PIF and RB Sports & Media

[mattypnufc]

2 minutes ago, Kasper said:

I'm fine with the sponsorships being limited to actual value. Yeah they're changing it because of us, but still it's a good thing its changing and they're atleast trying to do something to enforce FFP. 

I am and I’m not. If they can apply retrospectively to other clubs who’ve already benefited from it, then yes. But in the same breath, why should we lose out when trying to catch-up with the rest of the league? 

[Kasper]

3 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Weird though that they’ve only tried to enforce FFP since our takeover, fuck the lot of them.

 

I dont think it's "weird". Yeah their reasons for it are selfish, but looking at the bigger picture I think it's necessary for the game.

 

E: Plus I actually have no interest in us splashing 300m in every window and shortcutting our way to the top. Rather see slower controlled development of the club and infrastructure and work our way up there in the next 10 or so years.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by Kasper

[manorpark]

1 minute ago, Kasper said:

 

I dont think it's "weird". Yeah their reasons for it are selfish, but looking at the bigger picture I think it's necessary for the game.

 

Their timing is actually the corrupt thing, which is why they will not be able to get away with it, not at all, wait and see.

[Dokko]

It sounds like the PL know it won't hold up beyond the 5 week suspension unless it's ratified properly and not rushed in to see it as a way to stop 1 club. This means there will be a window of opportunity for us to create deals which they want to block then going forward play by their rules. 

 

If so we may see so daft money coming in to the club very soon.

[Whitley mag]

As long as a fair market value allows us to match the largest deals currently. Even then trying to cap this would be a legal nightmare and put the league at a disadvantage with competitors.

 

More than likely they’ll look to concoct some calculation based on clubs current income, aimed shamelessly at restricting our growth whilst still protecting their income.

 

Anyone who hasn’t got a problem with this hasn’t been paying attention for the last 18 months. They’re corrupt, jealous and now terrified of us.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by Whitley mag

[Jackie Broon]

9 minutes ago, Kasper said:

 

I dont think it's "weird". Yeah their reasons for it are selfish, but looking at the bigger picture I think it's necessary for the game.

 

E: Plus I actually have no interest in us splashing 300m in every window and shortcutting our way to the top. Rather see slower controlled development of the club and infrastructure and work our way up there in the next 10 or so years.

 

 

 

 

I think some kind of financial control is necessary for the game but the current controls are just designed to keep the status quo of the big six. How is anyone out of the big six ever going to be able to consistently compete with them when their sponsorship deals are 5-10x that of the any club outside of the big six. Despite their success Leicester still get nowhere near what the big six get in sponsorship at 'fair market value'. 

 

[STM]

Of course I don't want to get relegated but if it happens and we still manage to completely revamp the academy, training facilities and set up a cogent hierarchy at the club, that's something of a W for me. The on pitch success is inevitable if the former is achieved, to a high spec.

[STM]

So basically,we want our sponsorship to be around the 40m mark for the first couple of years and there is shite all they can do.

[Jackie Broon]

Just now, STM said:

So basically,we want our sponsorship to be around the 40m mark for the first couple of years and there is shite all they can do.

 

I think that will probably be one of the legal battles, the PL will probably say our fair market value for shirt sponsorship is something like £7-10m.

[Whitley mag]

1 minute ago, STM said:

So basically,we want our sponsorship to be around the 40m mark for the first couple of years and there is shite all they can do.

Considering our potential new audience of 40 million in Saudi Arabia I’d say we’d be acting reasonably in accepting that in short term.

 

Anything that forces us to accept less than competitors receive will be deemed anti competitive and met with legal action in my opinion.

 

 

[manorpark]

3 minutes ago, STM said:

So basically,we want our sponsorship to be around the 40m mark for the first couple of years and there is shite all they can do.

 

We want our sponsorship to be at the appropriate and correct levels for our new circumstances, and that is what they will be at.

[Dokko]

Think if we went in at 30m it would be reasonable considering the surge in interest in the club. It puts us just below spurs who we were in par with when Ashley came in. It's also saying OK were best of the rest. For now. 

[STM]

6 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I think that will probably be one of the legal battles, the PL will probably say our fair market value for shirt sponsorship is something like £7-10m.

We always had more followers abroad than Chelsea, City and Spurs pre Ashley. Our catchment in terms of viewers for matches and shirt sales is enormous.

 

It was our previous sponsorship which wasn't proportionate, not the potential new one.

[Jackie Broon]

3 minutes ago, STM said:

We always had more followers abroad than Chelsea, City and Spurs pre Ashley. Our catchment in terms of viewers for matches and shirt sales is enormous.

 

It was our previous sponsorship which wasn't proportionate, not the potential new one.

 

I agree with all of that, but I guarantee that the PL won't. They will make us fight for every penny.

[r0cafella]

It’s funny how much capitalists hate it when they are on the receiving end

[Wandy]

We absolutely should not be accepting anything less than being able to match the current maximum sponsorship amount for each relevant deal. Won't the incoming independent football regulator have an authority on this kind of stuff stuff too?

[Paully]

Absolutely disgusting this

 

 

[Gaztoon]

Anything that could be deemed a restriction of trade will not be allowed.. you can't stop a business making what they can.

 

Telling one club they can make x amount and another they can make y amount.. won't last a day in court.

[GeordieDazzler]

3 minutes ago, Paully said:

Absolutely disgusting this

 

 

Aye but mate we called Bruce a cabbage 

[NE27]

"Poisoned Chalice" "whatever st james' calls itself these days"

 

Fucking dribbling with vitriol. Go fuck yourself 

[cosmic]

How does this Fair Value thingy work? If we can't bring in one big sponsor eg Aramco for say 200M, can we break this down in to 20 smaller sponsors of 10M each? Total will be the same and surely if we can attract multiple sponsors, PL can't stop this...or can they?

[pinkeye]

That Mail Tweet is rotten.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2021 by pinkeye

[NE27]

This is pretty much everyone regarding nufc now...

 

[Nobody]

24 minutes ago, Paully said:

Absolutely disgusting this

 

 

Looks absolutely nothing alike

[Super Duper Branko Strupar]

3 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I think some kind of financial control is necessary for the game but the current controls are just designed to keep the status quo of the big six. How is anyone out of the big six ever going to be able to consistently compete with them when their sponsorship deals are 5-10x that of the any club outside of the big six. Despite their success Leicester still get nowhere near what the big six get in sponsorship at 'fair market value'. 

 

 

 

Love the fact that most of those sponsors outside the "Big 6" are the dodgy, foreign betting sponsors. Deals made to make millions in illegal money mainly in Asian betting markets from dodgy as fuck companies but not even have a presence in the UK.