New PL Commercial rule passed (pg4) | City rumoured to be questioning the legality

[Sky Blue]

This shit all the time….VAR….blue cards next….fuck football, honestly, the game has turned to shit.

Also 5 subs and 15 extra minutes each game.....

 

[spinney]

Agree, fair market value on sponsorship is determined by the sponsor.
Companies have sponsored local amateur and semi-pro clubs for decades. I bet most of them never saw any real financial benefits from the deals. But it is entirely up to them how much money they pumped in.

Club owners putting money in to their teams is exactly how professional football started

 

[Wardley Blue]

View attachment 106675

They always say "Give them enough rope and they will hang themselves" How true!

 

[Elbow beards]

Great darts player and only just turned 17......

Brilliant.

 

[cheekybids]

View attachment 106604View attachment 106605

The Premier League is facing a fresh battle over changes to rules governing commercial deals between related parties after it was warned by a club that the proposals were unlawful.

Sky News has learnt that the 20 top-flight clubs, which include Arsenal, Brentford, Chelsea and Manchester United, were notified on Thursday that one of them had informed the Premier League that it could resort to arbitration proceedings to prevent the changes being adopted.

The so-called associated-party transaction (APT) rules are intended to ensure a level playing field among English football's elite teams by preventing clubs from signing commercial deals at inflated prices, thereby enabling them to spend even greater sums on players.

There was speculation on Friday that Manchester City, which is already facing 115 charges of breaching Financial Fair Play (FFP) rules, was the club which had objected to the reforms.

It is understood to have told the Premier League that the changes were unlawful in English competition law, paving the way for yet another legal battle involving the game at a time when it is under intense political pressure with an independent regulator looming.

Manchester City, which is owned by Abu Dhabi sovereign investors, have previously expressed its opposition to tighter APT rules.

Their stadium is named after Etihad, the Gulf state's flagship airline, and is said to have been among those voting against restrictions on loan signings between clubs with common ownership during a ballot on the issue in November.

The issue of related-party deals has become increasingly important to many clubs because they believe the competitive balance of the Premier League is being distorted by state ownership at rivals including Manchester City and Newcastle United.

Questions have also been raised about the value of Chelsea's one-year shirt sponsorship deal with Infinite Athlete, given the club failed to qualify for Europe this season.

The latest threat to seek arbitration proceedings underlines the increasingly fractured relationship between the Premier League and a number of its clubs, and between the clubs themselves.

So the US owned Red Top Mafia having American based sponsorship is perfectly fine, but Manchester City having Abu Dhabi based sponsorship is unfair & killing the game?

Seriously? What the actual fuck!! Their piss-taking has gone to new stratospheric levels. They hate us that much, they're prepared to kill the Premier League to stop us.

If the Red Top Mafia can't dominate the Premier League, they'd rather burn it down so no one else can. UnFuckinBelievable

https://news.sky.com/story/premier-...ttle-over-rule-changes-13067278?dcmp=whatsapp

Years ago I remember the CEO saying he wanted to sponsor a company & asking our thoughts. The Marketing Director was pissed off as in his words it’s his budget & if it fails it’s his results yet it happens wherever he works, the top man has cognac & cigars & in a game of cock conkers with another CEO throws money on sponsorship.

Many have said these deals are made at the top. Omar Berradi doesn’t bring you deals like Etihad.

 

[Gone for a Burton]

View attachment 106675

Napoleon was correctisimo and its something we should remember when commenting on the out of town imposter rags.

Don't refer to what they're doing wrong or how to fix it.

Walls have ears !!

 

[cheekybids]

Napoleon was correctisimo and its something we should remember when commenting on the out of town imposter rags.

Don't refer to what they're doing wrong or how to fix it.

Walls have ears !!

They’ve fixed everything already now Scruffy Jim has brought Omar on board, it’s plain sailing now ;)

 

[Asa's left peg]

To establish market value they would need to speak to the prospective sponsor and see their figures and plans for justification (you know - like sensitive and in some cases critical business details ) of offering the agreed contact amounts. They have absolutely no right to demand that business critical detail that may be of use to a rival.

Let's just say, for example, you were an American bank, with no branches or current account offerings in the UK, why would you sponsor a English football team? Or maybe you're an American car manufacturer and don't have any dealerships in the UK? What is the market advantage of sponsoring an PL team and when do the figures justify the investment?

An investor may say, ' I want to grow my brand internationally and have looked at business plans and engagement of local communities around the world but crucially, success would drive that idea.

Anyway, they are all valid reasons, whether we like them or not, and it's up to them.


p.s . Obviously, if the American bank in the example, were to have committed various money laundering activities and dealt with terrorists, they would need to sportwash their reputation and only they would know the value of sponsorship against their profits from said activities.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Just another ruse for them to get their grubby paws on our commercially sensitive material.

 

[Pablo ZZZ Peroni]

The business about "associated" party transactions being at fair value is already in the rule book isn't it? Last time, was it not about having to have two other bids to support the value given to the "associated" party transaction? Liverpool's "what was the losing bid" question?

Who knows, though? The PL is so bloody secretive, it makes you wonder what they are up to and why at every turn. What harm would it do to announce the rule changes that have been agreed in the meeting, who voted for, who against and who abstained? All we get is leaked information from Martyn bloody Ziegler every time.

Yes the new " Associated Party Transactions" rules and "Fair Market Value Assessment" are well established and were added to the PL rule book during the 21/22 season. Now takes over about 8-10 pages in the 23/24 book.

There were different votes reported yesterday one of which was introducing more stringent APT rules than already there. We'll find out what the changes are soon enough because the PL Rule book will change in the next few days.