Jackie Broon Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 4 minutes ago, mrmojorisin75 said: the fuck are you talking about? there's been some temporary shit put in place cause they've shat themselves, the actual rules haven't been decided on yet and nufc will be part of drawing them up No need to get aggressive, I'm talking about the current rules about related party sponsorships have been in place for years: A.1.163. “Related Party Transaction” means a transaction disclosed in a Club’s Annual Accounts as a related party transaction or which would have been disclosed as such except for an exemption under the accounting standards under which the Annual Accounts were prepared; Pursuant to Rules E.18 to E.20, the Board may require further information from the Club including (but not limited to): a) confirmation that Club Own Revenue Uplift has been calculated on a like-for-like basis; and b) satisfactory evidence that revenue included within the calculation of Club Own Revenue Uplift has not been artificially inflated. In addition, the Board may adjust a Club Own Revenue Uplift by assessing any revenue within it from Related Party Transactions to Fair Market Value. As set out in the definition of Club Own Revenue Uplift (Rule A.1.33), the Board must give the Club the opportunity to make submissions before it does so. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 17 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said: No need to get aggressive, I'm talking about the current rules about related party sponsorships have been in place for years: A.1.163. “Related Party Transaction” means a transaction disclosed in a Club’s Annual Accounts as a related party transaction or which would have been disclosed as such except for an exemption under the accounting standards under which the Annual Accounts were prepared; Pursuant to Rules E.18 to E.20, the Board may require further information from the Club including (but not limited to): a) confirmation that Club Own Revenue Uplift has been calculated on a like-for-like basis; and b) satisfactory evidence that revenue included within the calculation of Club Own Revenue Uplift has not been artificially inflated. In addition, the Board may adjust a Club Own Revenue Uplift by assessing any revenue within it from Related Party Transactions to Fair Market Value. As set out in the definition of Club Own Revenue Uplift (Rule A.1.33), the Board must give the Club the opportunity to make submissions before it does so. But how would they argue if, for example, we get in Ten Hag and Overmars, spend 100million in January, because of links with Saudi Arabia become the biggest club in the Middle east and start building a larger following in the far East.......how much are we allowed to be sponsored for then ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 41 minutes ago, madras said: But how would they argue if, for example, we get in Ten Hag and Overmars, spend 100million in January, because of links with Saudi Arabia become the biggest club in the Middle east and start building a larger following in the far East.......how much are we allowed to be sponsored for then ? I'm not concerned about us getting around it, I'm sure we will one way or another whatever they do. My point is more about clubs outside of the big six voting in favour of rules that are basically designed to stop them from ever bridging the financial gap to the big 6. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 Just now, Jackie Broon said: I'm not concerned about us getting around it, I'm sure we will one way or another whatever they do. My point is more about clubs outside of the big six voting in favour of rules that are basically designed to stop them from ever bridging the financial gap to the big 6. Oh right, see your point. Could it be more to stop others escaping their mini league to the top mini league possibly ? Though as you say there always seems to be ways round it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted October 29, 2021 Share Posted October 29, 2021 (edited) 13 minutes ago, madras said: Oh right, see your point. Could it be more to stop others escaping their mini league to the top mini league possibly ? Though as you say there always seems to be ways round it. There will be ways around it for us, we've got the power and wealth of a nation ruled by an absolute monarchy behind us, they'll be able to get unconnected Saudi companies to sponsor us with no paper trail. That's not the case for other clubs owned by rich individuals. I think the clubs outside of the big six are just focussed on being overtaken by us, but they can't see the wood for the trees that the FFP rules as they are only really benefit the big six. Edited October 29, 2021 by Jackie Broon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 Wakey wakey Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Newcastle Fan Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 Not sure how good it is for Amanda's health to watch us play every week Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miggys First Goal Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 If we could start making some moves this week, that would be great. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LRD Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 Would be continuing on engagement and communication if they can come out to assure the fans about any managerial progress (without specific names or confidential stuff of course). Been absolutely quiet this week. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
huss9 Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 get ya fucking fingers out man. the lot of yers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rompe Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 On 27/10/2021 at 23:07, Fantail Breeze said: Teams may as well just have banners that say: ”No to Saudi investment, unless it’s in us”. Because that’s pretty much all it is I think the banners were referencing football matters, at least that's my understanding. Don't think Middlesborough fans or, the club itself for that matter, has anything to do with this investment, but I might be wrong. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nbthree3 Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10148509/Newcastle-forced-stick-Sports-Direct-sponsor-new-owners-hope-signs-removed-soon.html Newcastle United's new owners have been forced to keep Sports Direct signage up inside St James’ Park due to legal clauses inserted by former owner Mike Ashley ahead of the club’s sale. The clauses mean the new Saudi owners have not be able to remove the ads but after the takeover led by British businesswoman Amanda Staveley (below) hopes remain they will come down in the ‘short-term’. They were still evident during yesterday’s match against Chelsea. The sponsorship agreement between Ashley’s sports retailer and Newcastle United runs to the end of the season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 (edited) 28 minutes ago, nbthree3 said: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10148509/Newcastle-forced-stick-Sports-Direct-sponsor-new-owners-hope-signs-removed-soon.html Newcastle United's new owners have been forced to keep Sports Direct signage up inside St James’ Park due to legal clauses inserted by former owner Mike Ashley ahead of the club’s sale. The clauses mean the new Saudi owners have not be able to remove the ads but after the takeover led by British businesswoman Amanda Staveley (below) hopes remain they will come down in the ‘short-term’. They were still evident during yesterday’s match against Chelsea. The sponsorship agreement between Ashley’s sports retailer and Newcastle United runs to the end of the season. With Bruce's new contract, a team facing relegation and the sports direct signs, I'm amazed PIF didn't just tell him to fuck off. Lucky for us they didn't mind. Edited October 30, 2021 by et tu brute Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyc35i Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 13 minutes ago, et tu brute said: With Bruce's new contract, a team facing relegation and the sports direct signs, I'm amazed PIF didn't just tell him to fuck off. Lucky for us they didn't mind. I know what you mean, it’s even more amazing when you think that they waited the best part of two years as well. But it fills me with confidence that they’re here for the long term and know they have to deal with all this shit left behind right now to see progress in the future Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted October 30, 2021 Share Posted October 30, 2021 44 minutes ago, nbthree3 said: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-10148509/Newcastle-forced-stick-Sports-Direct-sponsor-new-owners-hope-signs-removed-soon.html Newcastle United's new owners have been forced to keep Sports Direct signage up inside St James’ Park due to legal clauses inserted by former owner Mike Ashley ahead of the club’s sale. The clauses mean the new Saudi owners have not be able to remove the ads but after the takeover led by British businesswoman Amanda Staveley (below) hopes remain they will come down in the ‘short-term’. They were still evident during yesterday’s match against Chelsea. The sponsorship agreement between Ashley’s sports retailer and Newcastle United runs to the end of the season. Quote Despite dominating the stadium, the club received the equivalent of £157,500-a-year from Sports Direct under Ashley. Lets not forget we're finally rid of the man. Robbed the club of income and just let it rot. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 Should probably put a statement out just to give the fans an update on the process, even if there's not really much to report on. We all now how important communication is, after suffering from such Aa lack of it for 15 years. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagCA Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 Anybody clued up to what this means? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lazarus Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 29 minutes ago, MagCA said: Anybody clued up to what this means? I may be wrong, but i think its to do with property. So maybe the transfer of 10% (Ruebens share of the consortium) of club property?? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MagCA Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 I remember seeing a rumour that the Reubens agreed to lend PCP the money for their 10% stake in the club but not sure how accurate that is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gleebals Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 2 hours ago, Nobody said: Should probably put a statement out just to give the fans an update on the process, even if there's not really much to report on. We all now how important communication is, after suffering from such Aa lack of it for 15 years. Completely agree Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliottman Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 2 hours ago, Nobody said: Should probably put a statement out just to give the fans an update on the process, even if there's not really much to report on. We all now how important communication is, after suffering from such Aa lack of it for 15 years. Been holding off because didn’t want to come across as impatient but I’ve been a tad disappointed with the communication so far across the board. Probably my expectations are too high and 100% they’ll be getting things in place and I’m sure it’ll improve, but aye, was maybe just expecting a little more. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Edgar Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWN Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 sack the board Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NE27 Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 PIF OFF YOU FUPPING BAXTERS. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbo_11 Posted November 3, 2021 Share Posted November 3, 2021 Personally I don't like the constant leaks - it has to be coming from the consortium as it has been referenced by local journalists they've got wind of information before it has happened. Craig Hope mentioned this on a recent podcast, Caulkin had the first interview after the failed takeover and Keith Downie mentioned this before his 24 hour stint. I can understand after years of zero communication trying to get the local media onside in what should be a brilliant time, but I think the consortium are not above criticism. I'm glad they haven't rushed into an appointment, but they were clearly looking at replacing Bruce as soon as it was confirmed and the process has spectacularly backfired in the early hours. I think the most important appointment moving forward will be a CEO that understands the game and a Director of Football to focus on that aspect of the club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now