PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media

[Abacus]

There's no easy way of establishing the market value of a sponsorship, so many factors to consider and it's a unique market. It's basically unworkable, I reckon.

 

The concern is that it needs to be agreed by the PL lawyers, who will indeed take their time and try to tangle, block and obstruct for as long as possible.

 

So I'm agreed with the idea that we just sign something and let them pick the bones out of it after. I mean, what can they do? 

 

A points deduction? Well, I'm fairly confident that's a bit like threatening Kojack with a hair deduction.

[Kid Icarus]

They've all been active participants and lobbyists for the very laissez faire system that's going to ensure their own demise. So now they're all happlessly scrambling around trying to close the door on a juggernaut that's more powerful than all of them combined with the same type of weak reformation they themselves have spent years fighting against and weakening. I'm sure there's a bloke who wrote at length about how this always ends up happening. 

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by kisearch

[geordiesteve710]

41 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

And that would be a related party transaction, that the PL could say is over fair market value.

 

This is the bit that I'm still not fully understanding. In the hypothetical scenario above, can the PL stop the funds being paid into the club's bank account if it doesn't agree with the sponsorship deal? Pretty sure that isn't legal.

 

Surely they only have jurisdiction in respect of what the club spends its money on, and by definition that is an argument that can only be had months down the line once the financial statements have been drawn up?

[geordiesteve710]

I'm not trying to be a dick by the way, I genuinely just don't get it.

[TRon]

12 minutes ago, Abacus said:

There's no easy way of establishing the market value of a sponsorship, so many factors to consider and it's a unique market. It's basically unworkable, I reckon.

 

The concern is that it needs to be agreed by the PL lawyers, who will indeed take their time and try to tangle, block and obstruct for as long as possible.

 

So I'm agreed with the idea that we just sign something and let them pick the bones out of it after. I mean, what can they do? 

 

A points deduction? Well, I'm fairly confident that's a bit like threatening Kojack with a hair deduction.

 

I hope these other clubs think they are getting good value throwing good money hiring litigation which will probably only end up making the lawyers richer, and ultimately will probably prove impossible to enforce. 

[McCormick]

27 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

There's only so many big city clubs who would ever attract the really big sponsorships in the first place, we were one of them and we landed the biggest ones of the lot, and that's what's got the big boys fuming.

 

Leeds or Villa maybe would be other candidates, but is another PIF ever going to come along? 

Still have Qatar sniffing around for a PL club, but I see what you mean.

[Geordie Ahmed]

5 minutes ago, geordiesteve710 said:

 

This is the bit that I'm still not fully understanding. In the hypothetical scenario above, can the PL stop the funds being paid into the club's bank account if it doesn't agree with the sponsorship deal? Pretty sure that isn't legal.

 

Surely they only have jurisdiction in respect of what the club spends its money on, and by definition that is an argument that can only be had months down the line once the financial statements have been drawn up?

They won't be able to stop the funds is my understanding but when it comes to the FFP calculation, they'll only include the amount they deem to be "fair"

[Kid Icarus]

Weren't Man City just like 'well we'll investigate you then' when UEFA were investigating them for FFP, and there was nothing more said? Surely that happening again is the end game in all this if that was allowed to happen?

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by kisearch

[nbthree3]

Article based on the new rules https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/12/14/premier-league-clubs-must-prove-commercial-deals-represent-fair/

 

Under the new rules, all commercial deals will have to be submitted to the Premier League’s board, currently searching for a new chairman since the departure of Gary Hoffman. 

Those deals will then be scrutinised by an external assessor with independence who will determine whether they represent fair market value. The clubs who submit new deals will also be able to make the case for those deals being legitimate.

Details of all commercial deals agreed by clubs will be held by the Premier League and the data anonymised so that assessors can compare deals across different clubs and different endorsement sectors.

There are also new rules for transparency when it comes to paying managers, players, other coaches and staff. Clubs will have to be able to demonstrate that all key employees are paid out of the club’s approved budget within financial fair play and are not, for example, employed by other companies within the structure that owns the clubs itself.

[TRon]

1 minute ago, nbthree3 said:

Article based on the new rules https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/12/14/premier-league-clubs-must-prove-commercial-deals-represent-fair/

 

Under the new rules, all commercial deals will have to be submitted to the Premier League’s board, currently searching for a new chairman since the departure of Gary Hoffman. 

Those deals will then be scrutinised by an external assessor with independence who will determine whether they represent fair market value. The clubs who submit new deals will also be able to make the case for those deals being legitimate.

Details of all commercial deals agreed by clubs will be held by the Premier League and the data anonymised so that assessors can compare deals across different clubs and different endorsement sectors.

There are also new rules for transparency when it comes to paying managers, players, other coaches and staff. Clubs will have to be able to demonstrate that all key employees are paid out of the club’s approved budget within financial fair play and are not, for example, employed by other companies within the structure that owns the clubs itself.

 

 It's a barely concealed attempt at a stitch up. The ones who have climbed the ladder basically taking a saw to it and making sure no one else climbs up afterwards. 

[Jackie Broon]

9 minutes ago, geordiesteve710 said:

 

This is the bit that I'm still not fully understanding. In the hypothetical scenario above, can the PL stop the funds being paid into the club's bank account if it doesn't agree with the sponsorship deal? Pretty sure that isn't legal.

 

Surely they only have jurisdiction in respect of what the club spends its money on, and by definition that is an argument that can only be had months down the line once the financial statements have been drawn up?

 

No, but they couldn't have actually stopped Ashley selling the club to the consortium without their agreement either. What prevents it is that they can impose penalties on the club for breaking their rules, including suspending the club from the league.

[Sima]

9 minutes ago, nbthree3 said:

Article based on the new rules https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2021/12/14/premier-league-clubs-must-prove-commercial-deals-represent-fair/

 

Under the new rules, all commercial deals will have to be submitted to the Premier League’s board, currently searching for a new chairman since the departure of Gary Hoffman. 

Those deals will then be scrutinised by an external assessor with independence who will determine whether they represent fair market value. The clubs who submit new deals will also be able to make the case for those deals being legitimate.

Details of all commercial deals agreed by clubs will be held by the Premier League and the data anonymised so that assessors can compare deals across different clubs and different endorsement sectors.

There are also new rules for transparency when it comes to paying managers, players, other coaches and staff. Clubs will have to be able to demonstrate that all key employees are paid out of the club’s approved budget within financial fair play and are not, for example, employed by other companies within the structure that owns the clubs itself.

 

 Nosey cunts.

[xLiaaamx]

It's blatant. We'll be capped at the levels Ashley has had us at. It'll be treated different for each club and we'll be fucked over the most. 

[Jackie Broon]

23 minutes ago, kisearch said:

Weren't Man City just like 'well we'll investigate you then' when UEFA were investigating them for FFP, and there was nothing more said? Surely that happening again is the end game in all this if that was allowed to happen?

 

 

 

 

I don't think so, UEFA couldn't do anything in the end because the breach of FFP was outside of their time limit for enforcement.

 

But Man City are still embroiled in a battle with the PL over that, they are going through arbitration over the PL requiring them to disclose documents relating to the leaked emails that led to UEFA's case.

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[Miggys First Goal]

Oh well, previous deals are going to fuck us. 
 

 

[healthyaddiction]

Just now, Miggys First Goal said:

Oh well, previous deals are going to fuck us. 
 

 

The follow up tweet says the previous deals is across the PL, not based on NUFCs previous deals alone.

[Miggys First Goal]

Just now, healthyaddiction said:

The follow up tweet says the previous deals is across the PL, not based on NUFCs previous deals alone.

Didn’t see that. Good to know. 

[Guest HTT II]

Bent cunts being, well, bent cunts!

[TRon]

17 minutes ago, healthyaddiction said:

The follow up tweet says the previous deals is across the PL, not based on NUFCs previous deals alone.

 

It's still basically pulling the drawbridge up after some of the Big 6 have established clear superiority via self-sponsored mega funding over the last couple of decades. 

[Tsunami]

So, what’s fair market value for the richest club in the world based on other deals for earlier richest clubs? You’ve got to take into account potential growth over the length of any deal and avoid actively restricting this growth by denying sponsorship.

 

You can’t judge our current attractiveness with where we were under Ashley. PIF bought us for the potential and the PL have to allow for competition and for clubs to grow.

[LV]

Sounds like a legal minefield this.  
 

 

[Gallowgate Toon]

1 hour ago, Abacus said:

There's no easy way of establishing the market value of a sponsorship, so many factors to consider and it's a unique market. It's basically unworkable, I reckon.

 

The concern is that it needs to be agreed by the PL lawyers, who will indeed take their time and try to tangle, block and obstruct for as long as possible.

 

So I'm agreed with the idea that we just sign something and let them pick the bones out of it after. I mean, what can they do? 

 

A points deduction? Well, I'm fairly confident that's a bit like threatening Kojack with a hair deduction.

Absolutely this. Clubs work in so many aspects of the business into deals now too. 

 

Single commercial deals can span front of shirt, sleeves, front of boards, back of boards, fanzones, digital static & dynamic (which can break down massively), digital takeovers, hospitality coverage, social, pre-roll etc. etc.

 

What level of scrutiny are they expecting to go into here?

[maze]

30 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

It's still basically pulling the drawbridge up after some of the Big 6 have established clear superiority via self-sponsored mega funding over the last couple of decades. 

Yepp! But that is what the PL is about, isn’t it? Roll over and Worship the top 6…

 

[Awaymag]

why are you all worried about this?   So basically they are capping sponsorship at the highest level, give or take.   So Man City have a shirt deal for £50M a year say, if NUFC announces new shirt deal and its say £52M then that should be approved as its within the ball park.     If NUFC announce a shirt deal of £300M then that is a different matter , and would likely be rejected.    How that would play out if NUFC wanted to take them to court I dont honestly know.

 

But yes, it is restriction of trade (or glass ceiling) if I have read it right!

 

 

Edited December 14, 2021 by Awaymag

[MrRaspberryJam]

The PL are all piss and wind.