r0cafella Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 2 minutes ago, madras said: But surely that negates the FMV bit as someone wouldn't buy it if they didn't get the profits from its use ? The valuation will apply to the sales price, I’d imagine the management contract is tricky maybe it’s why this hasn’t been approved yet. I think the irony is we’d get absolutely destroyed if we tried this. Isn’t it odd they still haven’t been punished for the breaches the reported themselves? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
KetsbaiaIsBald Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 So basically we should try to get Armaco under Newcastles company structure and we'd have unlimited spending? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 1 minute ago, r0cafella said: The valuation will apply to the sales price, I’d imagine the management contract is tricky maybe it’s why this hasn’t been approved yet. I think the irony is we’d get absolutely destroyed if we tried this. Isn’t it odd they still haven’t been punished for the breaches the reported themselves? But wouldn't the sales price be massively affected by any new owner NOT getting any profits from its use ? Who else would buy it on those terms ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
r0cafella Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 2 minutes ago, Kimbo said: I feel like I’m quite close to fucking the sport off. I’m hesitant to even call it a sport when we have the rules rigged in favour of a small group of clubs. I don’t even want us to spend more than anyone else, and I don’t care about the premier league being the biggest league in the world, but if there’s no route for clubs to compete for trophies, then what’s the point? We’re just supposed to exist as feeder clubs? Like the footballing equivalent of faceless goons that get shot in the head by John Wick? Either bring down the spending of the top clubs so that it’s in line with the rest of the league, or allow the rest of the league to compete financially with the top clubs if they have investors capable of it. It can be done in such a way that doesn’t bankrupt clubs. You’re absolutely right but it’s very tricky to do. Most of the clubs are perfectly happy with the current system as they don’t have any ambition to compete they are just happy to ride the valuations up and make money doing the minimum. If you let the shackles comes off, then the threat from below appears as ambitious people can buy up championship clubs to compete with. These rules were never about protecting clubs from bankruptcy no provision in the rules exist for such cases as demonstrated by Everton. It’s a stitch up pure and simple. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terraloon Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 1 hour ago, KetsbaiaIsBald said: Did the value include the fact they theft the income from the hotels with the original trading entity? It seems weird to me to say my company owns a hotel worth 100 million and it generates income of 10 million a year. If I sold this property to someone but kept the rights to the 10 million income per year surely I could not sell it for 100 million? As I said in my original post clever people employer very clever people to find work around. Is what we have done right? Depends what you define as right ? But the reality is that numerous trading entities don’t own they property from which they trade Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 8 minutes ago, Terraloon said: As I said in my original post clever people employer very clever people to find work around. Is what we have done right? Depends what you define as right ? But the reality is that numerous trading entities don’t own they property from which they trade As far as I'm aware the PL haven't approved the transaction yet. All law, regulations, contracts etc. is open to interpretation and that interpretation is a matter for the PL > arbitration panel > courts if it can come to that. Unless and until it has been signed off it's not certain that they have been successful in their workaround. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prophet Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 (edited) No idea if this is correct, but wouldn't be surprising. Edited June 7 by The Prophet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
sushimonster85 Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 Wouldn't be shocked if it was accurate, but that legal teams from various clubs got in touch to point out the effect this could have on the player market. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abacus Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 Damage is already done, though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dokko Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 Get SSNs in the courts as well. Devaluing our players like that. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jack j Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 Obviously they put a post out on twitter retracting the Chelsea part of it Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sifu Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 10 minutes ago, The Prophet said: No idea if this is correct, but wouldn't be surprising. Just tried to find the tweet and the article and they've definitely disappeared. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 2 minutes ago, jack j said: Obviously they put a post out on twitter retracting the Chelsea part of it Based on the ever faithful 'Chelsea can do whatever the fuck they want' accounting principle Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
JigsawGoesToPieces Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 Wonder if releasing Dummett, Karius, Ritchie etc before 30th June has saved a bit? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCK Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 Just now, JigsawGoesToPieces said: Wonder if releasing Dummett, Karius, Ritchie etc before 30th June has saved a bit? Not expert on finances, but I feel like it'll have saved us next to nothing. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt1892 Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 13 minutes ago, JigsawGoesToPieces said: Wonder if releasing Dummett, Karius, Ritchie etc before 30th June has saved a bit? I presume they would still be under contract until the 30th June even if they are being released. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terraloon Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 2 hours ago, Jackie Broon said: As far as I'm aware the PL haven't approved the transaction yet. All law, regulations, contracts etc. is open to interpretation and that interpretation is a matter for the PL > arbitration panel > courts if it can come to that. Unless and until it has been signed off it's not certain that they have been successful in their workaround. The PL haven’t confirmed that the deal has been signed off but there again such transactions have to be kept confidential so it’s unlikely that such information would be placed in the public domain. The transaction was included in the year22/23 which in effect ended 12 months ago . The PL will have know about this transaction way before 30/6/23 they, the PL , have only a short period to process maters such as this and that time has way passed . Can we assume anything from that? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexf Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 (edited) Probably been discussed before but where would associated party fair value fall with regards release clauses? Is it a potential loophole? Say no one values Bruno as £100m this summer and can only afford £80m or something but a saudi team came in and offered the release clause? Could the premier leagues say shit about it if we value the player £20m higher than other teams in europe were willing to pay and a saudi team wanted to secure his transfer? Not that I would want that to happen in anyway of course but if you apply the same logic to other players. Depending if they would be willing to move but say we could argue Wilson or Almiron for example are more valuable to us than their market value of say £10m and therefore we have a release clause put in their contracts of say £20m and Saudi teams decide to trigger it. Could the premier league really block that? Short answer im sure is yes but would be interesting to stress test. Edited June 7 by alexf Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terraloon Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 16 minutes ago, Matt1892 said: I presume they would still be under contract until the 30th June even if they are being released. Won’t save anything in the 23/24 year as their contracts run to 30/6/24 and ironically they are paid for a period into 24/25 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackie Broon Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 20 minutes ago, Terraloon said: The PL haven’t confirmed that the deal has been signed off but there again such transactions have to be kept confidential so it’s unlikely that such information would be placed in the public domain. The transaction was included in the year22/23 which in effect ended 12 months ago . The PL will have know about this transaction way before 30/6/23 they, the PL , have only a short period to process maters such as this and that time has way passed . Can we assume anything from that? It might also be that there is an arbitration case ongoing that hasn't been made public. According to their rules at the time the PL only had 5 working days to confirm our takeover. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
duo Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 1 hour ago, Dokko said: Get SSNs in the courts as well. Devaluing our players like that. Sue them for millions- PSR sorted Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezzle Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 3 hours ago, JigsawGoesToPieces said: Wonder if releasing Dummett, Karius, Ritchie etc before 30th June has saved a bit? If anything cost us money due to 'loyalty fees' you give based on the contract. Smith and Owen got a nice payout Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boey_Jarton Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 3 hours ago, Sifu said: Just tried to find the tweet and the article and they've definitely disappeared. Was amazed they put the article out in the first place. Unless they had validated it with CFOs (why would they do that?) or had water tight projections of pending rolling three year results (impossible without insider sources), it felt awfully risky to push it out into the public domain and potentially influence the market. I imagine sky have received a string of strongly worded letters from the legal teams of each club. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Turnbull2000 Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 3 hours ago, jack j said: Obviously they put a post out on twitter retracting the Chelsea part of it Have they not also arranged the deal so they keep the hotel income? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terraloon Posted June 7 Share Posted June 7 2 hours ago, Jackie Broon said: It might also be that there is an arbitration case ongoing that hasn't been made public. According to their rules at the time the PL only had 5 working days to confirm our takeover. That’s correct and as I say we have no idea what the situation is but the fact that someone is briefing the press re our 23/24 position is either bravado or based on agreed submissions 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