Football club finances / FFP

FWIW, why we willingly refused to cooperate with UEFA (and were happy to pay the fine for doing so).

Wonder what ever happened to that UEFA investigation into the leaks that they promised. Maybe someone in the EFL knows.

da18a99a38b957442bd1743652f8498f.jpg
 
Dec 22, 2009
62,367
36,511
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
So Man United or Liverpool can make a deal with a Saudi government linked business but Newcastle can't. Sounds fair.

As for our sponsors, no idea. And if the deals are fair market value I don't really care.

Yes they can, just like Newcastle can make deals with companies related to Man Utd & Liverpool ownership while those two clubs can't. That's a level playing field. In any case neither of those clubs are using ownership related businesses to load up their commercial revenue. When that happens on the scale we see from the sportswashing clubs come back to me.

Commercial income revenue needs to be a genuine business transaction. Not owner equity investment. That Newcastle deal is only done because PIF is funding the deal and owning the club at the same time. It wouldn't happen for any other club.

It's owner equity investment and should be treated as such on FFP. Furthermore legally binding assurances were undertaken that Saudi Arabia wouldn't be involved in running the club. This is a clear breach of that assurance.
 
Yes they can, just like Newcastle can make deals with companies related to Man Utd & Liverpool ownership while those two clubs can't. That's a level playing field. In any case neither of those clubs are using ownership related businesses to load up their commercial revenue. When that happens on the scale we see from the sportswashing clubs come back to me.

Why can't United and Liverpool make deals with related companies?

Has the rules changed?
 
Dec 22, 2009
62,367
36,511
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
Why can't United and Liverpool make deals with related companies?

Has the rules changed?

They can't make deals if they are really owner equity investment rather than commercial income.

That rule is pretty clear. And that's what this latest Newcastle deal is in reality.
 
They can't make deals if they are really owner equity investment rather than commercial income.

That rule is pretty clear. And that's what this latest Newcastle deal is in reality.
Nice self-fulfilling argument. I think it's against the rules, so I'll use that to form my argument that it's against the rules.

Just out-of interest, why would Newcastles owners put £25-30m into Newcastle, and disguise it as sponsorship, when Newcastle could just get £25-30m from other sponsors?

Surely it would be better to take the money from the other sponsors and find another way to sink the £25-30m into the club.

It's not really logical if you look at it
 
FWIW, why we willingly refused to cooperate with UEFA (and were happy to pay the fine for doing so).

Wonder what ever happened to that UEFA investigation into the leaks that they promised. Maybe someone in the EFL knows.

da18a99a38b957442bd1743652f8498f.jpg

Why would the EFL care about Man City?
 
Nice self-fulfilling argument. I think it's against the rules, so I'll use that to form my argument that it's against the rules.

Just out-of interest, why would Newcastles owners put £25-30m into Newcastle, and disguise it as sponsorship, when Newcastle could just get £25-30m from other sponsors?

Surely it would be better to take the money from the other sponsors and find another way to sink the £25-30m into the club.

It's not really logical if you look at it

Can they?

Isn't the contention that their sponsorship is inflated due to their relationship with Saudi Arabia? Where are all these other sponsors lining up and being knocked back by Newcastle?
 
Can they?

Isn't the contention that their sponsorship is inflated due to their relationship with Saudi Arabia? Where are all these other sponsors lining up and being knocked back by Newcastle?
The Premier league will apply a fair market test to associated sponsorships.

If they consider an associated sponsorship above fair market value they can adjust FFP calculations.

Given other sponsorship deals about, £25-30m seems quite reasonable to me.
 
Why would the EFL care about Man City?
The EFL doesn't care about City. But someone now working in the EFL was responsible for the leaks.
 
The Premier league will apply a fair market test to associated sponsorships.

If they consider an associated sponsorship above fair market value they can adjust FFP calculations.

Given other sponsorship deals about, £25-30m seems quite reasonable to me.

Then that's fine, what's the issue exactly?
 
Then that's fine, what's the issue exactly?
I don't think there is one.

Maybe around the terms of the ownership structure and what commitments PIF made to the league.

But as far as FFP goes this sponsorship is a non story imo.
 
I don't think there is one.

Maybe around the terms of the ownership structure and what commitments PIF made to the league.

But as far as FFP goes this sponsorship is a non story imo.

I thought the only point of the story was that this would be a good test of the new market value assessment.
 
Just curious how they assess fair market value. Do they need another actual sponsor to be willing to pay that much or do they just say 'a club in the CL could get this much for sponsorship'? If anything having a RP sponsor you feels a bit like hamstringing yourself as (you would hope) the assessment of FV is actually more conservative than clubs may be able to get if they actually went out to the market. It kills any competitiveness in negotiating the sponsorship deal if you know there's an artificial ceiling.

If Toon went out to a non-RP company for sponsorship surely they could actually end up with a better deal as it wouldn't be scrutinised as to whether it's FV - as it would be by nature.

The fact they aren't actually tells me that they think the FV assessment is going to be lenient and let them get away with a better sponsorship deal than they could actually get out on the market.
 
Dec 22, 2009
62,367
36,511
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
The Premier league will apply a fair market test to associated sponsorships.

If they consider an associated sponsorship above fair market value they can adjust FFP calculations.

Given other sponsorship deals about, £25-30m seems quite reasonable to me.

Even if it is fair market value the deal can't be funded by owner equity investment. That's pretty clear with FFP. PIF would be paying for a sponsorship deal into their own club in this instance.


Otherwise Newcastle could just have PIF line up 30m sponsorship deals with the hundreds of PIF owned or related companies that exist in its $620 billion portfolio. According to you that's fine because they are all "fair market" value.

Sorry but any attempt to put owner equity investment income into Newcastle United as commercial revenue should not be allowed at all. Any attempt by the Saudi Arabian government to be involved in the running of the club should also be stopped in its tracks.


Any commercial income absolutely should not be related to owner equity investment in any shape or form. And that's not even taking into account legally binding guarantees from the Saudi Arabian govt that they will not be involved in the running of the club.


And just as I predicted the only defenders of this clearly farcical deal would be the usual suspects.
 
Dec 22, 2009
62,367
36,511
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
Nice self-fulfilling argument. I think it's against the rules, so I'll use that to form my argument that it's against the rules.

Just out-of interest, why would Newcastles owners put £25-30m into Newcastle, and disguise it as sponsorship, when Newcastle could just get £25-30m from other sponsors?

Surely it would be better to take the money from the other sponsors and find another way to sink the £25-30m into the club.

It's not really logical if you look at it.


There's a pretty obvious reason why sportswashing clubs generally go back to state owned entities from where they come from / control the sovereign wealth fund for commercial income. They control both sides of the equation and do as they please. If interest in sponsoring Newcastle in Saudi Arabia was really that great there would be huge interest from all businesses based there. Not just state owned entities.

If Qatar take over Utd and another one of Liverpool / Spurs fell to a sportswashing owner the league just becomes a soft power race for ME nations effectively. Personally I find the thought of the PL becoming a play thing for rich human rights abusing sovereign wealth funded states not great but that's just me. People like you obviously don't have an issue with that, each to their own.
 
Even if it is fair market value the deal can't be funded by owner equity investment. That's pretty clear with FFP. PIF would be paying for a sponsorship deal into their own club in this instance.


Otherwise Newcastle could just have PIF line up 30m sponsorship deals with the hundreds of PIF owned or related companies that exist in its $620 billion portfolio. According to you that's fine because they are all "fair market" value.

Sorry but any attempt to put owner equity investment income into Newcastle United as commercial revenue should not be allowed at all. Any attempt by the Saudi Arabian government to be involved in the running of the club should also be stopped in its tracks.


Any commercial income absolutely should not be related to owner equity investment in any shape or form. And that's not even taking into account legally binding guarantees from the Saudi Arabian govt that they will not be involved in the running of the club.


And just as I predicted the only defenders of this clearly farcical deal would be the usual suspects.
It's a sponsorship, not equity investment.

Newcastles owner could sponsor the club if they like, there is no rules against that.

Only thing, if the sponsorship is above market value the FFP calculations would be adjusted downwards.

You may have predicted that the only "defenders" of the deal would be the usual suspects (you could just say me if you like), maybe "the usual suspects" are the ones with the knowledge of the rules that you clearly don't have.
 
Dec 22, 2009
62,367
36,511
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
It's a sponsorship, not equity investment.

Newcastles owner could sponsor the club if they like, there is no rules against that.

Only thing, if the sponsorship is above market value the FFP calculations would be adjusted downwards.

If the PIF or Saudi Arabian govt is making a payment to the business sponsoring Newcastle it's owner equity investment - as has been purported with the latest "deal".
 
There's a pretty obvious reason why sportswashing clubs generally go back to state owned entities from where they come from / control the sovereign wealth fund for commercial income. They control both sides of the equation and do as they please. If interest in sponsoring Newcastle in Saudi Arabia was really that great there would be huge interest from all businesses based there. Not just state owned entities.

If Qatar take over Utd and another one of Liverpool / Spurs fell to a sportswashing owner the league just becomes a soft power race for ME nations effectively. Personally I find the thought of the PL becoming a play thing for rich human rights abusing sovereign wealth funded states not great but that's just me. People like you obviously don't have an issue with that, each to their own.
People like you. PMSL.
 
If the PIF or Saudi Arabian govt is making a payment to the business sponsoring Newcastle it's owner equity investment - as has been purported with the latest "deal".

Do you consider the Bet365 deal with Stoke sponsorship or owner equity?

Red Bull deal with the Red Bull teams?

Leicester and King Power?

I've mentioned a few times before that even if an owner wanted to sponsor his or her side there is nothing in the rules to say he can't. He or she could even pay above market value and it would be totally legal (but would be adjusted for FFP purposes).

You're going on about Newcastle breaking a rule that exists only in your mind.
 
Just curious how they assess fair market value. Do they need another actual sponsor to be willing to pay that much or do they just say 'a club in the CL could get this much for sponsorship'? If anything having a RP sponsor you feels a bit like hamstringing yourself as (you would hope) the assessment of FV is actually more conservative than clubs may be able to get if they actually went out to the market. It kills any competitiveness in negotiating the sponsorship deal if you know there's an artificial ceiling.

If Toon went out to a non-RP company for sponsorship surely they could actually end up with a better deal as it wouldn't be scrutinised as to whether it's FV - as it would be by nature.

The fact they aren't actually tells me that they think the FV assessment is going to be lenient and let them get away with a better sponsorship deal than they could actually get out on the market.
Would be interesting to see how it's done in practice.

With us and UEFA I think they had a consultant and we had a consultant and they each had figures in mind.

Not sure how variances are sorted out, but you'd look at other comparable deals. It would be interesting with Newcastle (as it was with us) if there is a value for where the club is headed rather than where its come from.
 
Dec 22, 2009
62,367
36,511
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Matildas/Socceroos/LFC/MVFC/RCStrasbourg
Do you consider the Bet365 deal with Stoke sponsorship or owner equity?

Red Bull deal with the Red Bull teams?

Leicester and King Power?

I've mentioned a few times before that even if an owner wanted to sponsor his or her side there is nothing in the rules to say he can't. He or she could even pay above market value and it would be totally legal (but would be adjusted for FFP purposes).

You're going on about Newcastle breaking a rule that exists only in your mind.

Are any of those companies receiving payments from the owner of those clubs to pay for the sponsorship?


If the answer is yes - owner equity investment.


If the answer is no - commercial revenue.


Quite simple really.


BTW - a quick glance at all the commercial partners for those clubs sees only a handful of owner related commercial partners. I suspect you know that there's no evidence anywhere to suspect that those commercial deals are being funded by the club owner.



You may have convinced yourself in your mind but in reality owner equity investment dressed up as commercial revenue is absolutely against FFP rules.
 
Even if it is fair market value the deal can't be funded by owner equity investment. That's pretty clear with FFP. PIF would be paying for a sponsorship deal into their own club in this instance.


Otherwise Newcastle could just have PIF line up 30m sponsorship deals with the hundreds of PIF owned or related companies that exist in its $620 billion portfolio. According to you that's fine because they are all "fair market" value.

Sorry but any attempt to put owner equity investment income into Newcastle United as commercial revenue should not be allowed at all. Any attempt by the Saudi Arabian government to be involved in the running of the club should also be stopped in its tracks.


Any commercial income absolutely should not be related to owner equity investment in any shape or form. And that's not even taking into account legally binding guarantees from the Saudi Arabian govt that they will not be involved in the running of the club.


And just as I predicted the only defenders of this clearly farcical deal would be the usual suspects.

That's a fair point as well, each deal would have to be considered as a total, not individually, or to your point they could determine that 30m is the fair value and have 50 related companies each sponsor the club for 30m.
 
Back