PIF and RB Sports & Media

[Keegans Export]

1 minute ago, madras said:

Fair point but it could be countered with Man City and their huge sponsorship yet they could be relegated next season and it would be a similar situation. Also the investment builds the club which attracts money from outside the clubs "relations".

That's true, the irony of "Profitability and Sustainability Rules" that are punished through points deductions that could then relegate the team/teams in question is not lost on me! 

[FloydianMag]

1 hour ago, madras said:

I'm not so sure the hold up is by the PL as I doubt we'd have had so much trouble with PSR if we could have held that in mitigation.

FMV would still apply, however if City win their case it would remove obstacles the PL are putting in place to prevent other PIF companies from sponsoring us of which there are many. That could be very lucrative for the club.

 

@madras soz quoted the wrong post

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by FloydianMag

[madras]

4 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

FMV would still apply, however if City win their case it would remove obstacles the PL are putting in place to prevent other PIF companies from sponsoring us of which there are many. That could be very lucrative for the club.

I thought other PIF companies could already sponsor us providing they were of a "fair market value" ?

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by madras

[FloydianMag]

2 minutes ago, madras said:

I thought other PIF companies could already sponsor us providing they've were of a "fair market value" ?

That’s exactly what the new APT rules are aimed at, could even include the Gulf region. the new rules are much wider and open to interpretation.

 

 

Edited 3 hours ago by FloydianMag

[madras]

Just now, FloydianMag said:

That’s exactly what the new APT rules are aimed at, could even include the Gulf region.

I thought the new rules were that the onus was on the clubs to prove it rather than the PL to disprove it.

[FloydianMag]

Just now, madras said:

I thought the new rules were that the onus was on the clubs to prove it rather than the PL to disprove it.

They are…….the new APT rules are much more onerous and wide ranging. RPT is, as I understand common practice in business as long as accountancy rules are followed and any transactions are transparent they can’t be prevented.

 

Mind I’m not an expert by any stretch of the imagination, just my take on things that I’ve read.

[et tu brute]

4 minutes ago, madras said:

I thought the new rules were that the onus was on the clubs to prove it rather than the PL to disprove it.

Is it not the people who are providing the sponsorship have to prove it

[madras]

22 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Is it not the people who are providing the sponsorship have to prove it

Possibly. It's just that the way it was reported at the time it was an extra restriction but not one that would open the floodgates if it wasn't there.

[OCK]

Our ownership is a Tory/Saudi powerhouse

[FloydianMag]

2 minutes ago, OCK said:

Our ownership is a Tory/Saudi powerhouse

There’s not many working class folks who own major clubs in the PL or in Europe, it is what it is………..unless Brexit Jim at Man U is working class, he did support Labour I believe at the GE

[FloydianMag]

 

[Abacus]

3 hours ago, madras said:

I'm sure it was reported that they were only challenging the latest changes, not the concept of FMV as regards sponsorships entirely.

Both things were reported. But even if it was just the latest changes being challenged, it still makes the original ones all but unenforceable I'd say.

 

To my mind, there is no open market benchmark you could use to value a related party sponsorship, or indeed any sponsorship. So no basis for the PL to challenge them in a situation where they might have to, especially where there is no burden of proof on the clubs to prove it and that burden lands on the PL instead.

 

I'd guess they knew that, hence the rule changes.

 

It's the same argument re player transfers - what a player is worth to one club is totally different to what they would be to another. It's not like selling a hotel, say, where you can have other bidders and thus be able to prove it.

 

You aren't dealing with an open market in either situation.

 

Edit - At that point, PSR itself comes crashing down for some clubs, as do the new revenue rules. I'm not sure I'd want that either to be honest. Except that the whole original stated purpose of all these tests was to stop clubs being exploited by their owners and that seems to have gotten lost.

 

 

Edited 1 hour ago by Abacus

[Keegans Export]

13 minutes ago, Abacus said:

Both things were reported. But even if it was just the latest changes being challenged, it still makes the original ones all but unenforceable I'd say.

 

To my mind, there is no open market benchmark you could use to value a related party sponsorship, or indeed any sponsorship. So no basis for the PL to challenge them in a situation where they might have to, especially where there is no burden of proof on the clubs to prove it and that burden lands on the PL instead.

 

I'd guess they knew that, hence the rule changes.

 

It's the same argument re player transfers - what a player is worth to one club is totally different to what they would be to another. It's not like selling a hotel, say, where you can have other bidders and thus be able to prove it.

 

You aren't dealing with an open market in either situation.

Our own deal with Adidas is an example. There's no doubt that the clubs history with Adidas means a kit deal is worth more to them than it would be to Nike, Umbro etc.