Usmanov

[Brisan123]

How do they determine fair market value, if USM wanted to sponsor the p1ss pots in goodison for 100 million a season, how can market value be determined as there is nothing to compare it to. Is it a case that the first to do it will be the only ones to do it as rules will be changed to stop sponsorship of nonsense items around stadiums.

If USM reckon 3 million a year for 20 corporate boxes at BMD is good value who are we (or the PL ) to argue
The market is the market

 

[Archie Knox]

How do they determine fair market value, if USM wanted to sponsor the p1ss pots in goodison for 100 million a season, how can market value be determined as there is nothing to compare it to. Is it a case that the first to do it will be the only ones to do it as rules will be changed to stop sponsorship of nonsense items around stadiums.

First of all the FA would have a quick word with the RS and have them sort out a bog sponsorship worth 500m, then they'd come to us and say listen, Liverpool got 500m for theirs and they're Champions of the Werld, so little old Everton's deal can be worth no more than £6.50 per annum. Boom, there's the comparison.

 

[Brisan123]

They won't restrict perfectly reasonable sponsorship agreements, that is clear.


If you want to play in a competition then you abide by the rules or face sanctions. If you don't like the rules then you don't have to take part in the competition. If you think a decision is incorrect then you have a clear way of remedying it. You can appeal any decision right up to the Court of Arbitration for Sport which is a completely independent body.

As for your claptrap regarding the EU supreme court. Again you show how dangerous a little knowledge is. There is no such thing. The UK has a Supreme court the EU has the Court of Justice of the European Union.

If you want to play in a competition then you abide by the rules or face sanctions. If you don't like the rules then you don't have to take part in the competition. If you think a decision is incorrect then you have a clear way of remedying it. You can appeal any decision right up to the Court of Arbitration for Sport which is a completely independent body.

Mr Bosman did not agree
They are only the rules until they are challenged
USM are not bound by footballing rules as they are not the owners of a football club.
They are an independent business

 

[gwladysnight]

How do they determine fair market value, if USM wanted to sponsor the p1ss pots in goodison for 100 million a season, how can market value be determined as there is nothing to compare it to. Is it a case that the first to do it will be the only ones to do it as rules will be changed to stop sponsorship of nonsense items around stadiums.

The same as any valuation they get independent professional assessors to make a valuation. If you don't agree then you can get your own assessors in and the case will be heard by the CFCB adjudicatory chamber which is an independent body. If you don't agree with their verdict then you can take it to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

That shows how difficult a legal challenge in the courts would be especially since you had signed a contract stating that you would abide by the CAS verdict and view it as a full and final verdict.

 

[catcherintherye]

They won't restrict perfectly reasonable sponsorship agreements, that is clear.


If you want to play in a competition then you abide by the rules or face sanctions. If you don't like the rules then you don't have to take part in the competition. If you think a decision is incorrect then you have a clear way of remedying it. You can appeal any decision right up to the Court of Arbitration for Sport which is a completely independent body.

As for your claptrap regarding the EU supreme court. Again you show how dangerous a little knowledge is. There is no such thing. The UK has a Supreme court the EU has the Court of Justice of the European Union.

Ok well that will mean the sponsorship deals we have signed will be fine then. There is no need for anything more than the cursory look they have to give all of them over the coming days.

Of course you sign up to the rules, but where money and business is at stake a body representing organisations cannot start imposing regulations that would be inconsistent with the wider values, laws and ethos of the country they operate in. As we have seen with Bosman. A trade body doesn't have the right to ignore the wider rules within the territory it operates in, does it?

You are correct to say it would go to court of arbitration, and if necessary to Court of Justice of the European Union (which as things stand is the most supreme court our appeals can go to, as stated previously).

 

[gwladysnight]

Mr Bosman did not agree
They are only the rules until they are challenged
USM are not bound by footballing rules as they are the owners of a football club.
They are an independent business

Individuals are not bound by the rules agreed by a Club and the organisations running competitions.

 

[Archie Knox]

If USM reckon 3 million a year for 20 corporate boxes at BMD is good value who are we (or the PL ) to argue
The market is the market

I think the concern is when the owner of a club has his or her other entities sponsor their club, i.e. like City so flagrantly did and probably still do without being on the end of any real punishment at all.

City get around FFP rules by "spending no more than they are receiving commercially" by having Mr Mansour (whatever his name is) have his own companies 'pay' way over the odds so that they are then able to buy 50m players in each position and still prove to the league that it's financed by money coming into the club via these dodgy sponsorship deals.

And that's what people are intimating is going on with us too, however as Usmanov isn't connected to us in any official capacity there should not be the comparison.

Wouldn't put it past the FA to find some way to make an example of us though, just for the sake of it like, and then have the 'bigger' clubs continue doing the very same thing without any punishment.

 

[Brisan123]

Individuals are not bound by the rules agreed by a Club and the organisations running competitions.

So Alisher Usmanov as an individual is not bound by these rules either

 

[catcherintherye]

Mr Bosman did not agree

No he didn't. I did try to point that out to him when he seemed to think I was being incredibly ignorant to suggest that litigation within sport is not an impossiblity as he seemed too.

You would imagine the FFP rules (along with the transfer windows) will at some point be challenged legally. At present clubs don't wish to do so, as there is a collective view that they need to try and make things work and it would greatly damage the game to drag it through the courts. The trade off for that is the PL and Uefa act with a degree of fairness and don't over stretch themselves. Short of sponsorship worth say £200m per annum for a stadium, it's hard to see us ever having the need for the PL to intervene. He has acknowledged that they have no need to intervene for reasonable sponsorship, so nothing we have achieved thus far will prove in the least bit problematic.

 

[catcherintherye]

I think the concern is when the owner of a club has his or her other entities sponsor their club, i.e. like City so flagrantly did and probably still do without being on the end of any real punishment at all.

City get around FFP rules by "spending no more than they are receiving commercially" by having Mr Mansour (whatever his name is) have his own companies 'pay' way over the odds so that they are then able to buy 50m players in each position and still prove to the league that it's financed by money coming into the club via these dodgy sponsorship deals.

And that's what people are intimating is going on with us too, however as Usmanov isn't connected to us in any official capacity there should not be the comparison.

Wouldn't put it past the FA to find some way to make an example of us though, just for the sake of it like, and then have the 'bigger' clubs continue doing the very same thing without any punishment.

The issue is though, who decides what is "way over the odds"? What is their criteria for doing this? What are their qualifications for doing it? Who has elected them to do it? Who are they accountable too? Why do the know more than the shareholders of a company who wish to do it?

 

[Brisan123]

No he didn't. I did try to point that out to him when he seemed to think I was being incredibly ignorant to suggest that litigation within sport is not an impossiblity as he seemed too.

You would imagine the FFP rules (along with the transfer windows) will at some point be challenged legally. At present clubs don't wish to do so, as there is a collective view that they need to try and make things work and it would greatly damage the game to drag it through the courts. The trade off for that is the PL and Uefa act with a degree of fairness and don't over stretch themselves. Short of sponsorship worth say £200m per annum for a stadium, it's hard to see us ever having the need for the PL to intervene. He has acknowledged that they have no need to intervene for reasonable sponsorship, so nothing we have achieved thus far will prove in the least bit problematic.

If we put one of the sky 6 out of europe on a regular basis that may change

 

[catcherintherye]

Individuals are not bound by the rules agreed by a Club and the organisations running competitions.

He wasn't an individual. He was a player, under contract from a club who has signed up to the rules you seem to view as sacrosanct. So there is a duality there, not only the rules clubs sign up to, but he signed up on contract to them.

And the law threw out the rules of football as not worth the paper they were written on. You can write pretty much whatever you like as a gentleman agreement, which works to a point but it's not enforceable is it contravenes the laws of the country you operate in.

I don't wish to throw about insulting words (though you seem to relish it) but the real naive one here is you, who seems to have the rules of football on this pedestal like they've been ordained by Moses or whatever. They are a few guiding principles, and if challenged by the law of the land would quickly come unstuck. This would be a massively expensive and onerous mistake for the PL if they went down this path. Hence why, as long as Usmanov's sponsorship stay roughly in line with what other top PL clubs get, we will never be hassled.

 

[Archie Knox]

The issue is though, who decides what is "way over the odds"? What is their criteria for doing this? What are their qualifications for doing it? Who has elected them to do it? Who are they accountable too? Why do the know more than the shareholders of a company who wish to do it?

Exactly. You can understand the concern as you cannot have somebody with an existing interest in the club pumping in mega millions that would never in a million years be achieved elsewhere (well, like I said, City did and got away with it). But you're absolutely right - there appears to be no process set up to determine this market value. What's 30m anyway, Liverpool get more than that every year for the sleeve sponsor on their training kit.

 

[gwladysnight]

Ok well that will mean the sponsorship deals we have signed will be fine then. There is no need for anything more than the cursory look they have to give all of them over the coming days.

Again a lack of knowledge. The deals will not be looked at over the coming days. They will be looked at when our 2020 accounts go in to the FA. If we qualify for European competition they will also go in to UEFA. As you say if the amounts involved are at a fair value then there will be no action. The problem is despite commercial revenue going in from USM and associated companies we have still posted a colossal loss. what we need is better management of our resources and to stop complaing about not being allowed to waste even more money

Of course you sign up to the rules, but where money and business is at stake a body representing organisations cannot start imposing regulations that would be inconsistent with the wider values, laws and ethos of the country they operate in. As we have seen with Bosman. A trade body doesn't have the right to ignore the wider rules within the territory it operates in, does it?

We are not talking about trade bodies, we are talking about organisations that run sporting competitions. Regarding Bosman that was an individual not a Club.

You are correct to say it would go to court of arbitration, and if necessary to Court of Justice of the European Union (which as things stand is the most supreme court our appeals can go to, as stated previously).

You have gone backtracked faster than an Italian tank there my good friend.

 

[catcherintherye]

If we put one of the sky 6 out of europe on a regular basis that may change

Look it's already putting noses out of joint. However there is no legal basis to it. It would be extremely easy for Usmanov or the club to up the anti and the PL would be advised by it's legal team to back down if it started getting a bit brave.

Obviously these are all based upon what we have seen in the public domain thus far. I'm not saying there isn't a situation that exists whereby it's pushed too far and the club is vulnerable, but we are nowhere near that territory currently. What we have is a few clubs, who have created a stitched up set of rules that run contrary to the guiding principles of competitiveness that govern this country having a tantrum because somebody has found a way to get around them a bit. However this will not play well in a court of law.

I don't foresee the PL looking to get too brave over this. It will be passed through very easily, and the clubs who are jumping up and down will be told to zip it and behave themselves.