The way i have read it is, with clubs like city and Newcastle was they could submit a deal for sponsorship and the PL could knock it back (or the PL could just sit on it and not give a response like they did with city) saying it was rejected because it was above FMV not knowing how much above FMV it was, now clubs will know exactly how much a FMV deal will be.
The Great Big FFP Debate
- Thread starter Reuben klang
- Start date
I've not read the full judgement nor do I know the exact timetable of how City's deals were rejected (they were given the database at some point however and didn't resubmit their deals) however the top and bottom of it is that deals need to be of FMV. That's all that ultimately matters.
FMV is what Newcastle (or whoever) should be able to get from non related parties. Whether Newcastle are told what FMV is for any given deal doesn't really matter in my opinion because they still can't agree a deal for more than what they could achieve from a non Saudi company.
Caporegime
Do you think they care lol?
Caporegime
Why aye man.
No just catching up on a few things but having access to data the PL will have a harder time rejecting deals and easier to prove FMV by bench marking other clubs.
Now I’m not claiming 200million shirt sponsorship etc.
Also looks like a lot of extra rules they rushed in to make it even harder to pass deals was unlawful.
I'm not sure how it makes things harder for the PL. If a deal is above FMV they can reject it. I really fail to see any meaningful advantage to clubs knowing what others are getting in relation to FMV. What is FMV for Newcastle shouldn't be a surprise to Newcastle. They don't need to be told what Villa are getting to know what, give or take, they can legitimately put through as FMV.
Ultimately what Newcastle (or whoever) can successfully argue is FMV is the same value that they should be able to secure on the open market so I don't really care if Newcastle sign a deal with Saudi Telecom for £10m instead of EE. You can argue it makes Newcastle's work easier but ultimately you're not going to benefit from greater commercial deals through this change.
Where does it state that the club must have a matching non owned sponsorship of the same value? If I’m not mistaken that was one of the rules that the PL tried to rush in. As far as going the clubs needed at least 3 matching deals. Which they now have to backpedal or the vote failed. Can’t remember if it passed.
Again we will only really know more once the rules are amended and put in place. Which shouldn’t be long.
It’s nice to have things out in the public. We were referenced a lot in the paperwork and seem to be the catalyst for the panic among some of the clubs.
I didn't state that they must have matching deals of the same value. I stated that what is fair market value for a club is the amount that they can be reasonably expected to earn from a non related party. This amount, give or take a % or 2, isn't going to come as a massive shock to clubs. Newcastle seeing a spreadsheet that shows what Villa earn from their x sponsor isn't going to be some great advantage to them. It might save them some time but that's about it. What is FMV for Newcastle isn't going to change because they know what Villa earn.
What is FMV for Newcastle is going to be the same regardless of the amendment to the rules and that figure is the same as what they should be able to get from a non Saudi deal.
If their sale doesn't go through (again) and Moshiri doesn't convert his debt to equity, then yes. Ironically Everton supported City in the case.Everton about to get pumped again?
And while De Marco doesn't want to say too much on the case, here's a lawyer that does:
He hasn’t said too much as he knows he’s about to get a lot more work or his firm.Again going back to my previous post the onus now lies with PL to prove a deal is not FMV not for the club to prove it is. That’s pretty big and they can’t sit and bury their heads in the sand which is their go to tactic.
Caporegime
Surely the PL can just change the rules to what they want going forward since it is their league?
And the panel found that the PL's methodology for determining what is FMV (in relation to the 2 rejected City deals) was "not unreasonable". They're going to have to go through the process again because of procedural errors (the timing of which info was provided to City etc) however again, the way in which the PL determined FMV of City's deals was supported.
I'd suggest reading the twitter thread I posted above because it seems you and most people believing this to be a big win for City are misinformed or simply clutching at straws.
Still has to be legal