Newcastle takeover???

[Bigpig]

Quite amusing that Spurs were begging for a takeover from the PIF a few years ago but now seem to be the driving force against them. Sour grapes.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1450337337678966785

 

[the wopster]

, that’s going to end well, the club already had them over a barrel in the CAT case, city’s and nufc’s lawyers would bring down the PL, I’m surprised PL lawyers haven’t pointed out to the PL that it’s illegal.

 

[omnomnom]

, that’s going to end well, the club already had them over a barrel in the CAT case, city’s and nufc’s lawyers would bring down the PL

Why would they? It’s been voted through and there isn’t a lot city or Newcastle can do about it

 

[the wopster]

Why would they? It’s been voted through and there isn’t a lot city or Newcastle can do about it

Because it’s illegal, you can’t enforce something that is against competition law


the section 60 of the Competition Act 1998 provides that UK rules are to be applied in line with European jurisprudence. Like all competition law, that in the UK has three main tasks.

• prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business entities. This includes in particular the repression of cartels.
• banning abusive behaviour by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal and many others.
• supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licences or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing.

 

[omnomnom]

Because it’s illegal, you can’t enforce something that is against competition law


the section 60 of the Competition Act 1998 provides that UK rules are to be applied in line with European jurisprudence. Like all competition law, that in the UK has three main tasks.

• prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business entities. This includes in particular the repression of cartels.
• banning abusive behaviour by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal and many others.
• supervising the mergers and acquisitions of large corporations, including some joint ventures. Transactions that are considered to threaten the competitive process can be prohibited altogether, or approved subject to "remedies" such as an obligation to divest part of the merged business or to offer licences or access to facilities to enable other businesses to continue competing.

ok so how would this be breaking competition law? Bare in mind both clubs agreed to have a stake in the premier league and agreed that a majority of 14 could vote through new laws and regulations.

 

[the wopster]

ok so how would this be breaking competition law? Bare in mind both clubs agreed to have a stake in the premier league and agreed that a majority of 14 could vote through new laws and regulations.

Any rules voted through still have to comply with the laws of the land, you can’t just disregard the laws of the land because you’re in a separate little league

 

[omnomnom]

Any rules voted through still have to comply with the laws of the land, you can’t just disregard the laws of the land because you’re in a separate little league

Ok but then I’ve asked you how it breaks it...

If you’re suggesting that teams shouldn’t be able to have a vote on such matters then let’s get rid of the PL full stop as it’s been happening for quite some time.

 

[adam cool dude]

So City are going to have to get real sponsors now?

 

[the wopster]

Ok but then I’ve asked you how it breaks it...

If you’re suggesting that teams shouldn’t be able to have a vote on such matters then let’s get rid of the PL full stop as it’s been happening for quite some time.

The first bullet point

• prohibiting agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business entities. This includes in particular the repression of cartels.
• 
  you can’t turn round to a private company and say to the BTW you can’t be sponsored by a particular private company because it’s from a certain country

So City are going to have to get real sponsors now?

Which is why it will get shot down legally, Man City apparently abstained from the vote telling the other PL clubs that their legal advice was to abstain as it was unlawful.

It’s just other club owners throwing teddy’s out of prams because it’s another team that will compete with them within the next 4-5 years

 

[BaZ87]

woppy is just copying Newcastle's CAT argument against the PL The CAT case which was very likely to have been thrown out before ever being fully heard.

I am surprised that Newcastle supporters are against this move. They were very outspoken against corruption, I thought they would have been in favour of the League trying to prevent dodgy commercial deals.

Anyway, this is only a 1 month ban on commercial agreements between related parties (not simply a private company from the same country) until a more detailed, permanent regulation is brought in.

 

[the wopster]

woppy is just copying Newcastle's CAT argument against the PL The CAT case which was very likely to have been thrown out before ever being fully heard.

I am surprised that Newcastle supporters are against this move. They were very outspoken against corruption, I thought they would have been in favour of the League trying to prevent dodgy commercial deals.

Anyway, this is only a 1 month ban on commercial agreements between related parties (not simply a private company from the same country) until a more detailed, permanent regulation is brought in.

Considering how much the judge was laughing (openly) at the PLs arguments for it to be thrown out, I find it highly unlikely it was going to be thrown out, even Miguel Delaney(massively opposed to the Takeover) tweeted 1-0 to NUFC after the proceedings concluded. And yes I watched the whole thing.

considering the PL have already accepted that the PIF are a separate company from the Saudi state”yes we both know otherwise”(otherwise the takeover wouldn’t have gone through) there is nothing stopping a sponsorship deal with another private company from Saudi Arabia

 

[Stumble Bum]

Didn't take long for Newcastle supporters to sell their soul. Now they're in here defending self sponsoring Dear oh dear. It didn't take long for everyone to be against Newcastle. Too right too.

 

[robfosters]

Didn't take long for Newcastle supporters to sell their soul. Now they're in here defending self sponsoring Dear oh dear. It didn't take long for everyone to be against Newcastle. Too right too.

Agree, the hypocrisy is staggering. Let’s just hope they crash and burn. They’re too crap to save anyway. I still can’t see them staying up this season. How much business are they really going to do in January, then what top players are gonna want to drop to the championship.

 

[BaZ87]

Every legal expert that I saw comment on the CAS case, including Newcastle supporting lawyers who were pro takeover claimed that the CAT case was nothing more than a red herring and likely to never be heard*. And the PL didn't accept that PIF are separate from the state, they simply received assurances that the state wouldn't be involved in the running of the club. Using a non Newcastle example to explain this point - the Red Sox aren't involved in the running of Liverpool however they clearly are a related party and this ban would prevent Liverpool and the Red Sox signing any commercial agreements.

As I said, this is only a temporary meassure while a more detailed regulations are put into place. Whether this 1 month ban is legal ultimately won't matter - any CAT case could potentially take years to be heard and long before then this rule won't be in place.

*You have to remember that the recent hearing was to determine whether the case will be thrown out before being actually argued. All that happened was Newcastle's lawyers put forward their reasons why they believe the case should go ahead and the PL's reasons why it shouldn't.

 

[montymint]

tbh I'm fine with it.

Any sponsorship is going to be worth more than the pitiful SD deal of about 500k / season for the stadium.

 

[Ayahuasca]

It doesn't matter how long this drags on for they'll find a way to inject hundreds of millions. They will happily take some sanctions along the way as well as in the grand scheme of things it will still be progress.

The only way you're stopping this is with significant point deductions and we all know that will never happen.

 

[the wopster]

Every legal expert that I saw comment on the CAS case, including Newcastle supporting lawyers who were pro takeover claimed that the CAT case was nothing more than a red herring and likely to never be heard

You have to remember that the recent hearing was to determine whether the case will be thrown out before being actually argued. All that happened was Newcastle's lawyers put forward their reasons why they believe the case should go ahead and the PL's reasons why it shouldn't.

That was until the case was heard, a lot changed there tune after the hearing(if you have chance pop back and have a look what they wrote on twitter after the proceedings) the PL argued that it should be thrown out and then argued that if it wasn’t thrown out it should be held in private as CAT cases are held in public requiring full disclosure, apparently the CAT case was used by the club to stop the PL from keep kicking the can down the road in the arbitration case. As even if the club won jurisdiction it would have been at least 6-12 months before the case was heard.

 

[BaZ87]

That was until the case was heard, a lot changed there tune after the hearing(if you have chance pop back and have a look what they wrote on twitter after the proceedings) the PL argued that it should be thrown out and then argued that if it wasn’t thrown out it should be held in private as CAT cases are held in public requiring full disclosure, apparently the CAT case was used by the club to stop the PL from keep kicking the can down the road in the arbitration case. As even if the club won jurisdiction it would have been at least 6-12 months before the case was heard.

I've read and listened to what numerous lawyers and sports lawyers have said regarding the case, before, during and after. Re the PL kicking the can down the road, the biggest cause of the delay in the abritration was caused by Newcastle - they tried and failed to have one of the panel removed, which delayed the case. The CAS case could have taken years to be resolved, even if it was heard - it was nothing more than grandstanding from Ashley.

Anyway coming back to this new situation, the biggest take from this is that there's clearly a determination amongst the PL to close any loopholes around FFP. It's also worth remembering that the PL are still in the middle of an investigation into City's FFP breaches.

 

[adam cool dude]

Basically the "old firm" thought nothing would happen with City and were a bit naive to how big City would become. After all Chelsea are still relatively close to the others. Now they have realised what is happening and will do everything to stop Newcastle becoming a second City.

 

[Azza]

FYI this is just the same as what UEFA has for European competitions. Currently there isn't anything in the PL rules about sponsorship being market rates.

But then again it doesn't really matter as when UEFA tried to challenge PSG they failed, but guess it depends on how much lawyering you really want to do.