PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media

[Guest reefatoon]

12 minutes ago, MagCA said:

Not finding it super fun that now we have a new shiny rich as fuck takeover all this red tape has suddenly appeared 

Have to agree. I’m so trying to enjoy football again, but all this shite just puts you right off. The whole thing is corrupt to fuck, and rinses any kind of enjoyment you want to get from football. You just look at it all and think, what’s the fucking point.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by reefatoon

[Whitley mag]

All these rules brought in to stop one club growing and under the pretence of an independent company deciding it.

 

Only one place this is heading and I suspect we’ll win again.

[SUPERTOON]

19 minutes ago, reefatoon said:

Have to agree. I’m so trying to enjoy football again, but all this shite just puts you right off. The whole thing is corrupt to fuck, and rinses any kind of enjoyment you want to get from football. You just look at it all and think, what’s the fucking point.

 

 

 

Our team and form don’t help either mind 😂

[et tu brute]

7 minutes ago, Whitley mag said:

All these rules brought in to stop one club growing and under the pretence of an independent company deciding it.

 

Only one place this is heading and I suspect we’ll win again.

Need to start the legal action immediately as otherwise the top 6 (except City) will just keep introducing stuff. The whole thing is totally anti-competitive and restraint of trade. They already have a bundle of evidence saved up even before this new vote.

[Scoot]

5 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Need to start the legal action immediately as otherwise the top 6 (except City) will just keep introducing stuff. The whole thing is totally anti-competitive and restraint of trade. They already have a bundle of evidence saved up even before this new vote.

 

And when they do take them to court they need to take them all the way. No settlements or nothing as they'll just make up more rules further down the line. Take them all the way and show them up.

[et tu brute]

14 minutes ago, Scoot said:

 

And when they do take them to court they need to take them all the way. No settlements or nothing as they'll just make up more rules further down the line. Take them all the way and show them up.

Totally agree and it needs to be done immediately as I’m quite certain that the sponsorship they have lined up will probably be impacted. It’s a sure win case in my opinion as a set of companies can’t set rules for another company in relation to business trade.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by et tu brute

[Wolfcastle]

If the league was its own thing, independent and independently thinking - they should be delighted at the prospect of having another mega-club on their hands, could have an actual big6 now instead the seat filling Spurs.

The mere fact they'd turn that down or resent it screams corruption from an organisation that will not take 39th games off the table they're that keen for more money, more eyes on the product.

[midds]

Still think they should just call the League's bluff an go ahead an sign the deals we want.

 

Say something (legally) like "we think this is a bit shit and unfair and we think it's unenforceable if we take it through the courts. We're going to sign the deals regardless, formally challenge your rules (with City's backing) and if we happen to lose in court then we'll renegotiate and come to some kind of compromise. We're either separate from the state or we're not? You found no links in October"

 

Can't run with the foxes and hunt with the hounds.  

 

 

[Wolfcastle]

Definitely think ourselves and City could be very useful allies in all of this, now there's two.

They represent what were being restricted from being and are themselves held back. Can't help but think a judge would think this is bloody ridiculous.

Mind football is the one business where there's even a chance any of this would work.

Would sleep easy if a joint case was launched.

 

 

[et tu brute]

7 minutes ago, midds said:

Still think they should just call the League's bluff an go ahead an sign the deals we want.

 

Say something (legally) like "we think this is a bit shit and unfair and we think it's unenforceable if we take it through the courts. We're going to sign the deals regardless, formally challenge your rules (with City's backing) and if we happen to lose in court then we'll renegotiate and come to some kind of compromise. We're either separate from the state or we're not? You found no links in October"

 

Can't run with the foxes and hunt with the hounds.  

 

 

Yeah I’m all for this and it would allow sponsorship straight away without waiting for a court result.

[Whitley mag]

City’s current sponsorship with Etihad is about 50 million. Realistically we’d be looking to at least match that when we replace fun88.

 

There just seems so many intangibles we could argue in terms of market value. We could argue that due to our new profile in the Middle East our previous deals are no longer representative of our new status. 
 

Funny that they didn’t invent any rules when Ashley was blatantly ripping us off with Sports Direct.

 

Realistically we could be looking at a stadium and new training ground sponsor early in the new year to test the waters on this.

[Jackie Broon]

41 minutes ago, midds said:

Still think they should just call the League's bluff an go ahead an sign the deals we want.

 

Say something (legally) like "we think this is a bit shit and unfair and we think it's unenforceable if we take it through the courts. We're going to sign the deals regardless, formally challenge your rules (with City's backing) and if we happen to lose in court then we'll renegotiate and come to some kind of compromise. We're either separate from the state or we're not? You found no links in October"

 

Can't run with the foxes and hunt with the hounds.  

 

 

 

Separation from the state and (or to be more precise the definition of 'control' in the PL's rules) is completely different to this, the PL have basically written the definition of an 'associated party' so that it will definitely catch any other KSA owned businesses.

 

This part in particular: "A Person is also associated with a Club if any of the following conditions apply: (b) The Person and the Club are directly or indirectly controlled, jointly controlled, or Materially Influenced by the same government, public or state-funded body or by the same party".

 

I'm sure it is probably challengeable, but I doubt it would be on the basis that Ziegler suggests.

 

 

Edited December 21, 2021 by Jackie Broon

[Colos Short and Curlies]

11 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Separation from the state and (or to be more precise the definition of 'control' in the PL's rules) is completely different to this, the PL have basically written the definition of an 'associated party' so that it will definitely catch any other KSA owned businesses.

 

This part in particular: "A Person is also associated with a Club if any of the following conditions apply: (b) The Person and the Club are directly or indirectly controlled, jointly controlled, or Materially Influenced by the same government, public or state-funded body or by the same party".

 

I'm sure it is probably challengeable, but I doubt it would be on the basis that Ziegler suggests.

 

 

 

that sounds pretty similar to the substance of the P&L test re control and separation.

 

it’s lifted straight from company law on related parties

[et tu brute]

41 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Separation from the state and (or to be more precise the definition of 'control' in the PL's rules) is completely different to this, the PL have basically written the definition of an 'associated party' so that it will definitely catch any other KSA owned businesses.

 

This part in particular: "A Person is also associated with a Club if any of the following conditions apply: (b) The Person and the Club are directly or indirectly controlled, jointly controlled, or Materially Influenced by the same government, public or state-funded body or by the same party".

 

I'm sure it is probably challengeable, but I doubt it would be on the basis that Ziegler suggests.

 

 

 

It’s challengeable on anti competition law and restraint of trade and that’s what the club’s legal team should be pushing through the courts as soon as possible.

[Jackie Broon]

Just now, et tu brute said:

It’s challengeable on anti competition law and restraint of trade and that’s what the club’s legal team should be pushing through the courts as soon as possible.

 

Yeah, this article I posted the other day concludes that FFP rules are probably doomed under competition law challenge unless they add in some kind of allowance for clubs to bridge the financial gap to the current top clubs, which the PL rules basically do the opposite of. 

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17441056.2021.1935570

[McDog]

2 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Yeah, this article I posted the other day concludes that FFP rules are probably doomed under competition law challenge unless they add in some kind of allowance for clubs to bridge the financial gap to the current top clubs, which the PL rules basically do the opposite of. 

 

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17441056.2021.1935570

 

 

That was extremely long but interesting.

[r0cafella]

It should be noted, the above article refers to Uefa and its implementation of FFP. I’m not sure how this stands with regards to the premier leagues versions. 

[bowlingcrofty]

Club just needs to argue it’s “true” market value is per the performance of the club in the 15 years pre-Ashley rather than during his ownership. Before he asset stripped us the club regularly competed in the top 6 and latter stages of European competition and therefore our true “value” is in line with that.

 

it’s all subjective and no way enforceable and everyone knows it. We just need to crack on and blow them out of the water with the best legal bods money can buy

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, bowlingcrofty said:

Club just needs to argue it’s “true” market value is per the performance of the club in the 15 years pre-Ashley rather than during his ownership. Before he asset stripped us the club regularly competed in the top 6 and latter stages of European competition and therefore our true “value” is in line with that.

 

it’s all subjective and no way enforceable and everyone knows it. We just need to crack on and blow them out of the water with the best legal bods money can buy

Yeah I’d like to know more about how the rule is implemented. Is it a case of you submit the deal to the league and they decide the value unilaterally or is it a discussion. If it’s unilateral they have to challenge the rule without delay. 

[Jackie Broon]

5 hours ago, r0cafella said:

It should be noted, the above article refers to Uefa and its implementation of FFP. I’m not sure how this stands with regards to the premier leagues versions. 

 

Yes, but the principle is probably the same, it restricts competition in the same way, more blatantly with these new rules.

[JonBez comesock]

Also we could argue that these pathetic anti competitive rules will hinder us competing in the champions or Europa league ?

 

how is it fair sponsorship has to be capped in the premier league but not in other European countries 

 

surely we are hindering all premier league teams ??

 

For me it’s like trying to cap wages and telling who we can and can’t sign 

 

surely it’s up to the each individual club to see how much sponsorship they can get in / how much cash they can generate from every avenue  ??

its no one else’s business ??

 

 

[RS]

From the athletic:

“It is believed the Premier League are looking to bring in a ruling that any club that plays in the North East in black and white stripes must ensure their players play games with both legs through one leg of their shorts”. 
 

it’s literally that blatant. If this was an Eastern European league the UK would be pissing themselves at the obvious corruption. 

[Jackie Broon]

15 minutes ago, JonBez comesock said:

Also we could argue that these pathetic anti competitive rules will hinder us competing in the champions or Europa league ?

 

how is it fair sponsorship has to be capped in the premier league but not in other European countries 

 

surely we are hindering all premier league teams ??

 

For me it’s like trying to cap wages and telling who we can and can’t sign 

 

surely it’s up to the each individual club to see how much sponsorship they can get in / how much cash they can generate from every avenue  ??

its no one else’s business ??

 

 

 

There are similar FFP rules for UEFA competitions as well.

[levelsevenlee]

17 minutes ago, RS said:

From the athletic:

“It is believed the Premier League are looking to bring in a ruling that any club that plays in the North East in black and white stripes must ensure their players play games with both legs through one leg of their shorts”. 
 

it’s literally that blatant. If this was an Eastern European league the UK would be pissing themselves at the obvious corruption. 

 

To be fair, I think our defenders have been adhering to this new ruling since the start of the season.

[Fantail Breeze]

I really don’t think it will have much impact on our plans otherwise the club’s anger would have been heard by now.