NUFC Transfer Rumours

[et tu brute]

1 minute ago, madras said:

And why have so many other sports got salary caps etc, surely business law would say that's illegal, and the company (club) can pay whatever they like infact the whole PSR, FMV etc situation is all illegal.

 

I'm no expert on business law but I reckon theres more to it than ensuring any business can spend what it wants.

It's obviously been agreed with the unions that's why. As for your second point in every single industry, there are global individual businesses who are allowed to invest into their business as they seem fit and as a result are leaders in their individual market. It's always been that way and that won't change. Let's just see what happens 

[The Prophet]

4 minutes ago, NSG said:

Yeah can’t see Ratcliffe wanting to do business with us now  

 

Seems like a non-starter based on this alone.

 

It seems TalkSport, Bailey and Nickson all have a similar source, they all tend to break at a similar time.

[madras]

1 minute ago, et tu brute said:

It's obviously been agreed with the unions that's why. As for your second point in every single industry, there are global individual businesses who are allowed to invest into their business as they seem fit and as a result are leaders in their individual market. It's always been that way and that won't change. Let's just see what happens 

An agreement with the unions can circumvent law ?

 

The clubs voted to pass these rules "tyranny of the majority" but an agreement nonetheless ?

 

There are many areas in which business law works differently with sports clubs and leagues, so as you say, let's wait and see.

 

 

 

 

[GeordieDazzler]

We were due a big transfer announcement today but the Crowdstike issue has scuppered it. 

[et tu brute]

8 minutes ago, madras said:

An agreement with the unions can circumvent law ?

 

The clubs voted to pass these rules "tyranny of the majority" but an agreement nonetheless ?

 

There are many areas in which business law works differently with sports clubs and leagues, so as you say, let's wait and see.

 

 

 

 

If it's with the agreement with the players then I presume yes. Again these are rules not laws and that's the point what's not getting through to you. This is the reason City are challenging, because they are stating the 'rules' go against what is in the 'law'. Any rule must be inline with what is in law and that's why the case went ahead

 

 

Edited July 19, 2024 by et tu brute

[Fezzle]

12 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

Seems like a non-starter based on this alone.

 

It seems TalkSport, Bailey and Nickson all have a similar source, they all tend to break at a similar time.

Surely preventing us but allowing West Ham and Juve on identical terms would be the very definition of related party and throw their separation for uefa competitions in the bin? Sure Ratface will happily jeopardise all that on our account

[madras]

6 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

If it's with the agreement with the players then I presume yes. Again these are rules not laws and that's the point what's not getting through to you. This is the reason City are challenging, because they are stating the 'rules' go against what is in the 'law'. Any rule must be inline with what is in law and that's why the case went ahead

 

 

 

That must mean PSR is against business law as well. Makes you wonder why it's not been challenged ?

[KaKa]

32 minutes ago, The Prophet said:

 

 

Apparently really wanted Juventus and so was holding out for that over West Ham.

 

Will depend on whether we can put across a more convincing pitch that sways him from Juventus.

[et tu brute]

1 minute ago, madras said:

That must mean PSR is against business law as well. Makes you wonder why it's not been challenged ?

Yet that will be coming also. 

[Skeletor]

Just now, KaKa said:

 

Apparently really wanted Juventus and so was holding out for that over West Ham.

 

Will depend on whether we can put across a more convincing pitch that sways him from Juventus.

 

Our black and white stripes look better.

[FloydianMag]

3 minutes ago, madras said:

That must mean PSR is against business law as well. Makes you wonder why it's not been challenged ?

It probably is, it’s anti competitive, the ruling on capping agents fees was on the basis such a rule was anti competitive.

[madras]

Just now, et tu brute said:

Yet that will be coming also. 

We'll see. I honestly think the reason we haven't already is because we know we'd lose. PIF didn't give a fuck about turning the golf world upside down so I don't buy the being nice to gain favour BS. It will always be tinkered with but it won't be brought down until there's a ESL which I'm no fan of.

[Ketsbaia]

Was hoping Todibo links would emerge, he just makes too much sense. Would hate if West Ham pulled it off.

 

Obviously the Ratcliffe + Juventus factors still make it difficult.

[Beren]

DoSomething.gif

[et tu brute]

1 minute ago, madras said:

We'll see. I honestly think the reason we haven't already is because we know we'd lose. PIF didn't give a fuck about turning the golf world upside down so I don't buy the being nice to gain favour BS. It will always be tinkered with but it won't be brought down until there's a ESL which I'm no fan of.

As you said we'll see, I predict a domino effect occurring. PIF are letting city fight this case (I'm quite sure they have worked with City)

on this. Back to transfers now, which I have no interest in on this thread, as it's just full of bullshit rumours 

[Checko]

21 minutes ago, KaKa said:

 

Apparently really wanted Juventus and so was holding out for that over West Ham.

 

Will depend on whether we can put across a more convincing pitch that sways him from Juventus.

Just need to point out that Newcastle is closer to the south of France than wherever the hell Juventus actually is and I'm sure we'll get out man, who we're probably not actually looking to sign anyway.

[STM]

3 minutes ago, Checko said:

Just need to point out that Newcastle is closer to the south of France than wherever the hell Juventus actually is and I'm sure we'll get out man, who we're probably not actually looking to sign anyway.

To get from Nice to Turin you barely need to scroll out on a map. 

[jigen]

Todibo is a top rcb. And he is fast, perfect to play alongside Botman. Finally you are linked with a player abroad and with the right characteristics for you. 

[Checko]

Just now, STM said:

To get from Nice to Turin you barely need to scroll out on a map. 

Rob Lee reference

[FloydianMag]

3 minutes ago, Checko said:

Just need to point out that Newcastle is closer to the south of France than wherever the hell Juventus actually is and I'm sure we'll get out man, who we're probably not actually looking to sign anyway.

Not really…..look at a map👍

[tarie4]

4 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

No underestimation from me - I've been scratching my head as to why it has taken so long to get so many of the obvious low-hanging sponsorship fruit through the door - training ground and kit in particular.

 

The problem is that we're not Man Utd - not even close in terms of worldwide recognition or reach - so we won't attract the same size or number of deals, and the biggest deals are already done (kit, kit sponsors) - so what would the actual value be of all those additional sponsors you mention?  5m?  7m?  10m maybe?  It isn't going to be earth-shattering.  And we're not in Europe - which would of course have an impact - so you've raised an issue not a strength.

We certainly are not Manchester United, and we may not be able to attract DHL as a sponsor. However, you are missing the point. Our ownership group has over 100 different companies in various sectors worldwide, so attracting sponsors will not be a problem.

The challenge lies in the value of the deals. From a business perspective, given the current rules, it is not advisable to announce all sponsors at once, even the smaller ones. Instead, we should gradually introduce them while the team improves on the pitch, thus increasing our brand value. For example, if we secure a training kit sponsor for 7 to 10 million (half of what Manchester United receives), which is approved by the Premier League, we can then negotiate better deals with Sela and Noon. I trust that our capable management team knows what they are doing. They have already increased the club's revenues by 66% and plan to grow them further within the existing regulations. They mentioned that it was a long-term plan from the moment they entered. They are patient, and I believe we, as fans, should also exercise patience.

Within the existing regulations, it may be challenging to match Manchester United's revenue in the near future. However, in my opinion, if we can reach approximately 400 million (Arsenal's revenue was 464 million in 2023), we would be in a comfortable position to compete. Based on our current trajectory, I believe this could be achievable within the next two years (2025 and 2026). 

[FloydianMag]

4 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

We certainly are not Manchester United, and we may not be able to attract DHL as a sponsor. However, you are missing the point. Our ownership group has over 100 different companies in various sectors worldwide, so attracting sponsors will not be a problem.

The challenge lies in the value of the deals. From a business perspective, given the current rules, it is not advisable to announce all sponsors at once, even the smaller ones. Instead, we should gradually introduce them while the team improves on the pitch, thus increasing our brand value. For example, if we secure a training kit sponsor for 7 to 10 million (half of what Manchester United receives), which is approved by the Premier League, we can then negotiate better deals with Sela and Noon. I trust that our capable management team knows what they are doing. They have already increased the club's revenues by 66% and plan to grow them further within the existing regulations. They mentioned that it was a long-term plan from the moment they entered. They are patient, and I believe we, as fans, should also exercise patience.

Within the existing regulations, it may be challenging to match Manchester United's revenue in the near future. However, in my opinion, if we can reach approximately 400 million (Arsenal's revenue was 464 million in 2023), we would be in a comfortable position to compete. Based on our current trajectory, I believe this could be achievable within the next two years (2025 and 2026). 

You do realise that any sponsorship from any PIF related sector or business would likely fall foul of the new APT rules the PL are bringing in and that City have just challenged?

 

 

Edited July 19, 2024 by FloydianMag

[Guybrush]

[madras]

4 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

You do realise that any sponsorship from any PIF related sector or business would likely fall foul of the ne APT rules the PL are bringing in and that City have just challenged?

Even if it were deemed FMV ? (See Noon)

 

 

Edited July 19, 2024 by madras

[FloydianMag]

2 minutes ago, madras said:

Even if it were deemed FMV ?

That is something that would have to be tested I would think and given the more onerous nature of the new APT rules that still haven’t been implemented yet.