Jump to content

PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media


Yorkie

Recommended Posts

I'll find it hilarious if they bring in rules which stop ANY sponsorship from owners other business's so we just end up getting sponsored by some Saudi state company. Considering the flap the Premier league have made about having legally binding arguments that the PIF are separate from the Saudi state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Scoot said:

I'll find it hilarious if they bring in rules which stop ANY sponsorship from owners other business's so we just end up getting sponsored by some Saudi state company. Considering the flap the Premier league have made about having legally binding arguments that the PIF are separate from the Saudi state.

Or other wealthy gulf states step in with sponsorship.

Link to post
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Stifler said:

They can put a deal forward to the Premier League but apparently they have to agree that it is of the correct market value. I think Staveley was alluding to how she thought the Premier League may drag their heels in their assessment of it being fair market value to beyond a point where the league has voted in tougher sponsorship rules.

 

I don't think that's how it works. The rules allow the PL to adjust the FFP calculation to reduce what is taken into account from related party transactions to fair market value. The club only has to submit accounts for FFP once per season.

 

The current situation is that the PL have temporarily banned all new related party transactions until 30th November.

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, andyc35i said:

Are we thinking after 30 November that sponsorship deals will be announced then with a full assessment undertaken when we submit the FFP accounting?

 

I think that's probably likely, unless the clubs meet before then to change the rules.

 

The current rules are:

 

E.46 The Board shall determine whether consideration included in the Club’s Earnings Before Tax arising from a Related Party Transaction is recorded in the Club’s Annual Accounts at a Fair Market Value. If it is not, the Board shall restate it to Fair Market Value.

 

E.47. The Board shall not exercise its power set out in Rule E.46 without first having given the Club reasonable opportunity to make submissions as to: E.47.1. whether the said consideration should be restated; and/or E.47.2. what constitutes its Fair Market Value.

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I think that's probably likely, unless the clubs meet before then to change the rules.

 

The current rules are:

 

E.46 The Board shall determine whether consideration included in the Club’s Earnings Before Tax arising from a Related Party Transaction is recorded in the Club’s Annual Accounts at a Fair Market Value. If it is not, the Board shall restate it to Fair Market Value.

 

E.47. The Board shall not exercise its power set out in Rule E.46 without first having given the Club reasonable opportunity to make submissions as to: E.47.1. whether the said consideration should be restated; and/or E.47.2. what constitutes its Fair Market Value.

And that opens the door to more legal proceedings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ManDoon said:

Are we not doing the rainbow laces? Seems the every other clubs is, but nothing on our Twitter. Garbage if we aren’t taking part. 

 

Aye. Especially that Man City have tweeted about it despite their ownership. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ah yeah that's what it was.

Makes no difference to me personally, the club's owned by homophobic cunts whether its PR message contradicts that or not. I get why it might mean something to other people though.  

 

 

Edited by kisearch

Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

Masters on takeover, particularly like his last answer re independent body not coming to a different conclusion.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/59436977

 

 

 

"PIF are an investor in many other companies in this country and maybe football is being targeted and talked about in a different way. I can't choose who is chairing a football club. The owners test doesn't let us take a view on that."……..Bizarre that it took the PL 18 months to work that out…..Reading between the lines, my guess is that Hoffman was the important person in this delay…….Done Now, but this should have happened last May and we wouldn’t have been in this relegation scrap.🤔

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Numbers said:

Not sure how that would work like, they can't just remove them as they own the club.

 

It depends what's in the legal agreement they made.

 

Just based on PL rules they can't remove them as owners of the club but they could suspend the club from the league if they didn't sell it in that circumstance. 

 

Realistically though, it's unlikely they would ever be able to actually prove state control of the club.

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...