Tomaszk Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 Quote Premier League clubs agreed new measures on Tuesday to force all clubs – especially those owned or part-owned by nation states, including Newcastle United – to prove that commercial deals they agree represent fair market value and are not inflated to inject cash. It is understood that the vote to pass the newly-named “associated party transactions” was not unanimous. In October, Newcastle opposed the original decision to impose them, and Manchester City abstained. Nevertheless, the vote passed the threshold of the 14 majority and will be in effect immediately with the Premier League now obliged under regulations to assess all new commercial deals. Many clubs were eager that Newcastle should not benefit from an immediate injection of funds by agreeing new commercial deals with Saudi-owned businesses and entities. Doing so could in theory allow a club to bypass financial fair play regulations. Newcastle was acquired in October by a consortium 80 per cent owned by the Saudi state’s Public Investment Fund (PIF). Under the new rules, all commercial deals will have to be submitted to the Premier League’s board, currently searching for a new chairman since the departure of Gary Hoffman. Those deals will then be scrutinised by an external assessor with independence who will determine whether they represent fair market value. The clubs who submit new deals will also be able to make the case for those deals being legitimate. Details of all commercial deals agreed by clubs will be held by the Premier League and the data anonymised so that assessors can compare deals across different clubs and different endorsement sectors. There are also new rules for transparency when it comes to paying managers, players, other coaches and staff. Clubs will have to be able to demonstrate that all key employees are paid out of the club’s approved budget within financial fair play and are not, for example, employed by other companies within the structure that owns the clubs itself. The new rules were formulated in a short timespan since October when 18 of the clubs agreed a league-wide temporary block on any new commercial deals in response to the Newcastle takeover. That block has now been lifted. Could this actually just help the bigger clubs even more? Seems like it. Like bringing in FFP after Chelsea and City had already spent hundreds of external millions and inflated the market for everyone else. Yes it stops Newcastle, but it stops everyone else. City can probably spin their billion pound contract is legit because they've won 15 trophies in 7 years. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 Wow That's nuts Man utd getting £5m for an official Japanese diesel tractor engine partner? No problem mate Villa wanting to be sponsored by Wes edens business? Sounds fishy to us Also what stops said company from meeting the PL official for lunch to smooth out any queries or doubts that may arise? Its potential for a lot of corruption 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil Silvers Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 You're all.mad, there's absolutely zero corruption in any sport... Or politics. Give your heads a huge wobble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
est1874 Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 Big clubs being run by better businessmen with whole teams of lawyers, accountants and legal advisors since the turn of the century have run roughshod over the Premier League as an entity and thereby all the other clubs It's a joke that it was allowed to happen, but it's too late to put the rabbit back in the hat, and now we're stuck with this system where even tweaking the system ends up working out in the big clubs' favour No matter what the League tries to do now, the 'smaller' clubs (which unfortunately includes us) are fooked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted December 14, 2021 Moderator Share Posted December 14, 2021 9 minutes ago, est1874 said: Big clubs being run by better businessmen with whole teams of lawyers, accountants and legal advisors since the turn of the century have run roughshod over the Premier League as an entity and thereby all the other clubs It's a joke that it was allowed to happen, but it's too late to put the rabbit back in the hat, and now we're stuck with this system where even tweaking the system ends up working out in the big clubs' favour No matter what the League tries to do now, the 'smaller' clubs (which unfortunately includes us) are fooked. Actually, on this rule, we're on the good end - whatever the biggest clubs do becomes market value, so it takes away a ceiling on what we could do with sponsorship if we wanted to push a company we have an interest in toward sponsorship. The Fortress Energy fitness centre, Bodymoor Heath anyone? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 21 minutes ago, est1874 said: Big clubs being run by better businessmen with whole teams of lawyers, accountants and legal advisors since the turn of the century have run roughshod over the Premier League as an entity and thereby all the other clubs It's a joke that it was allowed to happen, but it's too late to put the rabbit back in the hat, and now we're stuck with this system where even tweaking the system ends up working out in the big clubs' favour No matter what the League tries to do now, the 'smaller' clubs (which unfortunately includes us) are fooked. I don't necessarily think it's down to better people, they're just swimming in a pond that 14 other clubs cant There are only so many denim partners and they aren't interested in mid table teams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
est1874 Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 28 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: Actually, on this rule, we're on the good end - whatever the biggest clubs do becomes market value, so it takes away a ceiling on what we could do with sponsorship if we wanted to push a company we have an interest in toward sponsorship. The Fortress Energy fitness centre, Bodymoor Heath anyone? Rules that work in our favour?? Surely not 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomaszk Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 28 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: Actually, on this rule, we're on the good end - whatever the biggest clubs do becomes market value, so it takes away a ceiling on what we could do with sponsorship if we wanted to push a company we have an interest in toward sponsorship. The Fortress Energy fitness centre, Bodymoor Heath anyone? Hopefully that's the way it pans out... And not, no you can't do that Villa, why would this business want to give you that money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 Are we potentially declaring and sharing our revenue streams though? £10m a year for the fortress energy fitness Centre, man utd take one look at that and go out in to the market and get themselves a £25m a year deal for Carrington from a Chinese TV manufacturer Their revenue and sponsorship deals are still higher than man city's for example Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
a-k Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 Quote Leeds have been charged by the Football Association for failing to control their players in Saturday's 3-2 defeat at Chelsea. Both sets of players clashed moments before and after the final whistle at Stamford Bridge, where Chelsea secured victory with an injury-time penalty. Leeds have been charged because their players surrounded referee Chris Kavanagh on the penalty award. https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/59649306 How's about charging the referee and VAR with incompetence? 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
est1874 Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 45 minutes ago, a-k said: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/59649306 How's about charging the referee and VAR with incompetence? Zero appetite. I used to naively think that Premier League refs should command the kind of respect that Rugby Union refs do at the top levels. Now I know that the gulf in class, knowledge, general ability and competence - not to mention decency - precludes them from taking respect as a given. I've zero respect for any of them in PGMOL bar Andre Marriner and that's literally only because of my Villa bias. Until they hire better officials and start managing their performance the way any top professional is managed then that'll be that for me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foreveryoung Posted December 14, 2021 Share Posted December 14, 2021 If the referees were professional and did there jobs correctly like the rugby refs, you should also be able to mike them up like rugby refs. The reason we don't mike them up, is there justification for making certain decisions is probably b********s They say it's a difficult job? Well it can't be that difficult when you can hide behind any bull*** decision you make and not need to justify anything. Always said, putting the referees that make wrong decisions on the pitch into the VAR room, is like giving the worst employee in the office the job of running the company. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted December 15, 2021 Moderator Share Posted December 15, 2021 Two Premier league teams voted against the owner related sponsorship deals rules. Newcastle and Manchester City. They weren't voting against it happening, they were voting against it being restricted to a market value. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Steve Posted December 15, 2021 Share Posted December 15, 2021 17 hours ago, a-k said: https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/59649306 How's about charging the referee and VAR with incompetence? It’s honestly a disgrace - they’d rather fine managers and players and clubs than deal with the diabolical levels of officiating and the dire implementation of VAR. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobzy Posted December 15, 2021 Share Posted December 15, 2021 17 hours ago, villa4europe said: Are we potentially declaring and sharing our revenue streams though? £10m a year for the fortress energy fitness Centre, man utd take one look at that and go out in to the market and get themselves a £25m a year deal for Carrington from a Chinese TV manufacturer Their revenue and sponsorship deals are still higher than man city's for example I always thought market value meant the going rate across the board rather than being specific to a club. So if Man Utd could get a £100m sponsor on board, so could, say, Burnley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villa4europe Posted December 15, 2021 Share Posted December 15, 2021 1 minute ago, bobzy said: I always thought market value meant the going rate across the board rather than being specific to a club. So if Man Utd could get a £100m sponsor on board, so could, say, Burnley. i take it as burnley can get some of that based on a pro rata and a calculation based on their brand exposure, utd for example play in the CL and get far more social media coverage as well as being on TV 20 times more per season, you factor that in and chip away at the £100m, you would then also bring in comparable clubs based on league position and size to create KPIs, newcastle shouldnt be able to justify their market value as double that of leeds, villa and everton the only counter to that would be to produce an open book showing bids, if you could demonstrate that 3 companies want to sponsor you and offered £90m, £95m and £100m then you can argue that is a true value Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zatman Posted December 15, 2021 Share Posted December 15, 2021 (edited) Those nice European clubs some of which tried to start a breakaway league are refusing to send players to African Cup. This wont end well Edited December 15, 2021 by Zatman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted December 15, 2021 Moderator Share Posted December 15, 2021 https://www.90min.com/posts/eca-writes-to-fifa-threatening-not-to-release-players-for-afcon-in-january Quote The European Club Association (ECA), which includes the likes of Liverpool, Chelsea, Manchester United, Arsenal, PSG and Bayern Munich among its 234 members, has written to FIFA expressing concerns about the Africa Cup of Nations in January and threatening not to release players. Shamelessly leaning on the Omicron variant to make vague threats with no definable point of origin. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2021/dec/15/africa-cup-of-nations-to-go-ahead-despite-european-clubs-threat-say-organisers A strong reply from the African Confederation Quote The Confederation of African Football (Caf) refused to comment on the ECA letter but its head of media relations, Lux September, told the Guardian: “Afcon will be staged on Cameroon on 9 January 2022. That is alpha. And omega.” That sentence there contains the words Alpha and Omega and is from a man called Lux September, as a result it might be my favourite sentence of the week. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hornso Posted December 15, 2021 Share Posted December 15, 2021 What a shock Liverpool are in on it trying to keep Salah, Mane, Keita etc from leaving and derailing their title challenge. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted December 15, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted December 15, 2021 If the players don't go then they shouldn't be able to play any games for their clubs while AFCON is on, right until the finals played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts