FloydianMag Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 1 minute ago, et tu brute said: Still disagree it's got anything to do with any political issues, there's only one thing the owners of the other clubs are bothered about. You mention about fans, but the majority of Man United fans soon changed their view when Qatar came knocking. I honestly think you're kidding yourself if you think politics is even a consideration in why this is being proposed. Your average football fan wouldn’t be able to point to Saudi on a map never mind having an awareness of the geopolitical issues in the Gulf region or human rights issues tbh. It’s all about the money for most of them, not all but most. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OverThere Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 Its all about $$$, no more and no less. The fact we want our snout in the trough and to do that we have to push their snouts out IS the issue. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boey_Jarton Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 "Clubs will have to show multiple offers of similar value" This is not how business works. A sponsorship deal to one party does not necessarily have the same intangible value that it does to another party. It is comparing apples with pears. A Saudi firm may see a lot of value in associating it's brand with a team that is Saudi owned and so will benefit from that exposure. Ryan Reynolds various brands benefit from the synergies created from sponsoring Wrexham. At the risk of being an accountancy bore, the value of an intangible asset is the incremental cashflows that it may generate to your company and has nothing to do with what another company might be willing to pay for it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 1 hour ago, midds said: I was originally referring to fans of all other clubs tbh. I'm sure Liverpool and Spurs want to limit us as much as possible and would have done so regardless of ownership but my post was mainly about our general unpopularity across the sport in general. We're now hated for 2 reasons - our wealth and the nature of the owners imo The Fan's of other clubs wouldnt give a frig about the Saudis if they were skint. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted November 9, 2023 Share Posted November 9, 2023 4 minutes ago, madras said: The Fan's of other clubs wouldnt give a frig about the Saudis if they were skint. See Sheffield United. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 32 minutes ago, Nobody said: See Sheffield United. And Wolves to some extent. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 8 hours ago, Boey_Jarton said: "Clubs will have to show multiple offers of similar value" This is not how business works. A sponsorship deal to one party does not necessarily have the same intangible value that it does to another party. It is comparing apples with pears. A Saudi firm may see a lot of value in associating it's brand with a team that is Saudi owned and so will benefit from that exposure. Ryan Reynolds various brands benefit from the synergies created from sponsoring Wrexham. At the risk of being an accountancy bore, the value of an intangible asset is the incremental cashflows that it may generate to your company and has nothing to do with what another company might be willing to pay for it. I watched the Back Pages on Sky Sports News last night, Hope was on and he expects a ban on loan deals to happen but what he did say was ‘clubs will have to show multiple offers of similar value’ being the the one that stands on the toes of Competition Law and we haven’t heard the last of that one. Hope is a bit of a twat at times however it looks like if the club is going to take any legal action that’s the battle they’ve chosen. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keegans Export Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 8 hours ago, Boey_Jarton said: "Clubs will have to show multiple offers of similar value" This is not how business works. A sponsorship deal to one party does not necessarily have the same intangible value that it does to another party. It is comparing apples with pears. A Saudi firm may see a lot of value in associating it's brand with a team that is Saudi owned and so will benefit from that exposure. Ryan Reynolds various brands benefit from the synergies created from sponsoring Wrexham. At the risk of being an accountancy bore, the value of an intangible asset is the incremental cashflows that it may generate to your company and has nothing to do with what another company might be willing to pay for it. Our deal with Adidas is a great example. The history between the club and Adidas and the nostalgia element amongst the fan base means that Adidas will inevitably make more money from NUFC than Nike, Umbro etc would have, therefore the deal has more value to Adidas than it would any of those companies. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitley mag Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 (edited) Think the club always knew they’d have to fight their corner at some point, these owners aren’t that clever and collusion will bite them on the arse, it’s just when we decide to pull the trigger. Edited November 10, 2023 by Whitley mag Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieDazzler Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 I think their fear of us abusing the rules is understandable but long term these actions probably help us. We continue to build sustainably and it makes us a lot harder to get rid of. We’re a unique prospect as we’ve got a lot of room for natural growth. This isn’t like Saudi trying to turn Bournemouth or similar into a mega club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, GeordieDazzler said: I think their fear of us abusing the rules is understandable but long term these actions probably help us. We continue to build sustainably and it makes us a lot harder to get rid of. We’re a unique prospect as we’ve got a lot of room for natural growth. This isn’t like Saudi trying to turn Bournemouth or similar into a mega club. I'm not sure about that. Isn't their ad hoc changing of the rules mid season just as much of an abuse ? I'm just waiting for premiership prize money and tv money to be divided up on co efficient terms like Champs league money. Edited November 10, 2023 by madras Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
GeordieDazzler Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 5 minutes ago, madras said: I'm not sure about that. Isn't their ad hoc changing of the rules mid season just as much of an abuse ? I'm just waiting for premiership prize money and tv money to be divided up on co efficient terms like Champs leafue money. You'd never get an majority vote for that. It would be full turkeys for Christmas. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boey_Jarton Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 3 hours ago, FloydianMag said: I watched the Back Pages on Sky Sports News last night, Hope was on and he expects a ban on loan deals to happen but what he did say was ‘clubs will have to show multiple offers of similar value’ being the the one that stands on the toes of Competition Law and we haven’t heard the last of that one. Hope is a bit of a twat at times however it looks like if the club is going to take any legal action that’s the battle they’ve chosen. I think that is right because the new rules that Hope alluded to ('multiple offers of similar value') would not stand up in any court because they make no economic sense. I don't think this is one to worry about at all. It can be argued that the loan ruling is also on dodgy grounds (although this one is less clear as the loan of players is very specific to football). It is highly unusual to restrict trade between two willing parties conducting normal and legal business activity (e.g. the loan of a player). It is even more unusual for a market participant to create the particular rules that restrict the trading activity of the competition (and potentially benefit from that restriction). I imagine the club have employed lawyers to debate this point and their initial tactic might be to suggest that any temporary ban is illegal, and Newcastle will seek redress if implemented. They could push the premier league to postpone any rule changes until the summer, at which point, I might expect the club to lobby for the rule to restrict loans between connected clubs, only if they do not represent fair value. Of course, the fair value of a loan is very difficult to prove (much more so than a permanent transfer) and is also an easier way to circumvent FFP, which is why this is (with some justification to be fair) a contentious issue for other clubs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 7 minutes ago, Boey_Jarton said: I think that is right because the new rules that Hope alluded to ('multiple offers of similar value') would not stand up in any court because they make no economic sense. I don't think this is one to worry about at all. It can be argued that the loan ruling is also on dodgy grounds (although this one is less clear as the loan of players is very specific to football). It is highly unusual to restrict trade between two willing parties conducting normal and legal business activity (e.g. the loan of a player). It is even more unusual for a market participant to create the particular rules that restrict the trading activity of the competition (and potentially benefit from that restriction). I imagine the club have employed lawyers to debate this point and their initial tactic might be to suggest that any temporary ban is illegal, and Newcastle will seek redress if implemented. They could push the premier league to postpone any rule changes until the summer, at which point, I might expect the club to lobby for the rule to restrict loans between connected clubs, only if they do not represent fair value. Of course, the fair value of a loan is very difficult to prove (much more so than a permanent transfer) and is also an easier way to circumvent FFP, which is why this is (with some justification to be fair) a contentious issue for other clubs. I believe that the club employed Andy Devine, a lawyer of some standing especially with regard to sports and regulations, hopefully he’ll attend the PL meeting later this month. I can see CAT being involved, again, should the club legally challenge any new rules they put in place. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Edgar Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 45 minutes ago, Boey_Jarton said: I think that is right because the new rules that Hope alluded to ('multiple offers of similar value') would not stand up in any court because they make no economic sense. I don't think this is one to worry about at all. It can be argued that the loan ruling is also on dodgy grounds (although this one is less clear as the loan of players is very specific to football). It is highly unusual to restrict trade between two willing parties conducting normal and legal business activity (e.g. the loan of a player). It is even more unusual for a market participant to create the particular rules that restrict the trading activity of the competition (and potentially benefit from that restriction). I imagine the club have employed lawyers to debate this point and their initial tactic might be to suggest that any temporary ban is illegal, and Newcastle will seek redress if implemented. They could push the premier league to postpone any rule changes until the summer, at which point, I might expect the club to lobby for the rule to restrict loans between connected clubs, only if they do not represent fair value. Of course, the fair value of a loan is very difficult to prove (much more so than a permanent transfer) and is also an easier way to circumvent FFP, which is why this is (with some justification to be fair) a contentious issue for other clubs. Love proper knowledgeable posts like this. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 3 minutes ago, David Edgar said: Love proper knowledgeable posts like this. Agreed. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 2 hours ago, GeordieDazzler said: You'd never get an majority vote for that. It would be full turkeys for Christmas. You mean like the FMV rules passed ? Like the TV money carve up ? Like the Champs league coefficients payments. The other clubs could have stopped them all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 11 minutes ago, madras said: You mean like the FMV rules passed ? Like the TV money carve up ? Like the Champs league coefficients payments. The other clubs could have stopped them all. UCL money is UEFA and PL money all clubs get the same share, only extras are TV appearances a final league positions. There hasn’t been a vote on these well at least to my knowledge. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RS Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 Would be interesting to see a list of things the Premier League weren’t arsed about before NUFC were bought out. Bent clowns. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 5 minutes ago, FloydianMag said: UCL money is UEFA and PL money all clubs get the same share, only extras are TV appearances a final league positions. There hasn’t been a vote on these well at least to my knowledge. There are coefficient payments which basically mean if we win it we could still get less than Real Madrid. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
FloydianMag Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 7 minutes ago, madras said: There are coefficient payments which basically mean if we win it we could still get less than Real Madrid. Yes but co efficient payments don’t exist in the PL, as far as UCL money I agree. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 The loan thing doesn’t bother me at all tbh. I don’t think PL clubs should be loaning players - full stop. Besides, it is obviously an abusable method of circumventing FFP - at present, there’s nothing stopping a very rich backer from buying good players for a team in a country outside of UEFA, then loaning them back to their English club at far less value Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
morpeth mag Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 I'd be happy with a ban on loan signings in and out from this point forward. Simple rule with no definition of related clubs or market value required. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomson Mouse Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 14 hours ago, madras said: The Fan's of other clubs wouldnt give a frig about the Saudis if they were skint. Completely agree. The amount of noise about the govt selling several billions in arms and planes to the Saudis compared to what is happening in the football world is chalk and cheese. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbydazzla Posted November 10, 2023 Share Posted November 10, 2023 (edited) 3 hours ago, FloydianMag said: I believe that the club employed Andy Devine, a lawyer of some standing especially with regard to sports and regulations, hopefully he’ll attend the PL meeting later this month. I can see CAT being involved, again, should the club legally challenge any new rules they put in place. John Devine Top sports lawyer, Newcastle fan, from Denton Burn Edited November 10, 2023 by bobbydazzla 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