I don't see how it can be policed. Lets say 4 Saudi firms had a bidding war for sponsorship. They could argue that they want Newcastles shirt due to its ties with the region. Then the price is 200% of Man Cit'ys. Who's to say that this is not a fair price.
Of course to get true market value we just need look at the likes of Man City or Arsenal etc then add a bit for inflation. How can they argue it’s not true market value then.
They can keep trying, they can't stop it. The really ironic thing is we can spend a ****ing **** ton anyway because Mike Ashley invested so ****ing little. The biggest **** of the last 20 years has actually unintentionally given us the perfect platform for new ownership. We could in theory spunk 600m without breaking a single rule.
These other owners really are pretty ****ing thick. Should've moved quicker when Abramovic came in and shut it down - they needed to act then on the loan system, on owner contribution, etc., but they thought "ah, it's only Chelsea". Then when City did it, there was still room and a Big 6 was ok, so they did **** all about it. Now we're throwing Newcastle in with difficult matches already appearing vs Everton, Villa and Leicester's continued seat at the top table and only NOW is it a problem. And who's it a problem for? Spurs, Arsenal, and of course the identity-free mess that is Man U and the frugal model of Liverpool.
That’s fine. True market value is still significantly more than we have had. Individually the deals can be lower than MV. The difference is we have 100’s of sponsors to pick from. 100 x £5m is £500m a year and that is significantly under MV.
thankyou city. they have pushed the envelope so far up we will be able to sponsor our training ground for tens of millions… this new twist is the PL’s way of backing down…
Does anyone actually know what the ****ing rules are around this? I know Man Utd had their training kit sponsored by DHL ages ago and their training ground is sponsored by someone now as well but who's decides what "fair market value" is and what this applies to? As an example, surely anybody can sponsor anything at a football club. It's normal for kit to be sponsored and not unusual for grounds, training grounds, training kit etc to be sponsored now as well. But what's to stop "someone" from sponsoring our socks for £100m a season, "someone else" from sponsoring our shorts for £100m a season and "someone else again" from sponsoring our shirts for £100m a season? Can you only sponsor "the kit" as in the collective of all 3 or what ? Where is it mandated? I bet it ****ing aint. So what's to say that we are then effectively setting not only a precedent (for sponsoring socks for example) and as a result, and most likely being the only club who has sock sponsors that whatever that "someone" is prepared to pay to have their name on our socks is then the market value. So Man City could not then come along and have their socks sponsored for £200m as that is not "fair" market value. Sounds daft I know but it's ****ing bugging me. There will of course be a myriad of ways to get around this and I'd be stunned if we didn't already have people on this, or ideas already lined up waiting to pull the trigger so to speak ! Commercially we are on the cusp of becoming a ****ing juggernaut and steamrollering all over the rest of the minions in the PL !! **** you Masters !!!