a vote on these well at least to my knowledge.

[RS]

Would be interesting to see a list of things the Premier League weren’t arsed about before NUFC were bought out. Bent clowns. 

[madras]

5 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

UCL money is UEFA and PL money all clubs get the same share, only extras are TV appearances a final league positions. There hasn’t been a vote on these well at least to my knowledge.

There are coefficient payments which basically mean if we win it we could still get less than Real Madrid.

[FloydianMag]

7 minutes ago, madras said:

There are coefficient payments which basically mean if we win it we could still get less than Real Madrid.

Yes but co efficient payments don’t exist in the PL, as far as UCL money I agree.

[TheBrownBottle]

The loan thing doesn’t bother me at all tbh.  I don’t think PL clubs should be loaning players - full stop.  Besides, it is obviously an abusable method of circumventing FFP - at present, there’s nothing stopping a very rich backer from buying good players for a team in a country outside of UEFA, then loaning them back to their English club at far less value

[morpeth mag]

I'd be happy with a ban on loan signings in and out from this point forward. Simple rule with no definition of related clubs or market value required.

[Thomson Mouse]

14 hours ago, madras said:

The Fan's of other clubs wouldnt give a frig about the Saudis if they were skint.

 

Completely agree. The amount of noise about the govt selling several billions in arms and planes to the Saudis compared to what is happening in the football world is chalk and cheese.

[bobbydazzla]

3 hours ago, FloydianMag said:

I believe that the club employed Andy Devine, a lawyer of some standing especially with regard to sports and regulations, hopefully he’ll attend the PL meeting later this month. I can see CAT being involved, again, should the club legally challenge any new rules they put in place.

John Devine

 

Top sports lawyer, Newcastle fan, from Denton Burn

 

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by bobbydazzla

[FloydianMag]

11 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

John Devine

 

Top sports lawyer, Newcastle fan, from Denton Burn

 

 

 

I realised I’d got his first name wrong, I knew a lad called Andy Devine years a go, must have had a brain fart!! Him and Nick De Marco would be a formidable team in any legal proceedings.

[madras]

3 hours ago, FloydianMag said:

Yes but co efficient payments don’t exist in the PL, as far as UCL money I agree.

I was pointing out that there are various other ways the rich have got their way and the other clubs haven't stood up to it, proba ly for fear of being completely cut off if they dont accept it. With the TV money it's still massively skewed f9r example in the 21/22 season Man City got 146mill and Norwich got 93mill.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/240912/broadcasting-payments-to-clubs-in-the-english-premier-league/

 

 

[FloydianMag]

5 minutes ago, madras said:

I was pointing out that there are various other ways the rich have got their way and the other clubs haven't stood up to it, proba ly for fear of being completely cut off if they dont accept it. With the TV money it's still massively skewed f9r example in the 21/22 season Man City got 146mill and Norwich got 93mill.

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/240912/broadcasting-payments-to-clubs-in-the-english-premier-league/

 

 

Sorry, you mentioned co efficient payments and the don’t exist in the PL. All clubs receive an equal cut of the PL money. The rest is made up of prize money for where you finished in the league and of course money per game when your match is live on TV.

 

Obviously teams at the top of the league tend to be on TV the most so get more revenue but there is no co efficient that awards extra money based on history years in the PL unlike UCL money. Didn’t Ceferin the UEFA head describe the PL as the most egalitarian league in Europe about how revenues are shared?

[madras]

3 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Sorry, you mentioned co efficient payments and the don’t exist in the PL. All clubs receive an equal cut of the PL money. The rest is made up of prize money for where you finished in the league and of course money per game when your match is live on TV.

 

Obviously teams at the top of the league tend to be on TV the most so get more revenue but there is no co efficient that awards extra money based on history years in the PL unlike UCL money. Didn’t Ceferin the UEFA head describe the PL as the most egalitarian league in Europe about how revenues are shared?

I mentioned coefficients, fair market values and TV money. 3 separate things when the rich have got their way. I never said coefficients were in the prem or they affected prem tv money.

 

That a deal can be worked out where the disparity is so much keeps the rich getting rich and becomes self perpetual.

 

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by madras

[FloydianMag]

9 minutes ago, madras said:

I mentioned coefficients, fair market values and TV money. 3 separate things when the rich have got their way. I never said coefficients were in the prem or they affected prem tv money.

 

That a deal can be worked out where the disparity is so much keeps the rich getting rich and becomes self perpetual.

 

 

 

So how are ‘the other clubs, going to alter the co efficient for UCL monies? UCL money is UEFA’s alone to determine. As for co efficients in the PL, the turkeys certainly won’t vote for Christmas as was pointed out by another poster.

[madras]

39 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

So how are ‘the other clubs, going to alter the co efficient for UCL monies? UCL money is UEFA’s alone to determine. As for co efficients in the PL, the turkeys certainly won’t vote for Christmas as was pointed out by another poster.

I never mentioned co efficients in the PL. Just separate occasions when the rich got their way. Other clubs would constitute the likes of us, Rangers etc. Those outside of the Man Utds Man City's, Liverpool etc who pushed for co efficient payments as a sop to stop them going to a super league.

 

I'm just repeating myself now.

 

 

Edited November 10, 2023 by madras

[BShearer]

we need to spend next week trying to find some friends in PL to make sure this anti Newcastle thing cannot get passed.

 

then in January we need to loan 2-3 great players from Saudi league.