January 26, 2020, 02:29:39 AM

Author Topic: AGM 2020  (Read 8177 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

January 16, 2020, 09:59:47 PM
Reply #225
Online

Martip


Oh, we absolutely be pulled for that. It is 100% in the regs that they can declare it as a breach of FFP.
I dont see how tbh as how can they decide what the first refusal is worth or even what the naming right should cost long term ?

USM is not owned by Moshiri and if Everton have have done what looks like a good business deal I cant see how they can influence that free trade.


January 16, 2020, 10:00:20 PM
Reply #226
Offline

Polledreng

NSNO Subscriber
To be fair the market value relates to related party transactions. Makes me laugh that PL think a  non shareholder is a related party. I can't stop laughing at the fools in the PL..

The definition in IAS24  states quit clear

A related party is a person or an entity that is related to the reporting entity: A person or a close member of that person's family is related to a reporting entity if that person has control, joint control, or significant influence over the entity or is a member of its key management personnel.

We should bloody sue the PL

January 16, 2020, 10:24:42 PM
Reply #227
Offline

van der Meyde


Well, a study 2 years ago showed that the king power stadiums naming rights would be worth £2.7m.
Arsenal signed a deal originally for shirts & stadium naming that came out around £2.8m for the naming rights back in 04.
Spurs stadium naming rights is worth exactly zero, looking at things.
Spurs holding out for £25m a year, I believe.

Wonder if Everton could try to argue that Bramley Moore's location - city centre, waterfront, exposure to cruises docking in Liverpool for the day, etc - could bump up the value slightly. Probably not much, but worth an argument, I suppose.
...


January 16, 2020, 10:26:51 PM
Reply #228
Online

brap2

NSNO Subscriber
To be fair the market value relates to related party transactions. Makes me laugh that PL think a  non shareholder is a related party. I can't stop laughing at the fools in the PL..

The definition in IAS24  states quit clear

A related party is a person or an entity that is related to the reporting entity: A person or a close member of that person's family is related to a reporting entity if that person has control, joint control, or significant influence over the entity or is a member of its key management personnel.

We should bloody sue the PL

This is why city got away with 400m sponsorship from the Emirates.

Surely regardless of the loopholes we can all agree 30m for old rope is quite clearly a bungabunga and a joke, even if we don't mind it
I knew that someday I was going to die, and I knew that before I died, two things would happen to me. That number one; I would regret my entire life, and number two; that I would want to live my life over again.

January 16, 2020, 10:36:27 PM
Reply #229
Offline

Polledreng

NSNO Subscriber
This is why city got away with 400m sponsorship from the Emirates.

Surely regardless of the loopholes we can all agree 30m for old rope is quite clearly a bungabunga and a joke, even if we don't mind it
  totaly agree  and going by this number I think its only a matter of time before Usmanov is a related party in real life…….

January 16, 2020, 10:38:41 PM
Reply #230
Offline

Polledreng

NSNO Subscriber
Spurs holding out for £25m a year, I believe.

Wonder if Everton could try to argue that Bramley Moore's location - city centre, waterfront, exposure to cruises docking in Liverpool for the day, etc - could bump up the value slightly. Probably not much, but worth an argument, I suppose.
the 30 mill.  has nothing to do with the naming - just an option to enter negotiations about naming rights…..   So as @brap2  said - we have got 30 mill for old rope - so my guess is the namings right will exceed Spurs  - probably by quiet a margin


January 16, 2020, 11:01:33 PM
Reply #231
Offline

Mick 1995

NSNO Subscriber
Sorry, i meant "CAN" be pulled, not that we would. Missed that word out.

And yeah, this is absolutely a case of "getting around FFP".

But when Moshiri came in, we all looked at each other and agreed that we would have to "find a way around FFP" didnt we?
This is what it looks like.

January 16, 2020, 11:40:21 PM
Reply #232
Offline

Confucius

NSNO Subscriber
All these figures are so arbitrary. Players being sold for 100M and TV deals in the billions.

Trying to rationalize it is almost impossible..

Let the uber wealthy fling money around and launder to their content. They have always been doing it and will continue to do it.
Farhad Moshiri, Alisher Usmanov, Cenk Tosun, Muhamed Besic, Idrissa Gana Gueye, Ademola Lookman, Oumar Niasse, David Henen, Barack Hussein Obama, Confucius... Everton Muslims growing stronger...

January 17, 2020, 12:31:13 AM
Reply #233
Offline

Trowel


  totaly agree  and going by this number I think its only a matter of time before Usmanov is a related party in real life…….
Could in fact be the very reason he's not; I don't think any financial rule will ever be able to cover a 3rd party sponsor who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
www.footballitk.com | Football news from those In The Know

Latest Everton transfer news

January 17, 2020, 12:44:36 AM
Reply #234
Offline

ajax_andy


Usmanov isn't part of our football club, he's someone unrelated to it with no shares, so if we say it's costs x or y millions for something and he pays it then more power to us.

I don't see how the premier League can penalise us for making a good deal even if it's a bad deal for the person stumping up that cash.

As a club it's our right to make good deals that benefit the club to the maximum financial gain possible, and that's what we're doing.  Can't see any way the Pemier League can penalise is for that, just because the businessman in question is mates with our owner... There's no law against rinsing your mate in a deal, we want £30m and he's willing to pay it? That's good business!

January 17, 2020, 01:27:53 AM
Reply #235
Offline

Mick 1995

NSNO Subscriber
Usmanov isn't part of our football club, he's someone unrelated to it with no shares, so if we say it's costs x or y millions for something and he pays it then more power to us.

I don't see how the premier League can penalise us for making a good deal even if it's a bad deal for the person stumping up that cash.

As a club it's our right to make good deals that benefit the club to the maximum financial gain possible, and that's what we're doing.  Can't see any way the Pemier League can penalise is for that, just because the businessman in question is mates with our owner... There's no law against rinsing your mate in a deal, we want £30m and he's willing to pay it? That's good business!

There is a law though. A specific one to stop financial doping.
Thankfully, the powers that be are limp wristed when it comes to pubishments.

January 17, 2020, 01:36:02 AM
Reply #236
Offline

sam of the south


There is a law though. A specific one to stop financial doping.
Thankfully, the powers that be are limp wristed when it comes to pubishments.

And then along came Everton..
“I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived.”
Henry David Thoreau

January 17, 2020, 01:36:31 AM
Reply #237
Offline

ajax_andy


There is a law though. A specific one to stop financial doping.
Thankfully, the powers that be are limp wristed when it comes to pubishments.

Sure but who's to say paying for first dibs on naming rights isn't a thing? Just because no one has done it before doesn't mean it's not a good idea. 

They'd have a hard job proving we've never had any interest in using anyone else for the naming rights, and I'm sure we'd be more than happy to accept another £30m from a couple of other suiters who also want to have a chance to bid on naming rights.

January 17, 2020, 01:40:35 AM
Reply #238
Offline

van der Meyde


Sure but who's to say paying for first dibs on naming rights isn't a thing? Just because no one has done it before doesn't mean it's not a good idea. 

They'd have a hard job proving we've never had any interest in using anyone else for the naming rights, and I'm sure we'd be more than happy to accept another £30m from a couple of other suiters who also want to have a chance to bid on naming rights.
Apparently these first options aren’t unheard of in other industries.
...

January 17, 2020, 01:51:06 AM
Reply #239
Offline

ajax_andy


Apparently these first options aren’t unheard of in other industries.

Yeah it makes a lot of sense... I could see an issue with doing something weird like paying £10m a year to have their branding on the goal posts of our training pitch, but paying up front for the right to bid on a stadium's naming rights seems fair and actually smart business.