PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media

[madras]

Just now, manorpark said:

 

Well, that's great!!

TBF it was a funny line. Its well enough used on both boards, you must've seen the style.

 

"Bloke at the pool bar here reckons we're about to sign X"

 

Reply "Oooh look at me at the pool bar......pathetic!"

[Pixelphish]

Ohhh look at me I get mad about forum memes. Pathetic.

[wormy]

Look at me look at me I have enough of a life to not know forum jokes. Pathetic.

[Abacus]

21 minutes ago, manorpark said:

 

No, it was too strongly written (despite the  ) to be a joke.

Mate, honestly, that was a joke and I've seen it dozens of times here and elsewhere.

 

Let's say someone buys a new kettle. You'll then get someone saying "Look at me, look at me, I have boiling water. Pathetic".

 

As if having access to boiling water is some kind of luxury thus making the person actually saying it the real butt of the joke, so really nothing to take personally.

 

It's a deliberate over-reaction to something quite mundane for comic effect.

 

Look at me, look at me, trying to explain jokes. Pathetic.

[manorpark]

Just now, Abacus said:

Mate, honestly, that was a joke and I've seen it dozens of times here and elsewhere.

 

Let's say someone buys a new kettle. You'll then get someone saying "Look at me, look at me, I have boiling water. Pathetic".

 

As if having access to boiling water is some kind of luxury thus making the person actually saying it the real butt of the joke, so really nothing to take personally.

 

It's a deliberate over-reaction to something quite mundane for comic effect.

 

Look at me, look at me, trying to explain jokes. Pathetic.

 

Now THAT - I like !!!!

 

[manorpark]

Could I have been mistaken?

 

Hmm, I'm beginning to think so!

[madras]

2 minutes ago, manorpark said:

Could I have been mistaken?

 

Hmm, I'm beginning to think so!

Ooh look at me, Big enough to admit I mightve made a slight mistake......pathetic.

[manorpark]

Just now, madras said:

Ooh look at me, Big enough to admit I mightve made a slight mistake......pathetic.

 

I'll have a go . . .

 

This could go on, round in circles, forever . . pathetic !!

[Dokko]

9 minutes ago, manorpark said:

 

I'll have a go . . .

 

This could go on, round in circles, forever . . pathetic !!

 

Tbf it's a forum thing. I tried it with my lass in a txt and it went down exactly like it did here with you. 😂

[Guest HTT II]

17 minutes ago, manorpark said:

 

Now THAT - I like !!!!

 

look at me, liking a post, fucking pathetic…

[1964]

27 minutes ago, manorpark said:

Could I have been mistaken?

 

Hmm, I'm beginning to think so!

I think so as well 

[manorpark]

3 minutes ago, 1964 said:

I think so as well 

 

He says he thinks as well - fucking pathetic 

[Abacus]

Anyhow, I am wondering about this lack of sponsorship announcements, as that's one of the key ways we can grow.

 

Wondering whether they need to resolve the Ashley legal case first, or if we have them lined up but need to get them past the PL's new tests, or are waiting to confirm for certain what league we're in next year first.

 

Or, maybe a combination of those.

[et tu brute]

2 minutes ago, Abacus said:

Anyhow, I am wondering about this lack of sponsorship announcements, as that's one of the key ways we can grow.

 

Wondering whether they need to resolve the Ashley legal case first, or if we have them lined up but need to get them past the PL's new tests, or are waiting to confirm for certain what league we're in next year first.

 

Or, maybe a combination of those.

The Ashley legal case is against PCP only and nothing to do with the club. 

[Abacus]

3 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

The Ashley legal case is against PCP only and nothing to do with the club. 

 

That's what I thought. But (from media reports anyway) the case does link to the removal of SD signage from the ground and part of the defence seemed to be that the club had received no sponsorship money from SD, so I wondered if it wasn't quite as clearcut in separation of the club from PCP.

 

Especially as PCP are directors and apparently under a management contract to run the club day to day, including making executive decisions like removing the signs.

 

I don't know, obviously, this isn't my area - it just seemed a bit of a coincidence to me is all, hence why I chucked it in as a possibility.

[Jackie Broon]

30 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

The Ashley legal case is against PCP only and nothing to do with the club. 

 

The loan is probably secured against some or all of their ownership so it does have something to do with the club. Highly unlikely but worst case scenario Ashley could possibly take possession of their share of the club.

[macphisto]

38 minutes ago, Abacus said:

Anyhow, I am wondering about this lack of sponsorship announcements, as that's one of the key ways we can grow.

 

Wondering whether they need to resolve the Ashley legal case first, or if we have them lined up but need to get them past the PL's new tests, or are waiting to confirm for certain what league we're in next year first.

 

Or, maybe a combination of those.

Was there not some working committee set up to look at the 3rd party sponsorship deals that Stavely was part of? Maybe their recommendations are still waiting to be signed off? I also wouldn't be surprised if they are waiting until relegation is mathematically impossible. The other thing they might be looking at are indirect 3rd party sponsorship deals for want of a better word. There are a lot of companies who work in partnership with PIF and would not be classified as 3rd parties but could sponsor Newcastle as a sweetener to maintain their relationship with PIF.

[et tu brute]

5 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

The loan is probably secured against some or all of their ownership so it does have something to do with the club. Highly unlikely but worst case scenario Ashley could possibly take possession of their share of the club.

I thought the Reuben's had loaned PCP the money to cover that (not sure to be honest) The case is against remarks made by PCP resulting in Ashley wanting the loan paid immediately. That's not going to hold up in court (imho) and unless PCP cannot pay the loan back, then Ashley won't be getting his grubby little hands on any part of anything anytime soon. 

[Kanji]

My guess is they will begin announcing commerical deals once mathematically safe or this summer. 

[Happinesstan]

Can't see us announcing any sponsorship deals until safety is confirmed.

Would anybody, realistically, begin negotiations before that? Being a confirmed PL club puts you in a much stronger negotiating position.

[Kanji]

Yeah, you'd negotiate and just sit on the contract or have terms for 1) PL and 2) champo

[Jackie Broon]

Given that our main deals will almost certainly be related parties there won't really be much 'negotiation' to do, the issue is probably going to be getting them approved by the PL, which might be the reason we don't have any new major sponsors yet.

[madras]

19 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

Given that our main deals will almost certainly be related parties there won't really be much 'negotiation' to do, the issue is probably going to be getting them approved by the PL, which might be the reason we don't have any new major sponsors yet.

But there's also the self fulfilling prophecy side to things. Non related companies corporations etc will want in knowing where this is going to go and a premium for that. With them being non related it should be easier to get them through and that will boost the price for other seemingly related deals.

 

 

Edited March 29, 2022 by madras

[macphisto]

4 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

Given that our main deals will almost certainly be related parties there won't really be much 'negotiation' to do, the issue is probably going to be getting them approved by the PL, which might be the reason we don't have any new major sponsors yet.

PIFs connections are so widespread that they'll almost have links with nearly every major international brand so it will be interesting how they look at related parties. Interesting what Stavely said in a recent Athletic interview, "I’m on the FFP committee and I said, ‘you won’t find a raft of related-party transactions because this was not our business plan’. We know we’ve got such a good story that we can attract people and PIF are such good partners that brands are very keen to work with them........I’ve always known we will be able to show fair market value for our sponsorship rights. We’re getting offers for sponsorship that are probably outbidding potential Saudi sponsors.”

 

It's the highlighted part which will get around a lot of the regulations, sponsoring Newcastle will be a way to build relations with PIF in relation to other business deals away from football. 

 

There may also be some companies who also want to directly target the Saudi population which is fairly large and wealthy, through Newcastle, particularly as the country modernises. 

 

 

[Happinesstan]

5 hours ago, Jackie Broon said:

Given that our main deals will almost certainly be related parties there won't really be much 'negotiation' to do, the issue is probably going to be getting them approved by the PL, which might be the reason we don't have any new major sponsors yet.

That's my point. No way we go to the PL and say can you OK this £100 million deal.