PIF and RB Sports & Media

[Jackie Broon]

50 minutes ago, gjohnson said:

So essentially the other 13 collectively realised that by stopping our sponsorships they'd be restricting themselves too?

 

Expect a challenge on the fairness of the vote from 5 of the Rich 6 by the end of the day

 

I don't think so, this is driven by the 6. The temporary ban was always temporary until they came up with changes to the rules aimed at scuppering us.

 

From what's reported what they are putting in place is having to agree any related party transaction with the PL before it takes place, the previous rule was that the PL could discount anything over fair market value from the FFP calculation.

 

I expect that any such potential deals will be held up for months / years in legal disputes over what represents fair market value now. Rather than as it was before where we could have just signed them and then had that argument later.

[Fantail Breeze]

So is this good news or bad news?

[TRon]

5 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I don't think so, this is driven by the 6. The temporary ban was always temporary until they came up with changes to the rules aimed at scuppering us.

 

From what's reported what they are putting in place is having to agree any related party transaction with the PL before it takes place, the previous rule was that the PL could discount anything over fair market value from the FFP calculation.

 

I expect that any such potential deals will be held up for months / years in legal disputes over what represents fair market value now. Rather than as it was before where we could have just signed them and then had that argument later.

 

To the courts it is then. 

[Jackie Broon]

It's expected news but depending on how they've gone about it could fuck our ability to bring in money from sponsorship in the short / medium term. If the PL have to sign it off before we can agree a deal it could be like the O&D test all over again.

[geordiesteve710]

7 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I don't think so, this is driven by the 6. The temporary ban was always temporary until they came up with changes to the rules aimed at scuppering us.

 

From what's reported what they are putting in place is having to agree any related party transaction with the PL before it takes place, the previous rule was that the PL could discount anything over fair market value from the FFP calculation.

 

I expect that any such potential deals will be held up for months / years in legal disputes over what represents fair market value now. Rather than as it was before where we could have just signed them and then had that argument later.

See what I don't understand about this is how the PL has jurisdiction to dictate who can or can't sponsor NUFC, as opposed to whether that money is used to give NUFC an unfair advantage.

 

Eg Aramco agree a massive sponsorship deal and the club decide to piss it away on solid gold sprouts at the xmas party (or something else as frivolous/ludicrous) then what business is that of the PL?

[TRon]

5 minutes ago, geordiesteve710 said:

See what I don't understand about this is how the PL has jurisdiction to dictate who can or can't sponsor NUFC, as opposed to whether that money is used to give NUFC an unfair advantage.

 

Eg Aramco agree a massive sponsorship deal and the club decide to piss it away on solid gold sprouts at the xmas party (or something else as frivolous/ludicrous) then what business is that of the PL?

 

The PL are ultimately representatives of the football league clubs I guess, and there are 6 clubs in particular who think they are the league's benefactors, and thus dictate PL policy to the 'officials'. 

[midds]

Fuck it, announce the deal, spend the money and argue about it later. After the way the PL caved in October it's the last thing they want. Tugging the forelock and asking if we have permission to sign new deals? Fuck that and fuck them. 

[FloydianMag]

10 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

It's expected news but depending on how they've gone about it could fuck our ability to bring in money from sponsorship in the short / medium term. If the PL have to sign it off before we can agree a deal it could be like the O&D test all over again.

I haven’t read the Telegraph article (firewall) however someone on twitter indicated it would be an independent body of so called experts, whether that’s right or not who knows.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by FloydianMag

[Fantail Breeze]

1 minute ago, midds said:

Fuck it, announce the deal, spend the money and argue about it later. After the way the PL caved in October it's the last thing they want. Tugging the forelock and asking if we have permission to sign new deals? Fuck that and fuck them. 

 

If we breach the rules, we can just ask for a telling off and 1/6 contribution of a £20m fine like occurred with the ESL.

[Jackie Broon]

2 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

I haven’t read the Telegraph article (firewall) however someone on twitter indicated it would be an independent body of so stalled experts, whether that’s right or not who knows.

 

From the torygraph article: "It will be the responsibility of the Premier League legal department to analyse the value of new commercial deals for Newcastle, or any other club, and decide whether they represent fair market value." 

[Happinesstan]

1 hour ago, Kanji said:

I think the new framework is supposed to be announced today, with the clubs now able to submit the sponsor terms to the committee for review and the approvals are supposed to be very swift. 

So, that'll be two years for us then.

[TRon]

12 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

I haven’t read the Telegraph article (firewall) however someone on twitter indicated it would be an independent body of so called experts, whether that’s right or not who knows.

 

 

 

 

I guessing they'll be independent in the same way VAR analysts are independent from PL appointed referees then. 

[McCormick]

Seems like bad news for us; which I suppose was the point.

 

You can see why the dirty 6 want it but really can’t understand what the other teams are getting out of this. It’s basically signing away your hope of one day not being a complete non-entity.

[FloydianMag]

24 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

From the torygraph article: "It will be the responsibility of the Premier League legal department to analyse the value of new commercial deals for Newcastle, or any other club, and decide whether they represent fair market value." 

I’m sure the club will have sought the best legal advice should the PL get involved in any shenanigans. I’m sure the PL will also have sought legal advice too.

 

as someone a month or so posted, four pre season games in Saudi at £30 million a game would help out the club.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by FloydianMag

[Jackie Broon]

6 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

I’m sure the club will have sought the best legal advice should the PL get involved in any shenanigans. I’m sure the PL will also have sought legal advice too.

 

as someone a month or so posted, four pre season games in Saudi at £30 million a game would help out the club.

 

 

 

 

And that would be a related party transaction, that the PL could say is over fair market value.

[geordie_b]

Fine, let them sponsor the womens team, they arent under the remit of the PL

[Dokko]

5 minutes ago, geordie_b said:

Fine, let them sponsor the womens team, they arent under the remit of the PL

 

Play within their rules plus 20%. If they say you can only have 30m sign it for 35m. They aren't going to whinge on and end up in court over 5m to which they'll lose and have to cover costs. Then sign it again next year for 40m. Well you let 35m through and we're a better team now. 

 

 

[TRon]

24 minutes ago, McCormick said:

Seems like bad news for us; which I suppose was the point.

 

You can see why the dirty 6 want it but really can’t understand what the other teams are getting out of this. It’s basically signing away your hope of one day not being a complete non-entity.

 

There's only so many big city clubs who would ever attract the really big sponsorships in the first place, we were one of them and we landed the biggest ones of the lot, and that's what's got the big boys fuming.

 

Leeds or Villa maybe would be other candidates, but is another PIF ever going to come along? 

[Gallowgate Toon]

The majority of clubs have so little common sense or market knowledge when it comes down to their own commercial deals - how the hell are they going to help regulate others? It's nonsense. 

 

Also, sponsorship deals can be structured in many different ways and are often packaged with digital rights where there's currently a shift into valuing fan data etc. Not a chance that can be easily regulated.

[Abacus]

There's no easy way of establishing the market value of a sponsorship, so many factors to consider and it's a unique market. It's basically unworkable, I reckon.

 

The concern is that it needs to be agreed by the PL lawyers, who will indeed take their time and try to tangle, block and obstruct for as long as possible.

 

So I'm agreed with the idea that we just sign something and let them pick the bones out of it after. I mean, what can they do? 

 

A points deduction? Well, I'm fairly confident that's a bit like threatening Kojack with a hair deduction.

[Kid Icarus]

They've all been active participants and lobbyists for the very laissez faire system that's going to ensure their own demise. So now they're all happlessly scrambling around trying to close the door on a juggernaut that's more powerful than all of them combined with the same type of weak reformation they themselves have spent years fighting against and weakening. I'm sure there's a bloke who wrote at length about how this always ends up happening. 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by kisearch

[geordiesteve710]

41 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

And that would be a related party transaction, that the PL could say is over fair market value.

 

This is the bit that I'm still not fully understanding. In the hypothetical scenario above, can the PL stop the funds being paid into the club's bank account if it doesn't agree with the sponsorship deal? Pretty sure that isn't legal.

 

Surely they only have jurisdiction in respect of what the club spends its money on, and by definition that is an argument that can only be had months down the line once the financial statements have been drawn up?

[geordiesteve710]

I'm not trying to be a dick by the way, I genuinely just don't get it.

[TRon]

12 minutes ago, Abacus said:

There's no easy way of establishing the market value of a sponsorship, so many factors to consider and it's a unique market. It's basically unworkable, I reckon.

 

The concern is that it needs to be agreed by the PL lawyers, who will indeed take their time and try to tangle, block and obstruct for as long as possible.

 

So I'm agreed with the idea that we just sign something and let them pick the bones out of it after. I mean, what can they do? 

 

A points deduction? Well, I'm fairly confident that's a bit like threatening Kojack with a hair deduction.

 

I hope these other clubs think they are getting good value throwing good money hiring litigation which will probably only end up making the lawyers richer, and ultimately will probably prove impossible to enforce. 

[McCormick]

27 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

There's only so many big city clubs who would ever attract the really big sponsorships in the first place, we were one of them and we landed the biggest ones of the lot, and that's what's got the big boys fuming.

 

Leeds or Villa maybe would be other candidates, but is another PIF ever going to come along? 

Still have Qatar sniffing around for a PL club, but I see what you mean.