Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

PIF and RB Sports & Media

Yorkie

by Yorkie
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Geordie Ahmed

Geordie Ahmed

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, geordiesteve710 said:

 

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?

They won't be able to stop the funds is my understanding but when it comes to the FFP calculation, they'll only include the amount they deem to be "fair"

Link to post
Share on other sites
Kid Icarus

Kid Icarus

Posted
Posted (edited)

Weren't Man City just like 'well we'll investigate you then' when UEFA were investigating them for FFP, and there was nothing more said? Surely that happening again is the end game in all this if that was allowed to happen?

 

 

Edited by kisearch

Link to post
Share on other sites
nbthree3

nbthree3

Posted
Posted

Article based on the new rules https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/12/14/premier-league-clubs-must-prove-commercial-deals-represent-fair/

 

Under the new rules, all commercial deals will have to be submitted to the Premier League’s board, currently searching for a new chairman since the departure of Gary Hoffman. 

Those deals will then be scrutinised by an external assessor with independence who will determine whether they represent fair market value. The clubs who submit new deals will also be able to make the case for those deals being legitimate.

Details of all commercial deals agreed by clubs will be held by the Premier League and the data anonymised so that assessors can compare deals across different clubs and different endorsement sectors.

There are also new rules for transparency when it comes to paying managers, players, other coaches and staff. Clubs will have to be able to demonstrate that all key employees are paid out of the club’s approved budget within financial fair play and are not, for example, employed by other companies within the structure that owns the clubs itself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
TRon

TRon

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, nbthree3 said:

Article based on the new rules https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/12/14/premier-league-clubs-must-prove-commercial-deals-represent-fair/

 

Under the new rules, all commercial deals will have to be submitted to the Premier League’s board, currently searching for a new chairman since the departure of Gary Hoffman. 

Those deals will then be scrutinised by an external assessor with independence who will determine whether they represent fair market value. The clubs who submit new deals will also be able to make the case for those deals being legitimate.

Details of all commercial deals agreed by clubs will be held by the Premier League and the data anonymised so that assessors can compare deals across different clubs and different endorsement sectors.

There are also new rules for transparency when it comes to paying managers, players, other coaches and staff. Clubs will have to be able to demonstrate that all key employees are paid out of the club’s approved budget within financial fair play and are not, for example, employed by other companies within the structure that owns the clubs itself.

 

:lol: It's a barely concealed attempt at a stitch up. The ones who have climbed the ladder basically taking a saw to it and making sure no one else climbs up afterwards. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackie Broon

Jackie Broon

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, geordiesteve710 said:

 

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?

 

No, but they couldn't have actually stopped Ashley selling the club to the consortium without their agreement either. What prevents it is that they can impose penalties on the club for breaking their rules, including suspending the club from the league.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Sima

Sima

Posted
Posted
9 minutes ago, nbthree3 said:

Article based on the new rules https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/12/14/premier-league-clubs-must-prove-commercial-deals-represent-fair/

 

Under the new rules, all commercial deals will have to be submitted to the Premier League’s board, currently searching for a new chairman since the departure of Gary Hoffman. 

Those deals will then be scrutinised by an external assessor with independence who will determine whether they represent fair market value. The clubs who submit new deals will also be able to make the case for those deals being legitimate.

Details of all commercial deals agreed by clubs will be held by the Premier League and the data anonymised so that assessors can compare deals across different clubs and different endorsement sectors.

There are also new rules for transparency when it comes to paying managers, players, other coaches and staff. Clubs will have to be able to demonstrate that all key employees are paid out of the club’s approved budget within financial fair play and are not, for example, employed by other companies within the structure that owns the clubs itself.

 

:lol: Nosey cunts.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackie Broon

Jackie Broon

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, kisearch said:

Weren't Man City just like 'well we'll investigate you then' when UEFA were investigating them for FFP, and there was nothing more said? Surely that happening again is the end game in all this if that was allowed to happen?

 

 

 

 

I don't think so, UEFA couldn't do anything in the end because the breach of FFP was outside of their time limit for enforcement.

 

But Man City are still embroiled in a battle with the PL over that, they are going through arbitration over the PL requiring them to disclose documents relating to the leaked emails that led to UEFA's case.

 

 

Edited by Jackie Broon

Link to post
Share on other sites
TRon

TRon

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, healthyaddiction said:

The follow up tweet says the previous deals is across the PL, not based on NUFCs previous deals alone.

 

It's still basically pulling the drawbridge up after some of the Big 6 have established clear superiority via self-sponsored mega funding over the last couple of decades. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Tsunami

Tsunami

Posted
Posted

So, what’s fair market value for the richest club in the world based on other deals for earlier richest clubs? You’ve got to take into account potential growth over the length of any deal and avoid actively restricting this growth by denying sponsorship.

 

You can’t judge our current attractiveness with where we were under Ashley. PIF bought us for the potential and the PL have to allow for competition and for clubs to grow.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Gallowgate Toon

Gallowgate Toon

Posted
Posted
1 hour 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.

Absolutely this. Clubs work in so many aspects of the business into deals now too. 

 

Single commercial deals can span front of shirt, sleeves, front of boards, back of boards, fanzones, digital static & dynamic (which can break down massively), digital takeovers, hospitality coverage, social, pre-roll etc. etc.

 

What level of scrutiny are they expecting to go into here?

Link to post
Share on other sites
maze

maze

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

It's still basically pulling the drawbridge up after some of the Big 6 have established clear superiority via self-sponsored mega funding over the last couple of decades. 

Yepp! But that is what the PL is about, isn’t it? Roll over and Worship the top 6…

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Awaymag

Awaymag

Posted
Posted (edited)

why are you all worried about this?   So basically they are capping sponsorship at the highest level, give or take.   So Man City have a shirt deal for £50M a year say, if NUFC announces new shirt deal and its say £52M then that should be approved as its within the ball park.     If NUFC announce a shirt deal of £300M then that is a different matter , and would likely be rejected.    How that would play out if NUFC wanted to take them to court I dont honestly know.

 

But yes, it is restriction of trade (or glass ceiling) if I have read it right!

 

 

Edited by Awaymag

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bonk

The Bonk

Posted
Posted
10 minutes ago, Gallowgate Toon said:

Absolutely this. Clubs work in so many aspects of the business into deals now too. 

 

Single commercial deals can span front of shirt, sleeves, front of boards, back of boards, fanzones, digital static & dynamic (which can break down massively), digital takeovers, hospitality coverage, social, pre-roll etc. etc.

 

What level of scrutiny are they expecting to go into here?

 

I'm thinking it's more around Money Laundering, Sportswashing, Brand Association (Sponsorship is aligned to PL brand values, etc), but the wording of the statement is highly ambiguous which can work both sides of the equation. Honestly, this feels like the PL serving up platitudes to placate the ruling elite, us and clubs with less financial muscle.

 

Smart money is on the wealthy clubs finding workarounds, other streams of revenue and this only really changes things for clubs with less operating budgets like others have mentioned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bonk

The Bonk

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:

PIF/Saudi need to start flexing their financial muscle a bit. The clubs wait and see approach so far is a little concerning.

 

There will be strategy in place, followed by process and calculated decision making. I have no worries or am concerned about our present and future corporate structure. 

 

The product on the pitch is of concern, however. :lol:  

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Bonk

The Bonk

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, MagCA said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7d7898bc-5cf6-11ec-9cd9-b6f698a4b9a5?shareToken=4d6dcb8910f24526d4239c91fa455667

 

Quote

Club sources have told The Times that Newcastle’s director, Amanda Staveley, sent a lengthy email to all the other 19 clubs last week saying that the sponsorship rules would be legally challengeable as they are anti-competitive. Other club chiefs have taken the email as a threat that Newcastle could launch a legal challenge if their new sponsorship deals are rejected as being too high.

 

:lol: what would have been celebrated under Ashley is now met with recourse and litigation. Fucking get in! 

I will forgo any gifts, donate more to charity than I have this year to stay in the league and continue to be a menace to the cunts in the so called "big 6". Fuck them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...