Owners

Remove this Banner Ad

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
57,263
19,155
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City ****
This is about Newcastle, didn't mention your club.
It is about related party transactions.

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.
If they meet the definition in the rules then they are. If they don't then you can't simply ignore the rules and treat them as related anyway.


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.
They agreed to a three week ban on new deals which has pretty much no impact on their own business. Might be a bit more reluctance when clubs have to look at their own business.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,954
21,672
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
It is about related party transactions.



If they meet the definition in the rules then they are. If they don't then you can't simply ignore the rules and treat them as related anyway.




They agreed to a three week ban on new deals which has pretty much no impact on their own business. Might be a bit more reluctance when clubs have to look at their own business.

Any reason why you seem so unhappy about the proposed new rule?
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
57,263
19,155
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City ****
Any reason why you seem so unhappy about the proposed new rule?
It's a three week rule that I doubt will go beyond that.

So doesn't bother me too much.

If it does go beyond that, I don't think it will affect us too much. And I'll look forward to the league getting its pants pulled down in court.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,954
21,672
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
It's a three week rule that I doubt will go beyond that.

So doesn't bother me too much.

If it does go beyond that, I don't think it will affect us too much. And I'll look forward to the league getting its pants pulled down in court.
Newcastle will get laughed out of court very quickly trying to contest a rule brought in as per their shareholder agreement contract that they signed and agreed to.


I doubt they'll even find a judge willing to hear the case.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,954
21,672
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg


Jame Redknapp is good mates with Jamie Reuben (minority investor in Newcastle United) and Sky thought it was appropriate for him to comment on the Saudi ownership of Newcastle.
 

Bojan KantKick

Man United Legacy Supporter
Sep 5, 2014
23,201
21,068
Hertford
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Manchester United, Stevenage FC
I would have thought that blocking the Saudis from related party sponsorship would be classed as anti-competitive. I don't like what will inevitably happen but I don't see how you can just change things now given what has been allowed to occur in the past. Moomba is right that Newcastles lawyers will go to town on them soon enough.

I'd imagine that the Saudis would have a similar reaction to the below:

City-chairman, Khaldoon Al Mubarak, reportedly told UEFA general secretary at the time, Gianni Infantino, that he “would rather spend 30 million on the 50 best lawyers in the world to sue them (UEFA) for the next 10 years” than accepting sanctions by UEFA.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,954
21,672
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
I would have thought that blocking the Saudis from related party sponsorship would be classed as anti-competitive. I don't like what will inevitably happen but I don't see how you can just change things now given what has been allowed to occur in the past. Moomba is right that Newcastles lawyers will go to town on them soon enough.

I'd imagine that the Saudis would have a similar reaction to the below:

City-chairman, Khaldoon Al Mubarak, reportedly told UEFA general secretary at the time, Gianni Infantino, that he “would rather spend 30 million on the 50 best lawyers in the world to sue them (UEFA) for the next 10 years” than accepting sanctions by UEFA.
It would be if just the Saudis only were blocked from rps but thats not the case. All clubs will be blocked from rp commercial deals under the proposal.

This is all subject to a shareholder vote in any case. Any finalised rule that gets a majority vote will be reasonable. Might end up that only a percentage of all commercial income will be allowed to be sourced from related parties.
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
57,263
19,155
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City ****
It would be if just the Saudis only were blocked from rps but thats not the case. All clubs will be blocked from rp commercial deals under the proposal.

This is all subject to a shareholder vote in any case. Any finalised rule that gets a majority vote will be reasonable. Might end up that only a percentage of all commercial income will be allowed to be sourced from related parties.
Can you really see the likes of Leicester and Everton who both benefit from related party transactions from accepting that. The 18 clubs want a rule that stops Newcastle, but doesn't affect them.

If the majority passed a rule banning black players it would be overturned because its against UK law.

They are not the be all and end all, they need to comply with the law just like every other organisation in the country.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,954
21,672
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
Can you really see the likes of Leicester and Everton who both benefit from related party transactions from accepting that. The 18 clubs want a rule that stops Newcastle, but doesn't affect them.

If the majority passed a rule banning black players it would be overturned because its against UK law.

They are not the be all and end all, they need to comply with the law just like every other organisation in the country.
The rule affects all clubs equally and it's ridiculous to say otherwise. United can't source Glazer owned companies to sponsor the club. Spurs can't have Joe Lewis owned companies to sponsor the club. Liverpool can't have any FSG owned company sponsor the club. So completely ridiculous to say it stops just Newcastle and nobody else. This is also is for new deals, not existing ones.


The majority of clubs never will pass a rule banning black players as it is against the racial discrimination law.


Newcastle have signed a shareholder agreement that says they will abide by any rule that is voted on by the majority of clubs (14+). They only have a case if the rule is applied to just them and no other clubs. There is no law against it despite what you may think.
 

moomba

TheBrownDog
Oct 3, 2001
57,263
19,155
Timperley
AFL Club
North Melbourne
Other Teams
Man City ****
OK, going round in circles now. We'll see what happens.

My bet, there will be no law and if it is brought in the league will get laughed out of court.
 

Art Vandelay_

TheBrownDog
Oct 28, 2012
90,485
120,378
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Bushrangers, AC Milan

Think Gary makes some good points, especially regarding the attention this puts on the middle east, as a beacon for change.

But Jamie comes away with the pertinent question. If what Saudi Arabia has done is not enough to block ownership what will it take. Brilliant question.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,954
21,672
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
OK, going round in circles now. We'll see what happens.

My bet, there will be no law and if it is brought in the league will get laughed out of court.
Most courts will probably laugh at a club trying to take a rule being voted in a manner explicitly agreed by Newcastle's PL shareholder contract to court.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,954
21,672
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
Like it or not this Premier League rule is happening if the majority of clubs vote it in and the FA don't veto it. There's a working party established on finalising the format of it.


Suspect it won't totally exclude ownership related commercial income in its final form. Maybe something along the lines of ownership related income (and not just by the accounting definition) can only be increased by 10% per season. In Newastle's case they would be free to replace whatever income they sourced from Sportsdirect & replace it with ownership sourced income and then increase it by a maximum of 10 percent per season.


That's fair and reasonable and affects all clubs equally.
 

Latro

Brownlow Medallist
Apr 14, 2008
17,289
12,492
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
Arsenal

Think Gary makes some good points, especially regarding the attention this puts on the middle east, as a beacon for change.

But Jamie comes away with the pertinent question. If what Saudi Arabia has done is not enough to block ownership what will it take. Brilliant question.
Neville is being naive. The Saudis will end up with a better rep without doing anything.
 

Bostonian

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 9, 2015
16,840
17,093
AFL Club
Carlton

Think Gary makes some good points, especially regarding the attention this puts on the middle east, as a beacon for change.

But Jamie comes away with the pertinent question. If what Saudi Arabia has done is not enough to block ownership what will it take. Brilliant question.
There won't be change so long as they follow that backwards ideology they adhere to so rigidly.

And I can't see those places all of a sudden becoming full of agnostics and atheists.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,954
21,672
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
There won't be change so long as they follow that backwards ideology they adhere to so rigidly.

And I can't see those places all of a sudden becoming full of agnostics and atheists.
Hasn't forced change before, if anything it's gotten worse with other examples. Difference is they will be now known as Newcastle United and the talk about Saudi Arabia won't be about the latest journalist they have dismembered or arrested but rather whether Eden Hazard, Phillpe Coutinho or James Tarkowski will sign for them.
 

Sozabarus

Norm Smith Medallist
Jun 18, 2014
5,276
14,449
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Neville is being naive. The Saudis will end up with a better rep without doing anything.
The fact that a football pundit has to talk about things like this says it all though. Maybe he is naive but he’s an ex-footballer, he shouldn’t have to be taking about topics like this during a football broadcast.

But this is where we are at as a sport.
 

Zidane98

Hall of Famer
Dec 22, 2009
46,954
21,672
South End, AAMI Park
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Other Teams
Socceroos, LFC, MVFC, RC Strasbourg
Interesting point what Carra raises. At what point do we draw the line for PL club owners? It seems what Gary Neville is saying is that anyone is fit to own a PL club as long as they continue to invest and support the club they own.
 

jd2010

#ENICOut #SayersOut
Feb 1, 2010
34,796
17,468
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Tottenham Hotspur, Brentford FC
Related party transactions and conflict of interests are rife in the game. The major sponsor of the oldest trophy in the game also has naming rights to a stadium 1 club in the competition plays out of ;)
 

Bostonian

Brownlow Medallist
Sep 9, 2015
16,840
17,093
AFL Club
Carlton
Last edited by a moderator:

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad