PIF and RB Sports & Media

[Geordie Ahmed]

2 minutes ago, Decky said:

Do the rest of the 'other 14' clubs not see how these rules could also restrict them, and further cement the top 6 clubs hoovering up all the success in England? This is dressed up as putting a stop to Newcastle, but it's actually putting a stop to anyone closing the gap to the top.

 

If someone with extreme wealth bought Luton tomorrow how long would it take for the owners to grow their commercial revenue and financial fair play limits organically? Far too long for them to even bother trying. There shouldn't be anything wrong with an owner putting their own company on the front of a shirt or sponsoring whatever else they want as long as its not something ludicrous like £100m a season for naming rights of Kenilworth Road. We're closing the barn door after the top 6 horses have bolted. They've abused the rules for years to put themselves lightyears ahead of the rest of the country and now 13 clubs are going to help them stay there.  

Yeah, it seems a lot like Turkeys voting for Christmas 

 

But more fool them, all they can do is slow us down but not really stop us

 

As an example, our sleeve, main shirt and manufacturer was worth approx £15m per season whereas from next season it will be if reports are accurate £72m

 

And then you add in all the other smaller stuff like hair bloke, Saudia etc etc

[Kanji]

8 minutes ago, Decky said:

Do the rest of the 'other 14' clubs not see how these rules could also restrict them, and further cement the top 6 clubs hoovering up all the success in England? This is dressed up as putting a stop to Newcastle, but it's actually putting a stop to anyone closing the gap to the top.

 

If someone with extreme wealth bought Luton tomorrow how long would it take for the owners to grow their commercial revenue and financial fair play limits organically? Far too long for them to even bother trying. There shouldn't be anything wrong with an owner putting their own company on the front of a shirt or sponsoring whatever else they want as long as its not something ludicrous like £100m a season for naming rights of Kenilworth Road. We're closing the barn door after the top 6 horses have bolted. They've abused the rules for years to put themselves lightyears ahead of the rest of the country and now 13 clubs are going to help them stay there.  

 

100% - clubs supporting this are fucking idiots. Essentially, in your example, if Luton Town support this. They are potentially hurting a future sale price of their said club because aforementioned owner with extreme wealth will not be able to underwrite immediate commercial revenue in the near term which will impact what they are able to pay. 

 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Kanji

[midds]

14 minutes ago, Decky said:

The rest of the Premier League clubs really don't like us do they?  They were content enough for Chelsea and City to take the absolute piss for about 20 years now, but are desperate to stop us at every turn whether its advertising or bringing in players. Honestly the whole lot of them can fuck right off. 

Don't need to stop at the rest of the PL tbh, I reckon the rest of the clubs in the country/continent despise us just as much. It's to be expected really, we all know that we're owned lock, stock and barrel by the Saudi regime. A regime that are seen as some of the worst people knocking about as far as human rights are concerned. It's no surprise that others want to throw as many spokes in our wheels as they can and I've already accepted it's going to happen at every turn. It's the rough we need to accept as well as the smooth, we can't have it both ways. 

[The Prophet]

Any of the "other 14" voting for that are just proving what ball-less, ambition-less vessels they are.

[SUPERTOON]

7 minutes ago, midds said:

Don't need to stop at the rest of the PL tbh, I reckon the rest of the clubs in the country/continent despise us just as much. It's to be expected really, we all know that we're owned lock, stock and barrel by the Saudi regime. A regime that are seen as some of the worst people knocking about as far as human rights are concerned. It's no surprise that others want to throw as many spokes in our wheels as they can and I've already accepted it's going to happen at every turn. It's the rough we need to accept as well as the smooth, we can't have it both ways. 

The thing is, that’s not the reason they don’t like us, it’s because of the money, they couldn’t care less about the rest of it imo.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by SUPERTOON

[Kanji]

Handcuff'd cucks. 

[midds]

2 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

The thing is, that’s not the reason they don’t like us, it’s because of the money, they couldn’t care less about the rest of it imo.

 

 

 

Respectfully disagree. There are plenty of rich clubs that don't get rules changed to prevent them from spending their money. We do

 

The nature and behaviour of the owners matters

[Mikky]

So will West Ham now have to buy their stadium outright? It was given to them for free and they make a load of money from it - they’ve been given a competitive advantage .. 

[Decky]

I suspect most fans and clubs couldn't care less about the human rights abuses in Saudi. They just don't want us building a club that will compete with them for their trophies. The lesser clubs don't want another big club to play twice a season.

 

 

Edited November 9, 2023 by Decky

[Conjo]

Fuck it. Can't we just go all in on restrictions?

 

Cap all sponsorships to the highest offer the club with the lowest sponsorship offer gets for all clubs in the league.

 

While we're at it:

- All clubs to receive the same amount of money for TV deals regardless of how often they are televised and where they end up in the table. 

- All ticket income to be pooled together and divided equally between all clubs

- Ban all loans. If you aren't in a position to develop a player, let someone else have him and buy him back later.

- Ban all transfers between related party clubs.

 

[madras]

6 minutes ago, midds said:

Respectfully disagree. There are plenty of rich clubs that don't get rules changed to prevent them from spending their money. We do

 

The nature and behaviour of the owners matters

Because of the amount of money, because we could blow even Man City away. 

 

Had it been the Saudis as is but their wealth was much less than City's then those changes would t have happened or at least not mid season 

[midds]

5 minutes ago, madras said:

Because of the amount of money, because we could blow even Man City away. 

 

Had it been the Saudis as is but their wealth was much less than City's then those changes would t have happened or at least not mid season 

Suppose this is the issue when you get taken over by a set of people who are simultaneously the richest and worst on the planet

 

I completely reject the idea that the hatred and roadblocks are purely because of the wealth of the owners. We're hated because we're owned by an essentially horrible regime. I totally understand why too, it's something we need to accept is going to happen 

[Whitley mag]

2 minutes ago, midds said:

Suppose this is the issue when you get taken over by a set of people who are simultaneously the richest and worst on the planet

 

I completely reject the idea that the hatred and roadblocks are purely because of the wealth of the owners. We're hated because we're owned by an essentially horrible regime. I totally understand why too, it's something we need to accept is going to happen 

You think Fenway and Levy are bothered about human rights ? It’s been a closed shop amongst the big 6 the yanks couldn’t give a shit about human rights. 
 

You give them way to much credit.

[midds]

2 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

You think Fenway and Levy are bothered about human rights ? It’s been a closed shop amongst the big 6 the yanks couldn’t give a shit about human rights. 
 

You give them way to much credit.

I was originally referring to fans of all other clubs tbh. I'm sure Liverpool and Spurs want to limit us as much as possible and would have done so regardless of ownership but my post was mainly about our general unpopularity across the sport in general. We're now hated for 2 reasons - our wealth and the nature of the owners imo 

[et tu brute]

24 minutes ago, midds said:

Respectfully disagree. There are plenty of rich clubs that don't get rules changed to prevent them from spending their money. We do

 

The nature and behaviour of the owners matters

Totally disagree it's got fuck all to do with anything politically about the owners it's all about money and the threat of the so called top 6 losing their positions at the top.

[Geordie Ahmed]

5 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

You think Fenway and Levy are bothered about human rights ? It’s been a closed shop amongst the big 6 the yanks couldn’t give a shit about human rights. 
 

You give them way to much credit.

Aye, there's not a chance these owners care about human rights

 

In fact, wouldn't be surprised if they clamour for Saudi money in their other businesses 

[midds]

1 minute ago, et tu brute said:

Totally disagree it's got fuck all to do with anything politically about the owners it's all about money and the threat of the so called top 6 losing their positions at the top.

See post above mate  

[et tu brute]

1 minute ago, midds said:

See post above mate  

Still disagree it's got anything to do with any political issues, there's only one thing the owners of the other clubs are bothered about. You mention about fans, but the majority of Man United fans soon changed their view when Qatar came knocking. I honestly think you're kidding yourself if you think politics is even a consideration in why this is being proposed. 

[FloydianMag]

1 minute ago, et tu brute said:

Still disagree it's got anything to do with any political issues, there's only one thing the owners of the other clubs are bothered about. You mention about fans, but the majority of Man United fans soon changed their view when Qatar came knocking. I honestly think you're kidding yourself if you think politics is even a consideration in why this is being proposed. 

Your average football fan wouldn’t be able to point to Saudi on a map never mind having an awareness of the geopolitical issues in the Gulf region or human rights issues tbh. It’s all about the money for most of them, not all but most.

[OverThere]

Its all about $$$, no more and no less.

 

The fact we want our snout in the trough and to do that we have to push their snouts out IS the issue.

[Boey_Jarton]

"Clubs will have to show multiple offers of similar value"

 

This is not how business works. A sponsorship deal to one party does not necessarily have the same intangible value that it does to another party. It is comparing apples with pears.

 

A Saudi firm may see a lot of value in associating it's brand with a team that is Saudi owned and so will benefit from that exposure. Ryan Reynolds various brands benefit from the synergies created from sponsoring Wrexham.

 

At the risk of being an accountancy bore, the value of an intangible asset is the incremental cashflows that it may generate to your company and has nothing to do with what another company might be willing to pay for it. 

 

 

 

[madras]

1 hour ago, midds said:

I was originally referring to fans of all other clubs tbh. I'm sure Liverpool and Spurs want to limit us as much as possible and would have done so regardless of ownership but my post was mainly about our general unpopularity across the sport in general. We're now hated for 2 reasons - our wealth and the nature of the owners imo 

The Fan's of other clubs wouldnt give a frig about the Saudis if they were skint.

[Nobody]

4 minutes ago, madras said:

The Fan's of other clubs wouldnt give a frig about the Saudis if they were skint.

See Sheffield United.

[madras]

32 minutes ago, Nobody said:

See Sheffield United.

And Wolves to some extent.

 

[FloydianMag]

8 hours ago, Boey_Jarton said:

"Clubs will have to show multiple offers of similar value"

 

This is not how business works. A sponsorship deal to one party does not necessarily have the same intangible value that it does to another party. It is comparing apples with pears.

 

A Saudi firm may see a lot of value in associating it's brand with a team that is Saudi owned and so will benefit from that exposure. Ryan Reynolds various brands benefit from the synergies created from sponsoring Wrexham.

 

At the risk of being an accountancy bore, the value of an intangible asset is the incremental cashflows that it may generate to your company and has nothing to do with what another company might be willing to pay for it. 

 

 

 

I watched the Back Pages on Sky Sports News last night, Hope was on and he expects a ban on loan deals to happen but what he did say was ‘clubs will have to show multiple offers of similar value’ being the the one that stands on the toes of Competition Law and we haven’t heard the last of that one.

 

Hope is a bit of a twat at times however it looks like if the club is going to take any legal action that’s the battle they’ve chosen.