et tu brute Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 Our ownership is a Tory/Saudi powerhouse Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 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 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abacus Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 (edited) 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 July 17 by Abacus Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 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. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 3 hours ago, Keegans Export said: 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. Aye - Adidas is uniquely positioned to leverage the Keegan & SBR nostalgia eras into the next golden era of Newcastle that other sponsors aren't. Which is in large part why our deal would be bigger than a deal for Villa. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 1 hour ago, The College Dropout said: Aye - Adidas is uniquely positioned to leverage the Keegan & SBR nostalgia eras into the next golden era of Newcastle that other sponsors aren't. Which is in large part why our deal would be bigger than a deal for Villa. Do you know how much the Villa Adidas deal is worth? I had a look on Villa Talk and they’re complaining that there kit launch has been delayed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 (edited) 33 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: Do you know how much the Villa Adidas deal is worth? I had a look on Villa Talk and they’re complaining that there kit launch has been delayed. Around £20m a season IIRC. Edited July 17 by Jackie Broon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 On 13/07/2024 at 14:56, rutland said: The old one or the new one she had fitted? Realise this is a few days ago but who and what the fuck is this? Fucking dickhead. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 2 minutes ago, Doc said: Realise this is a few days ago but who and what the fuck is this? Fucking dickhead. Mackem prick, we have had a little influx of them recently. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 He still here after that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 He disappeared Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 1 minute ago, Doc said: He still here after that? Looks like it as he's been online today Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 7 minutes ago, et tu brute said: Looks like it as he's been online today I must be getting confused with one of the other ones Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 You must be busy to be fair Midds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 For what it’s worth🤷♂️ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 1 minute ago, FloydianMag said: For what it’s worth🤷♂️ Doesn't "we had a good showing" not normally mean we put up a good fight but got beat ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 1 minute ago, madras said: Doesn't "we had a good showing" not normally mean we put up a good fight but got beat ? I’m sure it would have leaked to the media by now if that was the case. I took it as ‘we had a good showing’ and await the decision. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 Looks like it has well overrun, as started 5 weeks ago if I remember correctly and was scheduled to last two weeks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 11 minutes ago, et tu brute said: Looks like it has well overrun, as started 5 weeks ago if I remember correctly and was scheduled to last two weeks The hearing probably only took two weeks but presumably it can take ages for a decision to be made by the arbitrators. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 Just now, Keegans Export said: The hearing probably only took two weeks but presumably it can take ages for a decision to be made by the arbitrators. They reckon 6-8 weeks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 Didn't they say we probably wouldn't hear the verdict? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdm Posted July 17 Share Posted July 17 Just now, duo said: Didn't they say we probably wouldn't hear the verdict? I mean the ramifications either way would suggest we’ll hear the verdict 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