Jump to content

PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media


Yorkie

Recommended Posts

39 minutes ago, xLiaaamx said:

I'm sure PIF have the ability to find sponsorship without using businesses they own. 


Course they will, that interview with the PIF board member and Saudi Finance Minister seemed to me to be a deliberate ‘fuck you’ we’re coming message to the premier league clubs totally shitting themselves (especially the so called bigger clubs). 
 

Mind, they will still use their own businesses also as any attempt by the 18 to block this will be stopped via the anti-competition law courts.

 

 

Edited by et tu brute

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, et tu brute said:


Course they will, that interview with the PIF board member and Saudi Finance Minister seemed to me to be a deliberate ‘fuck you’ we’re coming message to the premier league clubs totally shitting themselves (especially the so called bigger clubs).

 

Cant wait, media and other fans are making us build a siege mentality.   Thats when the toon thrives when everyone is in it together!

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Unbelievable said:

Not sure it’s a good idea to have the Finance minister of the country make such comments if they are intent of keeping the separation charade going

 

The entire separation thing was nonsense.  They wouldn't dare to ban any team, the whole ODT is a pretence. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Latest from Hope https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10118099/Newcastles-Saudi-owners-consider-selling-naming-rights-St-James-Park-fans-blessing.html

 

Newcastle's Saudi-led owners are considering plans to sell naming rights to St James’ Park —but would only do so with the consent of supporters.

This comes after Saudi Arabia’s finance minister, Mohammed Al-Jadaan, spoke of the club becoming a ‘serious competitor’ in the Premier League.

Sportsmail understands that a sponsorship deal involving the stadium has been discussed as one avenue of increasing revenue and, subsequently, spending power within the league’s financial fair play regulations.

 

Supporters would also be consulted and asked if they could live with stadium sponsorship, if it meant more money coming into the club. A Saudi Arabian airline has been suggested as one option for a commercial partnership.

 

Newcastle, meanwhile, are said to be relaxed about a temporary Premier League ban on sponsorship involving parties already connected to the ownership of a club, which was voted through by 18 of their 20 top-flight rivals at a meeting on Monday.

The club believe the amendment is unlawful and should not pose a threat to their long-term commercial opportunities.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nufcnick said:

Wouldn’t get away with that, but there is nothing stopping the club opening a few club shops in Saudi and the PIF giving all 20m adult males £60 to buy a new Newcastle top, even if the club only got half that would still add up to £600m per season 


:lol: Relax man, you’re talking about a government of a country issuing a mandate to make all it’s male population buy a footie shirt. There are more pressing issues in the country and the investment fund has bigger fish to fry; NUFC is a minuscule 0.05% or whatever of PIF’s portfolio and of relatively no importance to the governance of KSA.

 

 

Edited by McCormick

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think in 2-3 years sponsorship can be offered to external companies at tender. In effect, PIF saying to the corporate world “We’re prepared to offer (maximum market value) to sponsor our team, who wants to bid more and be on the Toon top?” Then you get legal, above market value and seperate sponsorship?

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 hours ago, New Beginnings said:

Theyve just showed that clip on SSN with the smug presenter inferring there's clearly no separation 

 

This is relentless!

 

Getting excited because the bloke referred to it as "we".  He also referred to PIF as "they" but they never mentioned or showed that bit in the interests of inbalance

 

 

Edited by Wolfcastle

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, nbthree3 said:

Latest from Hope https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10118099/Newcastles-Saudi-owners-consider-selling-naming-rights-St-James-Park-fans-blessing.html

 

Newcastle's Saudi-led owners are considering plans to sell naming rights to St James’ Park —but would only do so with the consent of supporters.

This comes after Saudi Arabia’s finance minister, Mohammed Al-Jadaan, spoke of the club becoming a ‘serious competitor’ in the Premier League.

Sportsmail understands that a sponsorship deal involving the stadium has been discussed as one avenue of increasing revenue and, subsequently, spending power within the league’s financial fair play regulations.

 

Supporters would also be consulted and asked if they could live with stadium sponsorship, if it meant more money coming into the club. A Saudi Arabian airline has been suggested as one option for a commercial partnership.

 

Newcastle, meanwhile, are said to be relaxed about a temporary Premier League ban on sponsorship involving parties already connected to the ownership of a club, which was voted through by 18 of their 20 top-flight rivals at a meeting on Monday.

The club believe the amendment is unlawful and should not pose a threat to their long-term commercial opportunities.

 

Not for me, Geoff. Interested to see how the wider fanbase feels about this though. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, manorpark said:

 

Done that, throughout my "Skyscraper City" world :)

I never got to thank you Manor.  You kept my spirits up during the takeover saga.  I also honestly believed it was going to happen (arseholes now looking at my history).  Thank you so much.  Did you ever receive apologies?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, r0cafella said:

I’m for it.  
 

we need to raise revenue because of FFP. 

 

I really want us to stick it to the so called big 6 who are doing everything they can to make the league as uncompetitive as possible. 


Without a doubt, if we want to seriously think about challenging and winning stuff then we have to make sure we increase revenue via sponsorship and commercial deals to combat FFP. I think people forget that John Hall’s first choice was to move stadium. It’s the modern game now and you have to increase revenue to even think of moving forward as we’re miles behind.


The new owners are doing it correctly by asking the support and keeping the St James’ Park within the naming rights. It’s a definite yes from me and judging by the majority of responses I’ve seen from long term supporters in my family and friends group and even through social media, looks like they will get the majority support for this. I also think ultimately in the not too distant future, that there will be a new stadium due to the restrictions of extending the stadium for limited additional capacity.

 

 

Edited by et tu brute

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, nbthree3 said:

Latest from Hope https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10118099/Newcastles-Saudi-owners-consider-selling-naming-rights-St-James-Park-fans-blessing.html

 

Newcastle's Saudi-led owners are considering plans to sell naming rights to St James’ Park —but would only do so with the consent of supporters.

This comes after Saudi Arabia’s finance minister, Mohammed Al-Jadaan, spoke of the club becoming a ‘serious competitor’ in the Premier League.

Sportsmail understands that a sponsorship deal involving the stadium has been discussed as one avenue of increasing revenue and, subsequently, spending power within the league’s financial fair play regulations.

 

Supporters would also be consulted and asked if they could live with stadium sponsorship, if it meant more money coming into the club. A Saudi Arabian airline has been suggested as one option for a commercial partnership.

 

Newcastle, meanwhile, are said to be relaxed about a temporary Premier League ban on sponsorship involving parties already connected to the ownership of a club, which was voted through by 18 of their 20 top-flight rivals at a meeting on Monday.

The club believe the amendment is unlawful and should not pose a threat to their long-term commercial opportunities.

 

No, absolutely not.

 

If they build a new stadium though, then I have no problem with it

 

 

Edited by Thomson Mouse

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder how they will get a vote on it? Not the Trust as they’re only concerned about their ‘members’, not a public vote as you will get other clubs fans and mackems voting, so I would guess it would be carried out using the club’s own membership.

 

 

Edited by et tu brute

Link to post
Share on other sites

Couldn’t give a single shit if they rename the ground to maximise commercial opportunities as long as they keep SJP in there.  When Ashley did it you knew we weren’t getting a penny for it and he did it just to take the piss.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, et tu brute said:

Wonder how they will get a vote on it. Not the Trust ad they’re only concerned about their ‘members’, not a public vote as you will get other clubs fans and mackems voting, so I would imagine it would be carried out using the club’s own membership.


Trust don’t do democracy anyway seeing as they appoint board members without putting them to a vote.

 

Bit of an ironic name, really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Its good that they say they're going to consult - I guess, its just reasonable but after 14years of the opposite it feels good

Much rather it just be the already long since besmerched shirts and shirt sleeves.

XYZ St James Park for a very good shot at glory is at least worth consideration.

 

28 minutes ago, Sima said:

Couldn’t give a single shit if they rename the ground to maximise commercial opportunities as long as they keep SJP in there.  When Ashley did it you knew we weren’t getting a penny for it and he did it just to take the piss.

Remember how gleeful some organisations and people were to jump on calling it that? Ironically they'd probably refer to it as SJP even if we got sponsored now out of the same spite, thus giving us less to lose.

 

 

 

Edited by Wolfcastle

Link to post
Share on other sites

Martin Samuel is bang on, which is why we need to bring in a big sponsorship now if we’re going to, the PL lawyers will be telling them what they have just done is illegal and will get them into trouble if they try and enforce it, what they bring in, in 4 weeks time will likely be harder to bypass 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m sorry like. You can’t be happy with PIF changing the stadium name because they’ll throw a bit of money at it. Can we not remember the outpouring of dismay when the name was changed to the Sports Direct Arena?

 

The hypocrisy stinks.

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
×
×
  • Create New...