PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media

[cubaricho]

10 hours ago, NE27 said:

 

What if they just want the golf club, and not build a training centre?

 

When PIF come-a-knocking their resilience to a sale may be tested

That Twitter post you quoted reeks of someone who’s just obsessed with Newcastle and can’t see anything else. Of course they just want the course, and not to turn it into a training center.  

 

They’ll want a place like that in the NE that can be the premier golf destination in the area, host events, etc. 

 

 

Edited June 13, 2023 by cubaricho

[Stifler]

1 hour ago, cubaricho said:

That Twitter post you quoted reeks of someone who’s just obsessed with Newcastle and can’t see anything else. Of course they just want the course, and not to turn it into a training center.  

 

They’ll want a place like that in the NE that can be the premier golf destination in the area, host events, etc. 

 

 

 

It’s from a Burnsie account (he really does have a ton of them).

There has been no rumours of them buying the golf course before he mentioned it, and since he mentioned it.

I think he’s heard of the LIV/PGA merger, searched it and realised that close house has been used by the PGA before and came up with his own rumour.

[Pata]

2 hours ago, Armchair Pundit said:

A thought just popped into my head - are loan deals subject to FFP? And would that be a route to get around it? I mean, if say an expensive, top player was bought by a rich Saudi club, then loaned out to a Premier League club, would that be an issue (other than the obviously dubious nature of it all of course)?

 

Better get on the phone and let Ashworth and Eales know about this breakthrough. 

[aussiemag]

Could we circumvent FFP by PIF companies paying personal sponsorship deals, external to the club to a player,  along with a reasonable wage that keeps us within FFP limits. 

[Geordie Ahmed]

1 minute ago, aussiemag said:

Could we circumvent FFP by PIF companies paying personal sponsorship deals, external to the club to a player,  along with a reasonable wage that keeps us within FFP limits. 

Probably not as one of the accusations for City was that Mancini was getting paid by am Abu Dhabi company so doing similar would cause scrutiny 

 

Theoretically one of the PIF clubs in Saudi could buy a player and then loan him on to us, whilst covering the bulk of the wages but it would only be a matter of time before they closed that loophole, like they did with the related sponsors 

[Nobody]

1 minute ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

Probably not as one of the accusations for City was that Mancini was getting paid by am Abu Dhabi company so doing similar would cause scrutiny 

 

Theoretically one of the PIF clubs in Saudi could buy a player and then loan him on to us, whilst covering the bulk of the wages but it would only be a matter of time before they closed that loophole, like they did with the related sponsors 

Hasn't that loophole already been discussed and closed? I’ve no idea really, but feel like people have mentioned Watford and Udinese already in regards to that

[Dokko]

12 minutes ago, aussiemag said:

Could we circumvent FFP by PIF companies paying personal sponsorship deals, external to the club to a player,  along with a reasonable wage that keeps us within FFP limits. 

 

Sure this is why juve are in the soup.

[Geordie Ahmed]

6 minutes ago, Nobody said:

Hasn't that loophole already been discussed and closed? I’ve no idea really, but feel like people have mentioned Watford and Udinese already in regards to that

Not that I am aware 

 

UEFA are cutting down in terms of loans, though that doesn't apply to players U21

[Abacus]

4 minutes ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

Probably not as one of the accusations for City was that Mancini was getting paid by am Abu Dhabi company so doing similar would cause scrutiny 

 

Theoretically one of the PIF clubs in Saudi could buy a player and then loan him on to us, whilst covering the bulk of the wages but it would only be a matter of time before they closed that loophole, like they did with the related sponsors 

As they are PIF owned, any transaction between us and any of these Saudi clubs would likely be classed as a related party transaction.

 

So, that loan deal would already need to be assessed at fair market value and wouldn't work as a dodge. Lots of reasons why - the most basic one being that if it was a genuine third party transaction, what would be in it for the loaning club to pay someone's wages with no benefit to them?

 

Still, always interesting how FFP has been subverted from stopping clubs spending recklessly and possibly going bust, to stopping clubs spending money they actually have and want to spend, in case it threatens certain clubs who seemingly make the rules.

 

Thing with that is, Man City are already in the henhouse now and seemingly unstoppable, as were Chelsea before. Ban them both and strip their titles, or let others compete on the same basis. Watching Man City parade to the title doesn't make for a great competition either, which is the PL's main global selling point.

 

I'm actually all for us following FFP using realistic sponsorships etc, because at some point, a reckoning is coming.

[cubaricho]

10 minutes ago, Abacus said:

I'm actually all for us following FFP using realistic sponsorships etc, because at some point, a reckoning is coming.

Same.

 

And also because we have Eddie and Amanda and Dan and Darren building us a club we can love and not just a club that has money thrown at it ala City. It should help with the plastics for a while at least and we can keep our club a bit longer. 
 

I’m just so stoked we finally have a club being run properly again. That’s been good enough for me. The star players and Champions League and all of the other stuff has just been a bonus for me. 

[Geordie Ahmed]

48 minutes ago, Abacus said:

As they are PIF owned, any transaction between us and any of these Saudi clubs would likely be classed as a related party transaction.

 

So, that loan deal would already need to be assessed at fair market value and wouldn't work as a dodge. Lots of reasons why - the most basic one being that if it was a genuine third party transaction, what would be in it for the loaning club to pay someone's wages with no benefit to them?

 

Still, always interesting how FFP has been subverted from stopping clubs spending recklessly and possibly going bust, to stopping clubs spending money they actually have and want to spend, in case it threatens certain clubs who seemingly make the rules.

 

Thing with that is, Man City are already in the henhouse now and seemingly unstoppable, as were Chelsea before. Ban them both and strip their titles, or let others compete on the same basis. Watching Man City parade to the title doesn't make for a great competition either, which is the PL's main global selling point.

 

I'm actually all for us following FFP using realistic sponsorships etc, because at some point, a reckoning is coming.

Tbf I didn't realise the related transaction extended to transfers as well, just assumed it was sponsors but I suppose it makes sense from the point of the other clubs 

 

But completely agree with the rest of your post 

[duo]

1 hour ago, Abacus said:

 

I'm actually all for us following FFP using realistic sponsorships etc, because at some point, a reckoning is coming.

If City get away without charges/sanctions/bans then FFP is finished 

[McDog]

9 minutes ago, duo said:

If City get away without charges/sanctions/bans then FFP is finished 

 

 

Agree.

[pubteam]

 

6 minutes ago, duo said:

If City get away without charges/sanctions/bans then FFP is finished 

Hopefully you are right, it's nothing about protecting football, just protecting the elite and needs to go.

[madras]

3 hours ago, duo said:

If City get away without charges/sanctions/bans then FFP is finished 

It's not so much if they get away with it, it's partly why and how they got away with it. What's more likely to end FFP is if they get done but the punishment is so weak as to be meaningless, ie no Ban from competitions, no lengthy transfer ban, no stripping of titles, no massive points reduction. If its a fine thennits pointless.

 

 

Edited June 14, 2023 by madras

[r0cafella]

Guys, no matter what happens to city won’t impact us sadly. We still have uefa FFP which we have to contend with. 

[FloydianMag]

5 hours ago, duo said:

If City get away without charges/sanctions/bans then FFP is finished 

All FFP and FMV requires is a legal challenge, its a restriction of trade!!

[The Prophet]

I don't know the nuances of the Man City charges, but aren't a lot of them regarding disclosure of evidence and obstructing the investigation? Obviously that was an investigation into City and their sponsors. 

 

Everton have been referred to the same panel for breaches of FFP. Wolves are also struggling to comply and will undoubtedly need sell this summer.  

[Gaztoon]

Restriction of trade no matter how they word it.

 

Hope city take it all the way to court.

[The Prophet]

1 minute ago, Gaztoon said:

Restriction of trade no matter how they word it.

 

Hope city take it all the way to court.

 

It depends on the particulars of the case.

 

I'd love to see the "Profit and Sustainability" as well as the third party association laws put under a legal microscope. The latter in particular would be fascinating given they're restricting how a private entity makes its income.

 

It doesn't particularly look like City are challenging that though. 

[nufcnick]

4 hours ago, FloydianMag said:

All FFP and FMV requires is a legal challenge, its a restriction of trade!!

 

20 minutes ago, Gaztoon said:

Restriction of trade no matter how they word it.

 

Hope city take it all the way to court.

Every club is required to sign at the start of every season that they are happy with the rules, regulations and code of the Premier League inc FFP, so teams can’t take it to court if they have previously signed that season. Apparently we managed to get it in front of a judge because Ashley “forgot to sign” at the start of the season, something the PL won’t ever let happen again. 

[r0cafella]

Just now, nufcnick said:

 

Every club is required to sign at the start of every season that they are happy with the rules, regulations and code of the Premier League inc FFP, so teams can’t take it to court if they have previously signed that season. Apparently we managed to get it in front of a judge because Ashley “forgot to sign” at the start of the season, something the PL won’t ever let happen again. 

I’d be surprised if the actual law didn’t superseed a contract mind. 

[Geordie Ahmed]

City to my knowledge aren't challenging FFP or FMV

 

They seem to be challenging the accusation that they have been hiding sponsors or making sponsorship up, amongst other such things

 

[OCK]

5 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Guys, no matter what happens to city won’t impact us sadly. We still have uefa FFP which we have to contend with. 

 

You mean the UEFA FFP that Man City challenged, had overturned and were instead were only fined for not cooperating with the investigation. FFP is a joke. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jul/13/manchester-city-cas-decision-not-mean-end-of-financial-fair-play-uefa

 

 

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, OCK said:

 

You mean the UEFA FFP that Man City challenged, had overturned and were instead were only fined for not cooperating with the investigation. FFP is a joke. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jul/13/manchester-city-cas-decision-not-mean-end-of-financial-fair-play-uefa

 

 

I mean it’s important to remember that city basically refused to cooperate and won on a a technicality.