PIF and RB Sports & Media

[Darth Crooks]

https://youtu.be/_QnYruA9dMg?si=sXVObUtu3zolvXhm

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

 

Kind of bloke I bet has a great relationship with Newcastle City Council

[Ben]

His Granda built the East Stand, geed up.

[Chris_R]

1 hour ago, SteV said:

Clearly related to the forthcoming stadium decision given his background.

 

Why, are we going to build it out of chocolate?

[jack j]

14 minutes ago, Ben said:

His Granda has got a season ticket in the East Stand

 

Sounds about right

[SteV]

1 hour ago, WilliamPS said:

Not really. He runs assets on behalf of Jamie Reuben, NUFC is an asset part owned by Jamie Reuben. With Staveley gone the Board was maybe a bit light on numbers.

Obviously he’s a Reuben pick/recommendation, but he sounds like he’s got an extensive background in property development and regeneration, just at the point the board are about to make a decision on a billion pound property development.

[vic]

Man city victory

 

 

[Bunk Moreland]

1 minute ago, vic said:

Man city victory

 

 

Geed up

[Ronson333]

Probably our biggest win of the season.

[Rich]

[Joelinton7]

#Cans sponsored by Aramco

[nufcjb]

In simple layman's terms, what does that help us with in the near future?

[Dr.Spaceman]

This is huge...right?

[RodneyCisse]

This means, if a pif company want to sponsor our training gear for £50m no one can say boo?

[Shearergol]

Quote

Within the ruling it also emerged that Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool, and West Ham gave evidence in favour of the Premier League, along with Brentford, Bournemouth, Fulham, and Wolves.

 

[Keegans Export]

Quote

It was concluded that “was a sufficient evidential basis for the Premier League to conclude . . . that the [old] rules were ineffective in controlling APTs”. The panel stated that “fair market value”, while “not an exact science” was an “inherent” part of PSR

 

Sounds like they are not abolishing FMV completely, not surprising

[Pixelphish]

Are we rich again?

[Rich]

"The key facts:

• Rules deemed unlawful because they did not take into consideration interest-free loans from shareholders to clubs
• Likely change in the regulations could lead to City striking more lucrative deals and seeking damages from the Premier League
• Clubs with high levels of borrowing now in danger of breaching of Profitability and Sustainability Rules
• Arsenal, City's title rivals, have borrowing of more than £200million made up entirely of shareholder loans
• Premier League's stance was backed by Arsenal, Manchester United, Liverpool, West Ham United, Brentford, Bournemouth, Fulham, and Wolverhampton Wanderers"

[r0cafella]

Just now, Shearergol said:

 

This is key, 14 votes needed for any rules and as we can see a nice cosy cartel of 8 love these restrictions. 

[jack j]

I thought this happened last week? Is this just the same news again?

[Shearergol]

1 minute ago, jack j said:

I thought this happened last week? Is this just the same news again?

 

This is the official news, lots more detail. Last week it was just rumours.

[Keegans Export]

Quote

An independent panel of three retired judges concluded that the rules were unlawful because they did not take into consideration interest-free loans which shareholders lend to clubs. The decision will spark huge concern among a number of City’s Premier League rivals — who rely heavily on such loans — and is likely to lead to the rules being changed.

 

The panel states that, of the £4billion in total borrowing across the Premier League, £1.5billion is in loans from club owners and shareholders. If the rules are altered and commercial loan rates are now applied to these interest-free loans and have to be included in a club’s profitability and sustainability calculation, many clubs could find they are in breach of Profitability and Sustainability Rules (PSR).

 

City had argued that such payments were unfair and not at market value because they were interest-free and, in some cases, did not have to be repaid at all. For a club such as Arsenal, with borrowing of more than £200million made up entirely of shareholder loans, that is a potentially seismic development.

I think their argument here is that if you're applying FMV to sponsorship deals from APs then you should do the same to loans. 

[UpTheToon]

Not sure this will do much for us?  They still back the need for fair market rules in the verdict. It’s all centred on the process of how “fair” is decided and this central database. 

[Ronson333]

This rule in particular has been winding me up l, why are Man Utd allowed to have a billion dollars worth a debt yet that was seen as fine:

 

Clubs with high levels of borrowing now in danger of breaching of Profitability and Sustainability Rules

[UpTheToon]

Just now, Ronson333 said:

This rule in particular has been winding me up l, why are Man Utd allowed to have a billion dollars worth a debt yet that was seen as fine:

 

Clubs with high levels of borrowing now in danger of breaching of Profitability and Sustainability Rules

Man U are actually fine under the proposed change.  It’s clubs who are getting free loans who are targeted. Manure have famously spent a fortune servicing their debt.