Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media

Yorkie

by Yorkie
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Jackie Broon

Jackie Broon

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, WillingtonMag said:

How does this work in European competitions though surely a conflict of interest if the same owner owns two teams...are the rules just in the same national league?

 

The rules are essentially the same for UEFA competitions but UEFA have taken a lenient position on them, allowing Red Bull Salzberg and Red Bull Leipzig to compete, and play each other, in the Europa League after they were satisfied that there was sufficient separation between their management structures. That is despite two clubs in the same ownership competing in the same competition being pretty clearly contrary to the letter of their rules:

 

 

5.01 c. No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:

 

i. holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;

ii. having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;

ii. being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or

iv. being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.

Link to post
Share on other sites
WillingtonMag

WillingtonMag

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

The rules are essentially the same for UEFA competitions but UEFA have taken a lenient position on them, allowing Red Bull Salzberg and Red Bull Leipzig to compete, and play each other, in the Europa League after they were satisfied that there was sufficient separation between their management structures. That is despite two clubs in the same ownership competing in the same competition being pretty clearly contrary to the letter of their rules:

 

 

5.01 c. No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:

 

i. holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;

ii. having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;

ii. being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or

iv. being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.

Thanks for the that, really don't think it should be allowed. The red bull teams slipped my mind tbh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Happinesstan

Happinesstan

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

The rules are essentially the same for UEFA competitions but UEFA have taken a lenient position on them, allowing Red Bull Salzberg and Red Bull Leipzig to compete, and play each other, in the Europa League after they were satisfied that there was sufficient separation between their management structures. That is despite two clubs in the same ownership competing in the same competition being pretty clearly contrary to the letter of their rules:

 

 

5.01 c. No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as:

 

i. holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights;

ii. having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club;

ii. being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or

iv. being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.

They paid their bribes in separate cheques.

Link to post
Share on other sites
et tu brute

et tu brute

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

That's what was said but everything seems to suggest that they are still owned by Red Bull.


Don't think they are still actual owners, but found a way round it to pacify UEFA

 

However, prior to the competitions commencement, Red Bull relinquished their ownership of Salzburg and became sponsors, however the club crest, stadium and all things associated to Red Bull still pretty much remained the same, whilst RB Leipzig remained owned by Red Bull (per Sky).28 Apr 2021

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackie Broon

Jackie Broon

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, et tu brute said:


Don't think they are still actual owners, but found a way round it to pacify UEFA

 

However, prior to the competitions commencement, Red Bull relinquished their ownership of Salzburg and became sponsors, however the club crest, stadium and all things associated to Red Bull still pretty much remained the same, whilst RB Leipzig remained owned by Red Bull (per Sky).28 Apr 2021

 

But from what I can find they just transferred the ownership to another company owned by them, in the way that we're owned by St James Holdings Ltd, which is owned by the consortium.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackie Broon

Jackie Broon

Posted
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, xLiaaamx said:

Wait that's all they had to do to make it fine for Uefa? Use one shell company? What a fucking joke [emoji38]

 

I don't think they even did that at the time. From what I can gather the club was previously incorporated as FC Red Bull Salzburg and Red Bull had rights to appoint and remove members of the board of the club. Then in 2016, before the UEFA investigation, they created a new holding company FC Red Bull Salzburg GmbH and Red Bull didn't directly have rights to appoint and remove members of the board through that company. 

 

The article below details that and changes that were made to satisfy UEFA, which didn't include 'relinquishing ownership'. According to the article, and the linked UEFA decision, they were satisfied with the existing ownership arrangement subject to some changes to management and sponsorship. It seems that the whole 'relinquishing ownership' thing was based on those arrangements already put in place a couple of years before.

 

https://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/multi-club-ownership-in-european-football-part-ii-the-concept-of-decisive-influence-in-the-red-bull-case-by-tomas-grell

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jackie Broon

Link to post
Share on other sites
Keegans Export

Keegans Export

Posted
Posted
5 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I don't think they even did that at the time. From what I can gather the club was previously incorporated as FC Red Bull Salzburg and Red Bull had rights to appoint and remove members of the board of the club. Then in 2016, before the UEFA investigation, they created a new holding company FC Red Bull Salzburg GmbH and Red Bull didn't directly have rights to appoint and remove members of the board through that company. 

 

The article below details that and changes that were made to satisfy UEFA, which didn't include 'relinquishing ownership'. According to the article, and the linked UEFA decision, they were satisfied with the existing ownership arrangement subject to some changes to management and sponsorship. It seems that the whole 'relinquishing ownership' thing was based on those arrangements already put in place a couple of years before.

 

https://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/multi-club-ownership-in-european-football-part-ii-the-concept-of-decisive-influence-in-the-red-bull-case-by-tomas-grell

 

 

 

 

 

That's a really interesting article. Not least the change in the rules about which of the clubs would be allowed to compete in UEFA Competitions - no longer based on club coefficient, now either which qualified for the most prestigious competition or which finished higher in their respective domestic league.

 

I guess the argument we would have to make is that yes, PIF own both clubs, but as long as the appointed Directors are different and nobody above the appointed Directors at one club in the PIF hierarchy is exerting control over the appointed Directors at the other, there is no decisive influence being exerted.

 

If they are run as two separate investments and there is no overlap and no influence on decision making from anyone outside the appointed Directors at each club then I think we would be fine.

 

The issue could be Yasir al-Rumiyyan. If this other club appoint some directors from further down the PIF hierarchy, could it be argued that he exerts influence over them seeing as he is essentially their boss?

 

Either way, I'm sure its something they've considered, assuming the rumours of them buying this other club are true that is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackie Broon

Jackie Broon

Posted
Posted
On 04/06/2022 at 11:45, Keegans Export said:

Any update on (and I can't believe I'm asking this) the situation with the bats?

 

The bat survey is now online and concludes that there are no bat roosts within the building.

 

03d101d3-662b-41a1-9070-385c9e219922_tex

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackie Broon

Jackie Broon

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

They should call it the Jackie Broon training ground extension 

 

:lol:

 

Btw, not quite all systems a-okay, there's still need to submit a tree survey, a invasive plant species survey / eradication plan (if they want to avoid a pre-commencement condition for that) and wait until at least 21st June for responses from the other landowner/s, but the potential major stumbling blocks all seem to have been dealt with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack27

Jack27

Posted
Posted
On 04/06/2022 at 11:44, Jackie Broon said:

 

Latest update: seems that they fucked up the ownership certificate in the application form, completing certificate A which is for when the applicant is the sole owner of all of the application site, that must not have been correct because they’ve now submitted a revised application form with ownership certificate B completed. Certificate B is for when all or part of the application site is owned by other people.

 

I suspected that was the case when I first looked at the application because it seems likely that the access is in shared ownership.

 

What this means is that the application timescale restarts from day 0 and the Council will need to allow 21 days from the day they were served notice for the other landowner/s to comment.

 

Again, this is a frustratingly common mistake by agents who never seem to grasp the importance of ensuring the land ownership declaration is correct and that the onus is entirely on them for that.

Bat survey landed today. No roosts found. Can't make much of the rest of the report, mind.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest HTT II

Guest HTT II

Posted
Posted

PL clubs just covering their own backs, it has nowt to do with protecting the likes of Burnley. They can all fuck off, greedy exploitative bastards the lot of them. The PL is even worse, they let the likes of Burnley’s new owners basically cripple that club. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
gjohnson

gjohnson

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Wilson said:

It's amusing how much us forcing our way in has pissed them off. 

I still don't quite get how the PL can think that having another club challenging wouldn't  be good for them? It would make the league more interesting and massively boost their profits. 

 

Surely in a perfect world they'd want every team to have at least a chance of winning. The Leicester season gave them their biggest profit ever as it sparked interest as people outside of Manchester and Liverpool are getting bored with the same thing year on year 

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...