PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media

[Gaztoon]

20 minutes ago, Scoot said:

 

The lengths these cunts are going to to try and stop us growing is criminal mind.

 

The absolute audacity of the big clubs blatantly just doing it to stop competition is astonishing. Like, they aren't even trying to hide it.

 

 

 

 

 

Wouldn't worry its all hot air.. nothing they are suggesting will last a day in court.

[Khalidao]

Qiddiya to become the shirt sponsor and NEOM the stadium sponsor.

 

 

 

[Gordyola]

On 11/11/2021 at 18:22, Wandy said:

 

Cheers for that. I've spent a lot of time lurking the forums of the other big teams and I have to say I've found City fans to feel like comrades in arms against the "red shirts" as they are known on the Blue Moon forum. I'd like to see more City fans on here tbh. Very similar club to NUFC both before and after our respective takeovers.

Cheers and agree, we have the Keegan connection with his magnificent brand of football as well it was a huge disappoint that the rags slipped in and won the league that season
We now have the bond of having hugely rich owners and the rest are against us, led by the yank clubs Like I say, get set for a bumpy ride, at least we had the honeymoon period when they thought Mansour would get bored when they realised City were are threat then the attacks started. Its amazing how many of the pet journalist developed a keen interest in human rights 

[Whitley mag]

 

[Gordyola]

On 12/11/2021 at 08:44, Kasper said:

I'm fine with the sponsorships being limited to actual value. Yeah they're changing it because of us, but still it's a good thing its changing and they're atleast trying to do something to enforce FFP. 

FFP was introduced to protect the Sky 4 and the European "elite" don't believe otherwise. Despite what they try to tell you its stated purpose hasnt worked look at the debt of certain clubs at record levels. Luckily for City we got in before its real effects set in and our turnover is now in the top 5 in Europe. The issue of related parties standard accountancy practice where any parties have to be declared by directors and examined by the auditors and included in company accounts, set out in international standards its hard for football authorities to argue with. Fair value is generally accessed by independent experts, City's deal with Etihad is not a related party as Sheikh Mansour is not a share holder nor does he have any managerial or executive positions It was accessed for fair value and if memory serves me right passed with out change, as it wasn't just front of shirt but included stadium and academy naming rights. This latest move by the yanks and backed by all but City is clearly aimed at yourselves and for me, the principal of right to trade legal challenge would be successful No worries there are lots of ways around bringing in deals 

[r0cafella]

41 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

 

Every time I click an article from that bullshit website I regret it. 

[Rich]

1 hour ago, Whitley mag said:

To be fair he gets some shit on here, but he did call the tourism angle.

 

 

Howay

 

I gather a couple of the other sponsors will be related to oil and air travel.

[Big River]

4 minutes ago, Rich said:

Howay

 

I gather a couple of the other sponsors will be related to oil and air travel.

 

Who’s your source??

[Rich]

4 minutes ago, HUGZ said:

 

Who’s your source??

I live within 1,000 miles of Staveley and Reuben, so naturally I hear stuff.

[Fantail Breeze]

2 hours ago, Whitley mag said:

To be fair he gets some shit on here, but he did call the tourism angle.

 

 

 

Cheers, Keith.

 

I’m gonna take a similar punt and say we might have a black and white kit next year.

[bhoywhonder]

29 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Every time I click an article from that bullshit website I regret it. 

 

Absolute eye-AIDS that site. As with everything Trinity Mirror owned, they still seem to think pop-up ads can't be blocked and articles starting with 'Revealed...' or 'Number 8 will shock you" are totally valid as journalism. 

[Rich]

3 minutes ago, bhoywhonder said:

 

Absolute eye-AIDS that site. As with everything Trinity Mirror owned, they still seem to think pop-up ads can't be blocked and articles starting with 'Revealed...' or 'Number 8 will shock you" are totally valid as journalism. 

Should be on commission, but if everyone used Brave browser (https://brave.com) and turned script blocking on it makes it actually usable and happily doesn’t give them any ad revenue.

[Stifler]

1 hour ago, Gordyola said:

FFP was introduced to protect the Sky 4 and the European "elite" don't believe otherwise. Despite what they try to tell you its stated purpose hasnt worked look at the debt of certain clubs at record levels. Luckily for City we got in before its real effects set in and our turnover is now in the top 5 in Europe. The issue of related parties standard accountancy practice where any parties have to be declared by directors and examined by the auditors and included in company accounts, set out in international standards its hard for football authorities to argue with. Fair value is generally accessed by independent experts, City's deal with Etihad is not a related party as Sheikh Mansour is not a share holder nor does he have any managerial or executive positions It was accessed for fair value and if memory serves me right passed with out change, as it wasn't just front of shirt but included stadium and academy naming rights. This latest move by the yanks and backed by all but City is clearly aimed at yourselves and for me, the principal of right to trade legal challenge would be successful No worries there are lots of ways around bringing in deals 

Absolutely this. The fact that a lot of clubs go unpunished if they are a bigger club and in most cases just receive a fine which is either going to cripple a club that is genuinely struggling financially, or not be a barrier to teams deliberately overspending just proves the point.

 

We literally have a scenario where let’s say a League 1 or 2 team who are entirely bankrolled by their owner could go on a massive cup run and enter Europe, but be denied because of FFP, because their owner has to bankroll them because revenues at that level are not sustainable.

 

Man Utd were bought by borrowing money far above their value and getting them into debt, over £1bn worth in today’s money. By the rules of FFP they should be getting points deductions and being kicked of Europe and possibly the league. It’s ok though because they are Man Utd. Burnley got bought out last year via the same methods, and again they should face similar sanctions, but it’s ok because the Burnley owners are not going to invest all that much in the club and they are largely going to stay where they are.

Leicester ran afoul of the FFP rules in the Championship and as a result should have been denied promotion or relegated later down the line. They had just won the league when the EFL got around to punishing them and were the publics favoured team etc, which resulted in them getting a very small fine.

You then look at how the EFL and such treated Bury compared to Bolton. Both were facing insolvency for the same reasons at the same time. Bury, the smaller club of the two of them were denied the ability to play their games and gain much needed match day revenue and were not given extra time for takeovers to go through. Bolton were allowed to play their games and the EFL board sat around and gave them additional time and help to get a takeover pushed through.

 

FFP and the running of football in this country is a fucking joke, it’s all done to protect the big clubs, it runs down from the FA, through the Premier League, EFL, and the referee’s association.

The very moment the Premier League turned around and said ‘We don’t want any Leicester City’s’ should have been the moment they were disbanded. The same applies to when former referee’s came out saying they were instructed to give the advantage to the bigger clubs.

[Whitley mag]

1 hour ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Cheers, Keith.

 

I’m gonna take a similar punt and say we might have a black and white kit next year.

Your punts in relation to the takeover we’re spot on of course Fanny, therefore based on this punt we’ll be playing in green and white stripes next year.

 

 

Edited November 13, 2021 by Whitley mag

[Happinesstan]

1 hour ago, Rich said:

Should be on commission, but if everyone used Brave browser (https://brave.com) and turned script blocking on it makes it actually usable and happily doesn’t give them any ad revenue.

I'm more than happy to keep avoiding the Chronicle site. In fact I'd go so far as to say being discouraged from visiting their shite site, by their own design, is one of the little things in life.

[Abacus]

Can't we just avoid this sponsorship hoo-ha by selling Shelvey to a Saudi club for £20bn?

 

Player sales aren't part of this fandango.

 

Granted, such a move may sour international relations forever, but it's swings and roundabouts.

[Fantail Breeze]

16 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Your punts in relation to the takeover we’re spot on of course Fanny, therefore based on this punt we’ll be playing in green and white stripes next year.

 

 

 

 

Well it was off due to piracy, not a PL ‘cartel’ with the big six. So I was closer to the point than you  

[Whitley mag]

15 minutes ago, Fantail Breeze said:

 

Well it was off due to piracy, not a PL ‘cartel’ with the big six. So I was closer to the point than you  

Still wet behind the flaps Fanny, good to see some things never change.

[manorpark]

1 hour ago, Stifler said:

Absolutely this. The fact that a lot of clubs go unpunished if they are a bigger club and in most cases just receive a fine which is either going to cripple a club that is genuinely struggling financially, or not be a barrier to teams deliberately overspending just proves the point.

 

We literally have a scenario where let’s say a League 1 or 2 team who are entirely bankrolled by their owner could go on a massive cup run and enter Europe, but be denied because of FFP, because their owner has to bankroll them because revenues at that level are not sustainable.

 

Man Utd were bought by borrowing money far above their value and getting them into debt, over £1bn worth in today’s money. By the rules of FFP they should be getting points deductions and being kicked of Europe and possibly the league. It’s ok though because they are Man Utd. Burnley got bought out last year via the same methods, and again they should face similar sanctions, but it’s ok because the Burnley owners are not going to invest all that much in the club and they are largely going to stay where they are.

Leicester ran afoul of the FFP rules in the Championship and as a result should have been denied promotion or relegated later down the line. They had just won the league when the EFL got around to punishing them and were the publics favoured team etc, which resulted in them getting a very small fine.

You then look at how the EFL and such treated Bury compared to Bolton. Both were facing insolvency for the same reasons at the same time. Bury, the smaller club of the two of them were denied the ability to play their games and gain much needed match day revenue and were not given extra time for takeovers to go through. Bolton were allowed to play their games and the EFL board sat around and gave them additional time and help to get a takeover pushed through.

 

FFP and the running of football in this country is a fucking joke, it’s all done to protect the big clubs, it runs down from the FA, through the Premier League, EFL, and the referee’s association.

The very moment the Premier League turned around and said ‘We don’t want any Leicester City’s’ should have been the moment they were disbanded. The same applies to when former referee’s came out saying they were instructed to give the advantage to the bigger clubs.

 

Great post!

 

Thankfully, I really feel that we can (now) sort any and all of this out when/if it is directed at us, to stop us achieving success.

 

The difference now is that we are owned by a group of (what I perceive to be) intelligent, articulate, caring, forward thinking and vastly wealthy owners, who are all (simply) used to succeeding in what they do.

 

We have unlimited access to the very best legal teams that money can buy . . . IF we need them. Let's hope we do not need them, all we want is to be treated completely fairly, and to not be 'picked on' in any way, ever.

 

I am sure that the not-too-bright (as we know) Premier League will be very well aware of our power and capabilities, and will (hopefully) avoid even trying the most blatant of their lying and cheating (pro-Big 6) deviations !!! 

 

 

Edited November 13, 2021 by manorpark

[Wandy]

3 hours ago, Gordyola said:

Cheers and agree, we have the Keegan connection with his magnificent brand of football as well it was a huge disappoint that the rags slipped in and won the league that season
We now have the bond of having hugely rich owners and the rest are against us, led by the yank clubs Like I say, get set for a bumpy ride, at least we had the honeymoon period when they thought Mansour would get bored when they realised City were are threat then the attacks started. Its amazing how many of the pet journalist developed a keen interest in human rights 

 

Yep, we are finding that out very quickly. And especially from our not-jealous-very-much neighbours 12 miles down the road.

[Gordyola]

On 13/11/2021 at 09:02, Awaymag said:

Urgent: An informed source confirms, "Al Qiddiya is the next sponsor of the Newcastle shirt."

 

link https://qiddiya.com

 

 

 

So before I clicked the link Id never heard of Al Qiddiya, might be my ignorance?. Considering the fair value of sponsorship question, and the value of putting Al Qiddiya on NUFC's shirts.
Assuming a £40M  deal, compared to he cost of a advertising campaign on prime time Uk TV it is an absolute bargain, just being on the shirts will get them a worldwide exposure how much would that cost? The takeover have made NUFC a high profile product, even forgetting the history exposure. Etihad, how many people had heard of them before the City deal? Now its a recognizable brand across the world which makes the cost of the deal peanuts Football sponsorship is about getting the name of a brand in the forefront, its not necessarily the product, an obscure brand overnight can become at the forefront in no time.

[Gordyola]

On 12/11/2021 at 23:17, nbthree3 said:

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10196601/Premier-League-plan-curb-Newcastle-Man-City-spending-preventing-use-global-network.html

 

The Premier League are planning to bring in new rules to prevent clubs using their feeder and/or satellite teams to pay players and coaches in another attempt to curb the spending power of Manchester City and Newcastle.

The new regulations will form part of tightened restrictions on related-party sponsorship deals which are set to be agreed later this month in a direct response to the £305million Saudi Arabian-led takeover of Newcastle.

Newcastle’s new owners have made it clear they are planning to follow the City Football Group model of establishing a global network of clubs, leading to fears among some top-flight rivals that such a set-up could be used to circumvent Financial Fair Play regulations.  

From a City point of view this will actually make no difference A lot of City FC employees were transferred to City Football Group CFG as they were supplying services to all the clubs in the Group, for example scouting. The Group charge back services to the clubs. During FFP UEFA quivered this and were satisfied by the explanation in fact the cost of the services equated to more than the cost of the employment This story is just ill informed conjecture, get use to it, always negative. Have Newcastle's new owners actually stated they plan to follow the CFG model?  The Group model was something that City Group CEO Ferran Sorianho wanted to introduce at Barcelona but the club ownership structure prevented it. CFG clubs are not feeder clubs for City there have only been a few deals with Group clubs. City have arrangements with a few clubs in Europe, just like other PL clubs, that the Academy kids got out to on loan but they are not part of the Group. 

[Khalidao]

13 minutes ago, Gordyola said:

So before I clicked the link Id never heard of Al Qiddiya, might be my ignorance?. Considering the fair value of sponsorship question, and the value of putting Al Qiddiya on NUFC's shirts.
Assuming a £40M  deal, compared to he cost of a advertising campaign on prime time Uk TV it is an absolute bargain, just being on the shirts will get them a worldwide exposure how much would that cost? The takeover have made NUFC a high profile product, even forgetting the history exposure. Etihad, how many people had heard of them before the City deal? Now its a recognizable brand across the world which makes the cost of the deal peanuts Football sponsorship is about getting the name of a brand in the forefront, its not necessarily the product, an obscure brand overnight can become at the forefront in no time.

 

Qiddiya and NEOM are ongoing mega city projects for the future unlike already established giants such as Aramco and Saudia. The latter two wouldn't risk their brands to be associated with a club still in progress which could end up in the championship come next season.

 

Also, big chunk of Qiddiya and NEOM project budgets are allocated for marketing which will make them easier and more flexible to deal with in the short term.

[Mikky]

Think their vision 2030 mission is to get 100m tourists to visit the cities - if they pull that off that size of the sponsorship deal by then is going to be massive 

[Wolfcastle]

1 hour ago, Gordyola said:

So before I clicked the link Id never heard of Al Qiddiya, might be my ignorance?. Considering the fair value of sponsorship question, and the value of putting Al Qiddiya on NUFC's shirts.
Assuming a £40M  deal, compared to he cost of a advertising campaign on prime time Uk TV it is an absolute bargain, just being on the shirts will get them a worldwide exposure how much would that cost? The takeover have made NUFC a high profile product, even forgetting the history exposure. Etihad, how many people had heard of them before the City deal? Now its a recognizable brand across the world which makes the cost of the deal peanuts Football sponsorship is about getting the name of a brand in the forefront, its not necessarily the product, an obscure brand overnight can become at the forefront in no time.

 

Very good points raised there. Like buying a club, part of what your paying for is the potential, limiting potential is oxymornic, if this sponsorship makes them 99% more recognised than they are currently,it would be hard to reasonably argue with any price paid. Reasonable is not their game though.

 

 

Edited November 14, 2021 by Wolfcastle