Jump to content

PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media


Yorkie

Recommended Posts

I can see the logic, were we still owned by Ashley I'd be yeah fuck City and these 'fake sponsorships'. I see the logic, and I don't think restriction of trade rules is a magic thing that will make all ffp stuff go away. 

 

Something needs to be done (and nothing will be done) to tackle rampant wage inflation and players costing ludicrous sums. Most clubs are priced out the market for players and it means we end up with ideas like the super league etc. 

 

I am not especially bothered though. We need to get our revenues up and there are plenty of ways to do that that aren't 'related party'. Obviously other clubs have a head start with just pumping money in, and Chelsea somehow are still fucking do this, but Howe is out there proving we can compete at the sharp end with sensible clever transfers and good coaching. I would much prefer us to compete there with sensible decision making than just spending and spending. Yes we are going to be shafted in a way Chelsea and Man U never are, but they are also clown shows. 

 

If none of tis existed and us and man city could spend unlimited the league would be worse than it already is, and there is a lot of denial about this in the media all invested in the premier league being 'the greatest league in the world'. There are a handful of clubs competing at the top, a small handful being run very well on a budget competing and a whole bunch sucking up the broadcast money and not really competing with those at the top. This is going to get worse but FFP should be there to help them compete and not let us and Man City disappear into the distance, cos sorry, I don't want us to win the league with no competition, I want to win the league with a good league. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Making a broad point here, but notwithstanding the fact that the PL clubs operate in a unique commercial environment, the idea that an industry / commercial entity in the UK would actively encourage less money coming into the UK via related parties for non-tax reasons is very odd to me. Certainly don't see HMRC or the government being comfortable with the direction of travel if this comes to pass.

 

UK and most advanced economies accept and implement OECD guidance on related party transactions needing to be 'arm's length', i.e. the transaction should be priced in line with what unrelated third parties would pay in comparable circumstances, industries, market conditions etc.

 

That's all good and well, except in an elite football context, there are no good comparable benchmarks for how a related party transaction should be priced as every club / most sponsors are fundamentally unique and own intangibles that I highly doubt can be reliably adjusted for. I would be curious to know by what metrics / benchmarks the Premier League judges whether a sponsorship meets the 'fair market value' criteria...

 

 

 

 

Edited by Bada Bing

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Gaztoon said:

All hot air because Restriction of trade is a huge no no ..and the prem know this.. that's why Fines or points deductions will never happen under the fake FFP.

Interesting legal arguments re FFP, a few years old but I guess the arguments about legality remain to be tested in a Court.

 

https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/26_07_2013_09_39_47_Fair-or-foul-Part-1-and-Part-2-word.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, FloydianMag said:

Interesting legal arguments re FFP, a few years old but I guess the arguments about legality remain to be tested in a Court.

 

https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/26_07_2013_09_39_47_Fair-or-foul-Part-1-and-Part-2-word.pdf

 

Quote

This ruling has broad implications for all sporting rules that have any significant economic impact on sportsmen or women or sporting clubs: even where such rules pursue a legitimate objective, the sporting body must show that the rules go no further than is necessary to achieve that objective – i.e. they must be proportionate to the identified aims. Unless the rules are not liable to have any significant economic impact at all, they fall within the scope of the competition rules and require careful justification if they are to survive legal challenge.

That seems relevant to me and the bit most likely to encourage a challenge, particularly around related party transactions (or specifically about putting a cap on them)

 

 

Edited by Keegans Export

Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing illegal or immoral about a related party transaction - in the corporate world, they just have to be disclosed so it's clear and transparent.

 

I'm already not sure how the current rules about fair market value for deals can be enforced, which at a guess might be why they're trying to change it to something simpler they can defend now.

 

Regardless, I can't see how putting a new arbitrary limit on where clubs can legally earn money from could withstand any kind of challenge.

 

So sorry ESL 6. That ringing bell you're hearing is the Undertaker and we're coming for you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, FloydianMag said:

Mick McManus and Jackie Pallo were staple viewing on ITV Sat mornings…..then On the Ball, fuck me I’m old

 

Alas, I never met them, but I have worked with Johnny Saint and Marty Jones and Stevie Knight. Fuck me I'M old ;D

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...