Newcastle United: Club Sold To PCP - Official

[wykikitoon 19399]

Would ya?

[Sonatine 11136]

[ohhh_yeah 2884]

48 minutes ago, wykikitoon said:

Would ya?

 

 

[ewerk 29592]

Quote

Premier League agrees change to sponsorship rules despite Newcastle United legal threat

 

The Premier League has approved new rules to prevent inflated related-party sponsorship deals despite angry opposition from Newcastle United, who warned other clubs last week that the regulations could be legally challenged.

Newcastle and Manchester City are both understood to have voted against the new rules at a Premier League stakeholders meeting today — all other 18 clubs voted in favour. At the meeting, it was also agreed to lift the temporary suspension on related-party deals imposed after the Saudi-funded takeover of Newcastle in October.

This means that all new sponsorship deals will have to be submitted to the Premier League to be approved. An independent company will decide whether the proposed deal is of fair market value. The assessor will have access to a database of all other top-flight clubs’ deals so that it will be obvious if it is artificially high.

Club sources have told The Times that Newcastle’s director, Amanda Staveley, sent a lengthy email to all the other 19 clubs last week saying that the sponsorship rules would be legally challengeable as they are anti-competitive. Other club chiefs have taken the email as a threat that Newcastle could launch a legal challenge if their new sponsorship deals are rejected as being too high.

Staveley was part of the Premier League working party that drew up the new regulations, along with a representative from Manchester City, but they were unhappy about the final outcome, even though some concessions were made to the wording of the rules over the weekend.

Any proposed new deal for Newcastle will now be matched against similar deals by similar-sized clubs. So for example, a shirt sponsorship deal or stadium naming rights deal would have to be of a similar level to those paid to the likes of Everton, Aston Villa or Leeds United.

Newcastle’s majority shareholder is Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF) and there were concerns from other Premier League clubs that the takeover would prompt a wave of sky-high sponsorship deals with other entities linked to the Saudi state.

At the clubs’ meeting , it was also agreed that there must be full transparency around payments and salaries to players, managers and staff, and clubs will also not be allowed to make secret payments via related companies.

It follows allegations that Roberto Mancini had two contracts while he was manager of Manchester City. According to information released by Football Leaks, City’s contract was for £1.45 million a year, before bonuses, and the other £1.75 million with the Al Jazira club in Abu Dhabi also owned by Sheikh Mansour and paid into an offshore shell company in Mauritius called Sparkleglow Holdings.

 

[Monkeys Fist 41421]

3 hours ago, wykikitoon said:

Would ya?

[Isegrim 9595]

8 hours ago, ewerk said:

 

Those regulations do sound dodgy indeed. Why should a club who does smart deals not be allowed to get as much money as a so called bigger club. It does artificially restrict clubs from growing.

[Monkeys Fist 41421]

Mental isn’t it? 
It’s almost as if the “also rans” of the Premier League have forgotten about the Biiiig 6 wanting to fuck them all off and piss off to the European Super League mere months ago. 
This is no good for anyone except those who are already nuts deep in filthy money. 

[Isegrim 9595]

3 minutes ago, Monkeys Fist said:

Mental isn’t it? 
It’s almost as if the “also rans” of the Premier League have forgotten about the Biiiig 6 wanting to fuck them all off and piss off to the European Super League mere months ago. 
This is no good for anyone except those who are already nuts deep in filthy money. 

Those rules will get scrapped as soon as one of the top teams can get a deal well worth more than what the other teams get.

I hope we just get a myriad of micro deals for a fair market value, i. e. not just 200m from Aramco but 2m from 100 companies linked to PIF.

[Monkeys Fist 41421]

I can see that being the way we go, taking the precedent set by Manchester United, so, noodle sponsor, tractor sponsor, third traffic bollard along from the Strawberry sponsor, etc etc. 

[Tom 14002]

 

[Howmanheyman 31847]

1 hour ago, Tom said:

 

I'm sure it'll be witty but surely the first game without sports direct signs shouldn't feature sports direct signs? Take those fucking signs and get in the bin alongside them. 

[Howmanheyman 31847]

Apparently just a joke. I'm sure it sounded a good laugh backstage at the latest podcast. 

 

 

 

[Alex 34210]

The new regulations sound an absolute farce. I doubt they’d be legally sound. The less well off clubs have essentially voted to keep themselves less well off, there’s no way an ‘independent company’ (what a fuck joke that notion is btw in this context) can quantify objectively what makes one club bigger than another and, as others have pointed out, there’s loads of ways round it even in the context of these dodgy regulations. You could literally have someone being the official training ground crockery sponsor with a separate cutlery deal and someone else paying for the privilege of being the official beverage supplier, etc etc

[ewerk 29592]

A pint of Aramco sounds much better than whatever pish they were selling last time I was at the ground.

[Alex 34210]

2 hours ago, ewerk said:

A pint of Aramco sounds much better than whatever pish they were selling last time I was at the ground.

 apart from the rare occasion when I’ve been in the platinum club and had a bottle of beck’s or whatever at halftime, I don’t think I’ve ever bought a drink in the ground. The queues are always massive and I assume it’s the sort of stuff where you piss about 3 pints for every one you drink 

[Tom 14002]

It’s a different world in Bar 1892/Platinum club.

 

You don’t have to queue for a piss or a pint and the beer isn’t completely shite. You even get a proper glass  

 

Howay the gentrification 

[Howmanheyman 31847]

Half time is piss time getting rid of the pre-game drink in actual bars. (Or if you've lost your zest in life, the labour club). Don't know where people get the time nor the inclination to drink what's on offer plus pay the inflated prices. 

[ewerk 29592]

Here was me thinking that queuing for 12 minutes to get a pint of Carling in a plastic glass and trying to neck it in three minutes on a freezing cold concourse was all part of the matchday experience.

That's the last time I go to a game with CT I can tell you.

[Gemmill 42960]

Slightly concerning that Staveley has come away unhappy with the new regulations, but the fact that she believes strongly enough that they're legally challengeable is good news. Depends of course whether we are left in sponsorship limbo for an extended period while any legal issues are dealt with. 

Is there anything in the regulations about the length of time that the "independent company" can take to approve / reject a deal? 

[Christmas Tree 4483]

20 minutes ago, Howmanheyman said:

Half time is piss time getting rid of the pre-game drink in actual bars. (Or if you've lost your zest in life, the labour club). Don't know where people get the time nor the inclination to drink what's on offer plus pay the inflated prices. 

Half time is queuing for a cubicle with all the other smoker / vapers  

[Christmas Tree 4483]

18 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Here was me thinking that queuing for 12 minutes to get a pint of Carling in a plastic glass and trying to neck it in three minutes on a freezing cold concourse was all part of the matchday experience.

That's the last time I go to a game with CT I can tell you.

Not a chance of my bladder coping with a half time pint.

 

As it is I always try and book end of row seats so as not to make everyone stand up on my many toilet trips.

[Dr Gloom 21393]

11 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

Slightly concerning that Staveley has come away unhappy with the new regulations, but the fact that she believes strongly enough that they're legally challengeable is good news. Depends of course whether we are left in sponsorship limbo for an extended period while any legal issues are dealt with. 

Is there anything in the regulations about the length of time that the "independent company" can take to approve / reject a deal? 

the good news is it doesn't change much in the short term. ashley spending the square root of fuck all all means we can spunk about £200m without breaching FFP

[Gemmill 42960]

Just now, Dr Gloom said:

the good news is it doesn't change much in the short term. ashley spending the square root of fuck all all means we can spunk about £200m without breaching FFP

I know we're allowed to do this from an FFP rules pov. What I'm not clear on is whether there is cash in the club to do this. And whether it would be possible/responsible to do that and massively pump up the wage bill when we don't know what a significant portion of our future income looks like. 

[Dr Gloom 21393]

2 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

I know we're allowed to do this from an FFP rules pov. What I'm not clear on is whether there is cash in the club to do this. And whether it would be possible/responsible to do that and massively pump up the wage bill when we don't know what a significant portion of our future income looks like. 

surely the precedent has been set by the man city deal and that fair value would mean an equivalent short/stadium deal with Saudio Aramco?

[OTF 7147]

3 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

I know we're allowed to do this from an FFP rules pov. What I'm not clear on is whether there is cash in the club to do this. And whether it would be possible/responsible to do that and massively pump up the wage bill when we don't know what a significant portion of our future income looks like. 

 

It will hurt having to pay overs for players to end the season whichever way it goes, most of all if we're still relegated as we'll have paid huge wages with no return and they'll all have release clauses to get out of here in a hurry for cheap. But the chance of staying up mean they have to at least have a go of it. We've watched us play, we know we've been a relegation standard team for more than a season. We've improved with a new manager but we need players to stand any chance of surviving and the only way to sign them when you're in this predicement is to pony up the big bucks.

 

FFP takes the biggest hit if we're relegated, we've got room to spend so it's therefore possible and I'd also say the responsible thing to do would be to have a proper push at staying up.