robbo_11 Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Retrospectively will this not result in a number of questions about current Premier League clubs and their sponsorships related to their owners? I imagine the Crystal Palace sleeve sponsorship by FaceBank would be questioned based on the investor John Textor being involved in the club as would Everton, Leicester City and Man City. The game is long gone and now the pressure on Hoffman is being reported based on other clubs you'll probably see some awful decisions. Clubs voting that intended on creating a Super League 6 months ago to the detriment of those that have voted with them now. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieDazzler Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Obviously it's targeted at us but how does this affect say Leicester, kit and stadium are for the owners company. Seems you we would win any legal battle quite quickly if they are allowed to continue? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAK Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 24 minutes ago, TK-421 said: Sure I read SABIC is a subsidiary of Aramco, so the PL 18 would probably try and veto that too. Isn’t the ban on owners sponsoring clubs through their other companies so for example PIF can’t use Disney to sponsor us. Aramco is separate from PIF as is SABIC. Not sure why Vision 2030 can’t sponsor us as well as it’s a government initiative and not part of PIF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manxst Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 5 minutes ago, GeordieDazzler said: Obviously it's targeted at us but how does this affect say Leicester, kit and stadium are for the owners company. Seems you we would win any legal battle quite quickly if they are allowed to continue? The proposed new rules would only take effect on any new sponsorship deals, and those already in place like Leicester, Man City etc would be allowed to continue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manxst Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 1 minute ago, SAK said: Isn’t the ban on owners sponsoring clubs through their other companies so for example PIF can’t use Disney to sponsor us. Aramco is separate from PIF as is SABIC. Not sure why Vision 2030 can’t sponsor us as well as it’s a government initiative and not part of PIF. PIF don’t own Disney, just have minority shareholdings in it? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 1 minute ago, Manxst said: The proposed new rules would only take effect on any new sponsorship deals, and those already in place like Leicester, Man City etc would be allowed to continue. Jowell will have an absolute field day (any anti-competition QC would) if they go ahead with this. I'd be very surprised if the legal letters were not already winging their way down. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAK Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Just now, Manxst said: The proposed new rules would only take effect on any new sponsorship deals, and those already in place like Leicester, Man City etc would be allowed to continue. Which would never hold up in court. The Athletic story states Man City abstained based on strong legal advice that it was illegal what was being hatched. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pokerprince2004 Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 (edited) 12 minutes ago, GeordieDazzler said: Obviously it's targeted at us but how does this affect say Leicester, kit and stadium are for the owners company. Seems you we would win any legal battle quite quickly if they are allowed to continue? Any existing deals in place are fine and its only new sponsors from today that arent allowed. Its absolute bollocks and obviously just a way to stop us getting money. It was alright for City to be sponsored by Etihad, Arsenal to be sponsored by Emirates, Leicester with King Power, Palace etc etc but when NUFC might get cash an emergency meeting is called and new law put in place to block it 4 minute video on Sky this morning explaining it all Edited October 19, 2021 by Pokerprince2004 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyc35i Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Disney, Facebook or Uber won’t be sponsoring us, it’s not about their minority stakes in global companies. It’s about kicking us in the gonads and stopping major Saudi companies being used a way of pumping money into the club to get around FPP. It’s completely uncompetitive to stop commercial opportunities and the whole thing will get messy when end up with Aramco on our shirts next year Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieDazzler Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 3 minutes ago, Manxst said: The proposed new rules would only take effect on any new sponsorship deals, and those already in place like Leicester, Man City etc would be allowed to continue. I get that but surely just that fact would make any legal defense of it paper thin. You'd have effectively created a law to sanction one club, who've not even done anything yet. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manxst Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Just now, Pokerprince2004 said: Any existing deals in place are fine and its only new sponsors from today that arent allowed. Its absolute bollocks and obviously just a way to stop us getting money. It was alright for City to be sponsored by Etihad, Arsenal to be sponsored by Emirates, Leicester with King Power, Palace etc etc but when NUFC might get cash an emergency meeting is called and new law put in place to block it Hope Charney still has De Marco's number Not to mention us being sponsored by Sports Direct under Ashley. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Just now, Pokerprince2004 said: Any existing deals in place are fine and its only new sponsors from today that arent allowed. Its absolute bollocks and obviously just a way to stop us getting money. It was alright for City to be sponsored by Etihad, Arsenal to be sponsored by Emirates, Leicester with King Power, Palace etc etc but when NUFC might get cash an emergency meeting is called and new law put in place to block it Hope Charney still has De Marco's number De Marco isn’t an anti competition lawyer, Danny Jowell is the person to instruct. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAK Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 (edited) 6 minutes ago, andyc35i said: Disney, Facebook or Uber won’t be sponsoring us, it’s not about their minority stakes in global companies. It’s about kicking us in the gonads and stopping major Saudi companies being used a way of pumping money into the club to get around FPP. It’s completely uncompetitive to stop commercial opportunities and the whole thing will get messy when end up with Aramco on our shirts next year But as Aramco aren’t owned by PIF this new rule can’t stop them sponsoring us. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN23O0VK Edited October 19, 2021 by SAK Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 1 minute ago, GeordieDazzler said: I get that but surely just that fact would make any legal defense of it paper thin. You'd have effectively created a law to sanction one club, who've not even done anything yet. Conceived at a meeting that one club wasn't invited to. The PL already have the power to recalculate the FFP figure based on what it considers a fair market value for any related party transactions so this new rule is not needed anyway. The only thing it would do is entrench the self fulfilling position where the big 6, and Man U in particular, get massive sponsorship deals and everyone else gets a pittance. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 I really can’t think of any other business where an owner can’t put in their own money to strengthen that business, or for a competitor prevent them from doing so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geordie Ahmed Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Not sure if the details were released but if (unlikely if) the club decided to say fuck them, we'll go ahead with the sponsorship anyway. I assume expulsion from the league or points deduction would be the punishment? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thumbheed Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 7 minutes ago, SAK said: But as Aramco aren’t owned by PIF this new rule can’t stop them sponsoring us. https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN23O0VK Al-Rumayyan is the chairman though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Just now, Geordie Ahmed said: Not sure if the details were released but if (unlikely if) the club decided to say fuck them, we'll go ahead with the sponsorship anyway. I assume expulsion from the league or points deduction would be the punishment? I think it would probably just be that the income wouldn't count towards the FFP calculation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 I'm assuming the King power Leicester sponsorship ends at some point in the not too distant future. Surely they wouldn't then just be allowed to extend it at that point? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 10 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: I really can’t think of any other business where an owner can’t put in their own money to strengthen that business, or for a competitor prevent them from doing so. Just organised crime, which is basically what this is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAK Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 6 minutes ago, Thumbheed said: Al-Rumayyan is the chairman though. I didn’t read anywhere that having the same chairman was blocked, lots of senior managers have directorships across different companies? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Unbelievable Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Just now, Nobody said: I'm assuming the King power Leicester sponsorship ends at some point in the not too distant future. Surely they wouldn't then just be allowed to extend it at that point? All the other owners will have secured long term deals before voting through this new rule man. They’re so pathetically transparent. Can’t wait until our owners take the PL and the 18 clubs who voted in favour to court for anti-competitive behaviour and see them all slapped with multi million pound penalties. There’s absolutely no way this will stand any legal challenge at all. What are they even thinking? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcastle Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Just now, Unbelievable said: All the other owners will have secured long term deals before voting through this new rule man. They’re so pathetically transparent. Can’t wait until our owners take the PL and the 18 clubs who voted in favour to court for anti-competitive behaviour and see them all slapped with multi million pound penalties. There’s absolutely no way this will stand any legal challenge at all. What are they even thinking? They've categorically stated it "isn't a knee jerk reaction to the Newcastle takeover", I'm happy to take their vested interest word for it and put this all down as the biggest coincidence of all time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
relámpago blanco Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 It doesn't matter whatever they vote. What matters is legislation in the UK which supercedes any rule of any organisation within its territories. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted October 19, 2021 Share Posted October 19, 2021 Honestly don't know what they're thinking or trying to do here. I get the fact they're trying to stop SA from investing into Newcastle directly, that's apparent and obvious. It also means that bringing in this rule also means that none of the current owners can do the same to their own clubs either. The rule has to apply to all clubs so every single sponsorship deal at every club needs to be looked at. It cuts that route off funds for all clubs. If 1 club finds a workaround then the rest just follow suit and copy. If no clubs find the workaround then each club is no better off for having a minted owner. It's fucking bullshit and money will win out, as always. Loopholes will be there and when you're able to hire the smartest legal minds on the planet then there will be a solution. Money wins. Every fucking day. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now