|
Sydney_Iron 9:47 Wed Dec 15
Changes to PL Sponsorship rules
|
|
Not sure this is a good idea and maybe opening up a can of worms? Can see both sides of the argument for and against it, but only Newcastle and Man City voted against it......
Surely fair market value is what someone is willing to pay? And then what next are the premier league going to start dictating what players are worth and who clubs can sign etc?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/7d7898bc-5cf6-11ec-9cd9-b6f698a4b9a5?shareToken=4d6dcb8910f24526d4239c91fa455667
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.
|
|
|
Replies - Newest Posts First ( Show In Chronological Order)
Side of Ham
9:17 Wed Dec 15
Re: Changes to PL Sponsorship rules
|
This is just an invitation to the Saudi Embassy......
|
RBshorty
8:52 Wed Dec 15
Re: Changes to PL Sponsorship rules
|
Empire’s come. Empire’s go.
|
Texas Iron
7:51 Wed Dec 15
Re: Changes to PL Sponsorship rules
|
That’s exactly how rich clubs can fuck FFP and spend lots more each season…
Prime example is Man City…
Newcastle want to do the same…
|
Mike Oxsaw
4:23 Wed Dec 15
Re: Changes to PL Sponsorship rules
|
"Everyone else would be fucked"
Maybe that's not a bad (long term) target to aim for.
|
Passerby66
11:54 Wed Dec 15
Re: Changes to PL Sponsorship rules
|
The issue is really that these state owned football clubs can cheat to get round FFP in a way that nobody else can.
For example, because the UAE own both Manchester City and Ethiad Airlines they can (behind the scenes) tell Ethiad to do a stadium sponsorship deal with City for £100 million a year even though the market rate for this would normally be £10 million a year (for example). This is then legitimate income for City and goes towards their FFP money but at the same time no other club would get as much money as it is not a real market rate. However, it is impossible to sanction a country about this.
City have already done all of this sort of thing but the rule has been brought in to stop the even richer owners of Newcastle United doing it on a much bigger level. Imagine Newcastle with a £100 million per season stadium naming rights, a £100 million per year shirt sponsorship deal and a £50 million per year training ground sponsor.
Everyone else would be fucked, that is why the rule has been introduced.
|
scott_d
10:07 Wed Dec 15
Re: Changes to PL Sponsorship rules
|
Wouldn't say bigger clubs goose as the clubs objecting were Man City and Newcastle!
But richer, yes!
Am I right in thinking that Man City owners sponsor the club so they can pay an inflated sponsorship which will increase the amount they can spend under FFP rules?
If that is true, Newcastle probably want to do something similar otherwise there is no way they can spend big on the income they get.
|
goose
9:54 Wed Dec 15
Re: Changes to PL Sponsorship rules
|
Otherwise known as the bigger clubs trying to stop anyone crashing their party.
|
|
|
|
