PIF and RB Sports & Media

[TheBrownBottle]

2 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Well those clubs that proposed the APT rules must have thought such a rule was needed to strangle our growth. It’s not known as the Newcastle Rule’ for nothing.

It does hamper us.  But it doesn’t mean ‘all bets are off’.  

[FloydianMag]

3 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Because they’re going after the associated party rules, not FMV - there were already rules in place re FMV.  A lot seem to be assuming that a Man City victory means that we can suddenly get sponsorships at a vastly inflated level.  We won’t be able to do that. 

They were attempting to prevent us from getting increased numbers of sponsors from PIF companies and the wider Gulf area, if City win they can no longer do that.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2024 by FloydianMag

[timeEd32]

That Wyness stuff is so dumb. He was on a podcast where he mentioned that Henry and PIF were together to negotiate PGA/LIV stuff and also that there have been some comments from NUFC recently about the rules / ceiling, etc. And the rest is very much 2+2=13.

[Scoot]

18 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Because they’re going after the associated party rules, not FMV - there were already rules in place re FMV.  A lot seem to be assuming that a Man City victory means that we can suddenly get sponsorships at a vastly inflated level.  We won’t be able to do that. 

 

From what's been reported though, unless I've completely misread it it several times, City are looking to scrap the ATP rules as a whole, not just the latest set if rules. If that's the case FMV rules go out the window too. 

 

From the Times.

 

https://archive.is/LeeIS

 

At next week’s hearing, which has provoked bitter divisions between clubs, City will attempt to end the league’s Associated Party Transaction (APT) rules, which they claim are unlawful, and seek damages from the Premier League.

Introduced in December 2021 in the wake of the Saudi-led takeover of Newcastle United, the rules are designed to maintain the competitiveness of the Premier League by preventing clubs from inflating commercial deals with companies linked to their owners. The rules dictate that such transactions have to be independently assessed to be of “fair market value” (FMV).

 

If ATP rules go, FMV goes with it. It's the same thing.

 

 

And finally.

 

If City are successful in their claim — and some rival clubs fear they will be — it could enable the richest clubs to value their sponsorship deals without independent assessment for the league, vastly boosting the amount of money they can raise and therefore giving them far greater sums to spend on players.

 

 

Edited September 24, 2024 by Scoot

[Izakaya]

5 hours ago, Dokko said:

Pif are just waiting on the citeh court cases to make their next move. If the closer sponsor one comes back in citehs favour, then it's shackles off. No excuses to pump money in and blow psr out the water.

 

If citeh win and we keep the same tactic, then people are correct, we're not a priority and never will be. 

 

Any evidence for this other than pure hope and faith?

[Keegans Export]

16 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It isn’t the magic bullet that most seem to be assuming it is.  ‘Fair market value’ rules for sponsorship will remain in place

So what's the benefit of City taking this to arbitration? 

 

My understanding was that related-party transactions were already assessed for FMV, so the Saudi's couldn't just stick "PIF" on our training kit and say its a £50m/year deal. The changes made in December 2021 extended that rule to associated parties (worth over £1m). So what's the difference? 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, FloydianMag said:

They were attempting to prevent us from getting increased numbers of sponsors from PIG companies and the wider Gulf area, if City win they can no longer do that.

We already can do that; it is the value of the sponsorships that cause the issue.

 

UEFA’s rules re FMV also cause a problem, too - the PL could remove all the shackles and the clubs would still need to abide by UEFA’s rules  

[Likelylad]

9 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

We already can do that; it is the value of the sponsorships that cause the issue.

 

UEFA’s rules re FMV also cause a problem, too - the PL could remove all the shackles and the clubs would still need to abide by UEFA’s rules  

Aye but UEFA seem more likely to hammer you with fines and not point deductions. 

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

So what's the benefit of City taking this to arbitration? 

 

My understanding was that related-party transactions were already assessed for FMV, so the Saudi's couldn't just stick "PIF" on our training kit and say its a £50m/year deal. The changes made in December 2021 extended that rule to associated parties (worth over £1m). So what's the difference? 

Related party transactions used to have to be declared by the clubs in their accounts (Man City didn’t declare Etihad, for example).  The rule change introduced for us was that they have to be signed off by the PL before agreement is finalised.

 

Man City weren’t even going after this change - they’re going after the change from earlier this year, which changed the burden of proof from the PL to the clubs themselves - so Man City would now have to prove that the deals were ‘FMV’ or face potential sanctions, rather than the PL simply blocking.

 

There’s nothing to suggest that rule book is about to be overturned. 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, Likelylad said:

Aye but UEFA seem more likely to hammer you with fines and not point deductions. 

European bans and transfer sanctions can happen too - but you’re right, points deductions aren’t on the board.

[timeEd32]

That burden of proof being on the club is a pain though. Like I don't even know if we get the SELA deal through under these rules. 

 

I'm not even trying to guess what might change if City are successful though because, in theory, multiple layers could get peeled back. If the PL wins it will be pretty depressing as no one else is either big enough or interested enough to challenge anything.

[Stifler]

Just now, timeEd32 said:

That burden of proof being on the club is a pain though. Like I don't even know if we get the SELA deal through under these rules. 

 

I'm not even trying to guess what might change if City are successful though because, in theory, multiple layers could get peeled back. If the PL wins it will be pretty depressing as no one else is either big enough or interested enough to challenge anything.

1,000 companies expressed an interest in becoming our front of shirt sponsor. 800 followed it up with further talks.

100 companies made an offer, that was whittled down to the highest offers, that was whittled down to 3, which were of equal value, SELA was chosen because they wanted to partner with us on various projects, where as the others just wanted to pay money.

[vic]

There were thumbs up outside London’s International Dispute Resolution Centre last week from the senior clerk of the Blackstone legal chambers whose vastly remunerated KC, Lord Pannick, is leading the club’s case. And yes, Pep Guardiola is right — many clubs are salivating at the thought of City losing. Printed, in black and white, in the 93-page report of City’s last legal hearing, is the list of nine clubs who lodged demands that the club be allowed no stay of execution if convicted: Arsenal, Burnley, Chelsea, Leicester City, Liverpool, Manchester United, Newcastle, Tottenham and Wolves.

[Stifler]

1 minute ago, vic said:

There were thumbs up outside London’s International Dispute Resolution Centre last week from the senior clerk of the Blackstone legal chambers whose vastly remunerated KC, Lord Pannick, is leading the club’s case. And yes, Pep Guardiola is right — many clubs are salivating at the thought of City losing. Printed, in black and white, in the 93-page report of City’s last legal hearing, is the list of nine clubs who lodged demands that the club be allowed no stay of execution if convicted: Arsenal, Burnley, Chelsea, Leicester City, Liverpool, Manchester United, Newcastle, Tottenham and Wolves.

Why the fuck would we sign that?

[vic]

Exactly.

[Jackie Broon]

2 minutes ago, Stifler said:

Why the fuck would we sign that?

 

Because we are complying with the PSR and it would be one less club in front of us and if they get hammered they will probably end up challenging the legality of the PSR.

 

 

[FloydianMag]

12 minutes ago, vic said:

There were thumbs up outside London’s International Dispute Resolution Centre last week from the senior clerk of the Blackstone legal chambers whose vastly remunerated KC, Lord Pannick, is leading the club’s case. And yes, Pep Guardiola is right — many clubs are salivating at the thought of City losing. Printed, in black and white, in the 93-page report of City’s last legal hearing, is the list of nine clubs who lodged demands that the club be allowed no stay of execution if convicted: Arsenal, Burnley, Chelsea, Leicester City, Liverpool, Manchester United, Newcastle, Tottenham and Wolves.

Burnley…………they’re in the Championship!!

[FloydianMag]

5 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Because we are complying with the PSR and it would be one less club in front of us and if they get hammered they will probably end up challenging the legality of the PSR.

 

 

I hope so…

[timeEd32]

They are a guaranteed top 4/6 finisher. Everyone with European aspirations would love to see them blown away with points deductions. It's saying "if they are found guilty then do not be lenient."

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, Stifler said:

Why the fuck would we sign that?

Because we’re complying with the rules - and they’ve been accused of some serious breaches?

 

Those running PIF would need to be dumber than a bag of bricks if they bought the club completely unaware of the rules and regs; and the Man City breaches were already public at that point

[TheBrownBottle]

It’s worth thinking about that we didn’t actually lodge any demand for punishment - we could have sat passively and waited for judgment.

 

I’m not at all convinced that PIF are playing 4D chess

[duo]

What I don't get it why no movement on a new training ground - ours is way behind.  PSR has zero impact on preventing PIF to invest in a new state of the art ground.  That alone would have a huge impact on attracting the best players (Current / Future).

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, duo said:

What I don't get it why no movement on a new training ground - ours is way behind.  PSR has zero impact on preventing PIF to invest in a new state of the art ground.  That alone would have a huge impact on attracting the best players (Current / Future).

Man City’s facilities cost £200m.  Our tart up of the current facilities would likely be 1%.

 

It is one solution to the question. 

[duo]

1 minute ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Man City’s facilities cost £200m.  Our tart up of the current facilities would likely be 1%.

 

It is one solution to the question. 

A new Training Ground for me is a no brainer if PIF really wanted to show they meant business.  Yes they have spent about £300mil on players but I read Newcastle is currently worth £1Billion - so they've already doubled their investment.

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, duo said:

A new Training Ground for me is a no brainer if PIF really wanted to show they meant business.  Yes they have spent about £300mil on players but I read Newcastle is currently worth £1Billion - so they've already doubled their investment.

Agreed - and actions speak much louder than words.  So far, zilch.

 

We've spent over half a billion on transfers tbf - but that doesn't mean half a billlion has been invested.