Owners

[moomba]

Good luck to them, if it passes a majority vote they can GAGF.

Passes a majority vote of who?

 

[Zidane98]

Passes a majority vote of who?

18 clubs voted for the ruling to be passed. The majority speaks, this isn't Saudi Arabia where you can just silence your critics.

 

[moomba]

18 clubs voted for the ruling to be passed. The majority speaks, this isn't Saudi Arabia where you can just silence your critics.

18 football clubs can't just pass a majority vote that is contrary to the laws of the land.

As much as one or two of them would like to.

 

[Zidane98]

18 football clubs can't just pass a majority vote that is contrary to the laws of the land.

As much as one or two of them would like to.

LOL

Premier League rules are voted for by the clubs. If a majority (15 or more) vote for it then it's happening unless the FA wants to use its veto power and I would be surprised if they went against the wishes of the majority on this one.


Quite hilarious that you think 1 or 2 clubs want this when 18 clubs voted for it.

 

[moomba]

LOL

Premier League rules are voted for by the clubs. If a majority (15 or more) vote for it then it's happening unless the FA wants to use its veto power and I would be surprised if they went against the wishes of the majority on this one.

The Premier league is not exempt from the laws of the land.

Quite hilarious that you think 1 or 2 clubs want this when 18 clubs voted for it.

It would have been hilarious if I actually said that only 1 or 2 clubs wanted the rule.

But I didn't.

I suspect if a more permanent rule (the current one is a three week ban) was mooted a few clubs that voted in favour this time would change their mind.

 

[Zidane98]

The Premier league is not exempt from the laws of the land.



It would have been hilarious if I actually said that only 1 or 2 clubs wanted the rule.

But I didn't.

I suspect if a more permanent rule (the current one is a three week ban) was mooted a few clubs that voted in favour this time would change their mind.

The Premier League rulebook says shareholders are able to propose new rules at shareholder meetings and that if the overwhelming majority agree (14 +) the rule is brought in. That's a contract signed by all shareholders that participate in the Premier League. There's no law that says such a rule cannot be brought into a competition that is agreed and voted for by the majority of shareholders as per a contractual agreement.



Last season Pep & Klopp were pushing hard for 5 subs (with good reason IMO). It didn't happen because the majority wouldn't support it. I would imagine the clubs most against this right now would be the ones battling Newcastle for survival in the relegation fight.



We'll see about a more permanent one but I do think that would be appropriate to scale back the impact of state backed clubs. It's not like Newcastle aren't free to pursue commercial revenue elsewhere. They could even pursue commercial revenue from companies in Saudi Arabia not linked to government / royal family ownership.

 

[moomba]

The Premier League rulebook says shareholders are able to propose new rules at shareholder meetings and that if the overwhelming majority agree (14 +) the rule is brought in. That's a contract signed by all shareholders that participate in the Premier League. There's no law that says such a rule cannot be brought into a competition that is agreed and voted for by the majority of shareholders as per a contractual agreement.

They can make a rule but if it is contrary to the laws of the land it will be overturned in court (with costs and potentially damages). This is unquestionably contrary to the laws of the land.

Last season Pep & Klopp were pushing hard for 5 subs (with good reason IMO). It didn't happen because the majority wouldn't support it. I would imagine the clubs most against this right now would be the ones battling Newcastle for survival in the relegation fight.

Not having 5 subs isn't contrary to the laws of the land.

We'll see about a more permanent one but I do think that would be appropriate to scale back the impact of state backed clubs. It's not like Newcastle aren't free to pursue commercial revenue elsewhere. They could even pursue commercial revenue from companies in Saudi Arabia not linked to government / royal family ownership.

I'm sure they will. But banning a business from deals with Saudi sponsors (while competitors are free to do so) is against the law.

And a bit pointless too when I'm sure the Saudis have business interests all over the world they could use to create arms length sponsorship deals if they wanted.

 

[Zidane98]

They can make a rule but if it is contrary to the laws of the land it will be overturned in court (with costs and potentially damages). This is unquestionably contrary to the laws of the land.





Not having 5 subs isn't contrary to the laws of the land.





I'm sure they will. But banning a business from deals with Saudi sponsors (while competitors are free to do so) is against the law.

And a bit pointless too when I'm sure the Saudis have business interests all over the world they could use to create arms length sponsorship deals if they wanted.

The rule isnt banning Saudi businesses from sponsorship. Just the ones that are related to the royal family and/or are government entities.

Newcastle are free to source any sponsorship they like in Saudi Arabia that isnt government owned.

What law do you think the rule breaks? PL clubs also have to have minimum amounts of home grown players they must have in a squad.

Should the Saudis also ignore that rule in pursuit of success?

At the end of the day all PL shareholders have an agreement that says new rules can be brought in at shareholder meetings if the majority (14+) vote for it. So once it happens and the FA dont veto the rule its happening. Good luck fighting it in court as the PL also retains the right to expel clubs in extreme circumstances. Fighting a rule agreed by 18 clubs might just qualify for those extreme circumstances.

 

[moomba]

The rule isnt banning Saudi businesses from sponsorship. Just the ones that are related to the royal family and/or are government entities.

You can't stop a business from making deals with an organisation that it's competitors are able to make deals with.

Newcastle are free to source any sponsorship they like in Saudi Arabia that isnt government owned.

As a UK business they are free make deals with Saudi and non Saudi organisations, government and non government owned.

What law do you think the rule breaks? PL clubs also have to have minimum amounts of home grown players they must have in a squad.

And the reason people like Gael Clichy was considered home grown, but Eric Dier wasn't is because it would have breached UK law to make it based on nationality.

Should the Saudis also ignore that rule in pursuit of success?

No, it's not an illegal rule.

At the end of the day all PL shareholders have an agreement that says new rules can be brought in at shareholder meetings if the majority (14+) vote for it. So once it happens and the FA dont veto the rule its happening. Good luck fighting it in court as the PL also retains the right to expel clubs in extreme circumstances. Fighting a rule agreed by 18 clubs might just qualify for those extreme circumstances.

Ha ha.

 

[Zidane98]

You can't stop a business from making deals with an organisation that it's competitors are able to make deals with.



As a UK business they are free make deals with Saudi and non Saudi organisations, government and non government owned.



And the reason people like Gael Clichy was considered home grown, but Eric Dier wasn't is because it would have breached UK law to make it based on nationality.



No, it's not an illegal rule.



Ha ha.

You're hilarious. You can't even quote a law that this rule is breaking. You're cooked. It also affects the clubs that are voting for it equally. Man United now cannot have First Allied corporation sponsor the club through the Glazers. Spurs now cannot have ukbetting.com sponsor the club as it is owned by Joe Lewis.

The Premier League can set what rules it likes as long as a shareholders majority vote for it. Newcastle (and whatever club didn't vote for the rule) agreed to this in the contracts they have signed with the Premier League. If Newcastle doesn't like it they can lobby the FA to veto it.

 

[Sozabarus]

City “abstaining” is hilarious.

 

[moomba]

You're hilarious. You can't even quote a law that this rule is breaking. You're cooked. It also affects the clubs that are voting for it equally. Man United now cannot have First Allied corporation sponsor the club through the Glazers. Spurs now cannot have ukbetting.com sponsor the club as it is owned by Joe Lewis.

This rule is for new deals, not existing ones.

The Premier League can set what rules it likes as long as a shareholders majority vote for it. Newcastle (and whatever club didn't vote for the rule) agreed to this in the contracts they have signed with the Premier League. If Newcastle doesn't like it they can lobby the FA to veto it.

They'll live with it for three weeks. Any chance it gets extended and I suspect the lawyers will get involved.

 

[ADL9798]

Premier League clubs vote to block Newcastle sponsorship deals at emergency meeting

Premier League clubs voted through legislation designed to prevent the Saudi owners from striking lucrative sponsorship deals

www.theguardian.com

Good that steps have been taken to ensure this doesn't happen with the Saudis.

Wait. I thought this already was a rule?

 

[Zidane98]

This rule is for new deals, not existing ones.

Yes it is and it affects all clubs equally. Man United cannot source sponsorship through First Allied Corporation due to the rule and any other majority owned Glazer business.

This rule is for new deals, not existing ones.
They'll live with it for three weeks. Any chance it gets extended and I suspect the lawyers will get involved.

They can get lawyers involved but they won't get far as Newcastle have agreed to implement any rule that the majority of clubs vote for under their shareholder agreement. Unless the Saudis are going to go down the line that they didn't agree, it was Mike Ashley that agreed and they try and contest the shareholder agreement in court. Good luck if they try that.

Much in the same way that having minimum amount of home ground players prevents clubs from investing and buying the best possible squad. They have to abide by the home grown rule even if it means they miss out on a transfer of a player they want to buy and are prepared to invest in because they have to meet home grown requirements.

If it becomes a permanent rule it affects all clubs equally so it really shouldn't be too much of an issue. Bring it on I say even if it then means we miss out on sponsorship from FSG.

 

[Zidane98]

Wait. I thought this already was a rule?

Under UEFA FFP rules yes. PL no, until now. Means we won't be able to bring New England Sports Network onboard as official media partner in the US.

 

[ADL9798]

Under UEFA FFP rules yes. PL no, until now. Means we won't be able to bring New England Sports Network onboard as official media partner in the US.

Sure we can. We just need to obfuscate and not comply with any investigation into the agreement for long enough to allow the statute of limitations to pass.

 

[moomba]

Wait. I thought this already was a rule?

No rule against related party transactions until now.

Under UEFA FFP, they can downgrade the value of a RPT for FFP purposes if it exceeds market value. So the deal would still be allowed, but some of it may not be considered in your FFP assessment.

An RPT is pretty clearly defined in accounting standards, so a lot of businesses that people might think of as a related party simply aren't.

For example, being a Saudi government owned or funded entity wouldn't necessarily make it a related party to Newcastle.

 

[Zidane98]

Sure we can. We just need to obfuscate and not comply with any investigation into the agreement for long enough to allow the statute of limitations to pass.

No rule against related party transactions until now.

Under UEFA FFP, they can downgrade the value of a RPT for FFP purposes if it exceeds market value. So the deal would still be allowed, but some of I may not be considered in your FFP assessment.

An RPT is pretty clearly defined in accounting standards, so a lot of businesses that people might think of as a related party simply aren't.

For example, being a Saudi government owned or funded entity wouldn't necessarily make it a related party.

PIF aren't Saudi Arabia at all either. Just hilarious. I suspect the rule when it is finalised will prevent clubs ownership from using businesses under their control or governments under their control from being used to inflate commercial revenue.

It's going to be the same for all clubs and it won't stop Newcastle sourcing commercial revenue opportunities in Saudi Arabia. This would be a great thing for the competitiveness of the league if it happened.

 

[moomba]

Sure we can. We just need to obfuscate and not comply with any investigation into the agreement for long enough to allow the statute of limitations to pass.

Would have been better for us if we just let CAS rule on those time barred ones.

UEFA would have been shown to have absolutely no evidence on those charges as well as the ones that weren't time barred.

 

[Zidane98]

Sure we can. We just need to obfuscate and not comply with any investigation into the agreement for long enough to allow the statute of limitations to pass.

"NESN isn't FSG, it's a separately run business" - John Henry after fielding questions on a Liverpool 100 million pound a year "official US media partner" deal announced with NESN.

 

[Zidane98]

Would have been better for us if we just let CAS rule on those time barred ones.

UEFA would have been shown to have absolutely no evidence on those charges as well as the ones that weren't time barred.

I didn't see him mention City in that post.

 

[moomba]

"NESN isn't FSG, it's a separately run business" - John Henry after fielding questions on a Liverpool 100 million pound a year "official US media partner" deal announced with NESN.

If it doesn't meet the definition of a related party in the rulebook it isn't a related party.

Doesn't matter how dodgy it looks, or how much you really think it's a related party, you've got to go by the definition in the rules.

UEFA is pretty much word for word the international accounting standard definition. I think the Premier league is too.

In our case, under that standard Etihad isn't (confirmed by CAS). I think we had two or three that were (Aabar, Etisalat, maybe one other).

 

[moomba]

I didn't see him mention City in that post.

Cool story.

 

[Zidane98]

If it doesn't meet the definition of a related party in the rulebook it isn't a related party.

Doesn't matter how dodgy it looks, or how much you really think it's a related party, you've got to go by the definition in the rules.

UEFA is pretty much word for word the international accounting standard definition. I think the Premier league is too.

In our case, under that standard Etihad isn't (confirmed by CAS). I think we had two or three that were (Aabar, Etisalat, maybe one other).

This is about Newcastle, didn't mention your club.

PIF are controlled by MBS who is also the deputy PM of Saudi Arabia. Of course any Saudi Arabian government related entity that all of a sudden wants to throw hundreds of millions of pounds at Newcastle in commercial sponsorship deals should be considered related. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what's going on in that scenario. Would they be doing the same deals if the Saudis hadn't bought Newcastle? I'm willing to bet the answer is no.


I think it's about time these sorts of deals were limited or eliminated by the PL and it seems the majority of clubs also agree.

 

[Zidane98]

And a bit pointless too when I'm sure the Saudis have business interests all over the world they could use to create arms length sponsorship deals if they wanted.

They're free to source commercial revenue from any company that they are not a majority owner of. So they can go right ahead if they want to. But not so easy to do when you're a silent investor and don't have the final say.