Premier League 26/27 Season

[1964white]

[The Fish]

And 20 teams being owned by gulf states is great how exactly? If PSR didn't exist, Newcastle and Man City would spend billions and every summer and this would force other clubs to overspend to try and compete. Which would inevitably lead to bankruptcy.

When will they realise Villa and Newcastle just aren't as big as they think they are. If there was one club who could potentially challenge the greedy six without needing a sugar daddy, it's probably us, due to our commercial income. Only Kieran Maguire seems to agree though.

Look, I don't want to start a spat with a Northern brother, but NUFC have more than double the commercial revenue (£120.2m) of LUFC (£58.1m) as per the latest accounts.

Ask the majority of thinking Newcastle fans and they'd say the same; they don't want to be allowed to spend without some kind of cap, they just don't want the top table to be a closed shop.

Ok, say you're Brighton. You've recruited in the boardroom and in the boot-room brilliantly for the past two decades. You've time and again unearthed a quality player, coached him well and moved him on for big money. You've expanded your stadium, landed big commercial deals with big companies. You've broken into Europe a few times as well. How do you take the next step? You can't build a new stadium that can attract mega-concerts, NFL games or whatever because that would cost £1.5bn and you're still paying off your existing gaff. You can't establish yourself as a CL team because every year you perform well in the league one of the established elite throw £100m at your best player and that's all she wrote. Meanwhile, the clubs you're trying to catch up can wait for you to scout, coach, and polish the player then buy him off you with little to no risk. Even if it doesn't work out, they'll sell him on for ludicrous amounts (see Liam Delap) and go again with no fear that the financial rules will punish them for a misstep.

Look at Newcastle - we've a big stadium, we've been in the Champions League 2/5 seasons since the takeover, we've won a cup, we've recruited brilliantly (on the whole), we've exploded our commercial revenue (~600% rise since the takeover). But we're still forced to sell our best players, not because we're broke (we're clearly not) but because unlike every other industry in the world you're not allowed to speculate. We f**k up 1 transfer and it can set us back two years. Say Nico Gonzalez doesn't work out, not only do we have to shift him and his wages, we also might be forced into selling Miley to give us the SCR headroom. If Anderson doesn't work out for Man City, they can simply shrug it off, sell him for £75m and buy another player for £100m+

It used to be that you could challenge for the big boy table by throwing a bit more money at players to compensate them for not being odds on for a trophy, for not living in London or whatever. Now you're not allowed to do that. You're incentivised into selling your academy products rather than playing them, you're incentivised to fill your stadium with tourists and day trippers who'll pay larger sums for regular match days.

We're having to build an events arena for NFL games and Beyonce concerts that also doubles as a Premier League stadium for 19 weekends a season. That's mental. Why should an ambitious club have to spend £1.5bn on an asset away from football, so that they can compete at football? Were it not for this nonsense, there's no way Spurs would be dropping €350m on 5 players despite being the league's laughing stock.

The game is rigged.

[Jammy 07]

Look, I don't want to start a spat with a Northern brother, but NUFC have more than double the commercial revenue (£120.2m) of LUFC (£58.1m) as per the latest accounts.

Ask the majority of thinking Newcastle fans and they'd say the same; they don't want to be allowed to spend without some kind of cap, they just don't want the top table to be a closed shop.

Ok, say you're Brighton. You've recruited in the boardroom and in the boot-room brilliantly for the past two decades. You've time and again unearthed a quality player, coached him well and moved him on for big money. You've expanded your stadium, landed big commercial deals with big companies. You've broken into Europe a few times as well. How do you take the next step? You can't build a new stadium that can attract mega-concerts, NFL games or whatever because that would cost £1.5bn and you're still paying off your existing gaff. You can't establish yourself as a CL team because every year you perform well in the league one of the established elite throw £100m at your best player and that's all she wrote. Meanwhile, the clubs you're trying to catch up can wait for you to scout, coach, and polish the player then buy him off you with little to no risk. Even if it doesn't work out, they'll sell him on for ludicrous amounts (see Liam Delap) and go again with no fear that the financial rules will punish them for a misstep.

Look at Newcastle - we've a big stadium, we've been in the Champions League 2/5 seasons since the takeover, we've won a cup, we've recruited brilliantly (on the whole), we've exploded our commercial revenue (~600% rise since the takeover). But we're still forced to sell our best players, not because we're broke (we're clearly not) but because unlike every other industry in the world you're not allowed to speculate. We f**k up 1 transfer and it can set us back two years. Say Nico Gonzalez doesn't work out, not only do we have to shift him and his wages, we also might be forced into selling Miley to give us the SCR headroom. If Anderson doesn't work out for Man City, they can simply shrug it off, sell him for £75m and buy another player for £100m+

It used to be that you could challenge for the big boy table by throwing a bit more money at players to compensate them for not being odds on for a trophy, for not living in London or whatever. Now you're not allowed to do that. You're incentivised into selling your academy products rather than playing them, you're incentivised to fill your stadium with tourists and day trippers who'll pay larger sums for regular match days.

We're having to build an events arena for NFL games and Beyonce concerts that also doubles as a Premier League stadium for 19 weekends a season. That's mental. Why should an ambitious club have to spend £1.5bn on an asset away from football, so that they can compete at football? Were it not for this nonsense, there's no way Spurs would be dropping €350m on 5 players despite being the league's laughing stock.

The game is rigged.

Interesting that your commercial revenue has increased 600% since the takeover.

Now call me a cynic if you wish but it does make you wonder how and why that is ?

[Cjay]

Look, I don't want to start a spat with a Northern brother, but NUFC have more than double the commercial revenue (£120.2m) of LUFC (£58.1m) as per the latest accounts.

Ask the majority of thinking Newcastle fans and they'd say the same; they don't want to be allowed to spend without some kind of cap, they just don't want the top table to be a closed shop.

Ok, say you're Brighton. You've recruited in the boardroom and in the boot-room brilliantly for the past two decades. You've time and again unearthed a quality player, coached him well and moved him on for big money. You've expanded your stadium, landed big commercial deals with big companies. You've broken into Europe a few times as well. How do you take the next step? You can't build a new stadium that can attract mega-concerts, NFL games or whatever because that would cost £1.5bn and you're still paying off your existing gaff. You can't establish yourself as a CL team because every year you perform well in the league one of the established elite throw £100m at your best player and that's all she wrote. Meanwhile, the clubs you're trying to catch up can wait for you to scout, coach, and polish the player then buy him off you with little to no risk. Even if it doesn't work out, they'll sell him on for ludicrous amounts (see Liam Delap) and go again with no fear that the financial rules will punish them for a misstep.

Look at Newcastle - we've a big stadium, we've been in the Champions League 2/5 seasons since the takeover, we've won a cup, we've recruited brilliantly (on the whole), we've exploded our commercial revenue (~600% rise since the takeover). But we're still forced to sell our best players, not because we're broke (we're clearly not) but because unlike every other industry in the world you're not allowed to speculate. We f**k up 1 transfer and it can set us back two years. Say Nico Gonzalez doesn't work out, not only do we have to shift him and his wages, we also might be forced into selling Miley to give us the SCR headroom. If Anderson doesn't work out for Man City, they can simply shrug it off, sell him for £75m and buy another player for £100m+

It used to be that you could challenge for the big boy table by throwing a bit more money at players to compensate them for not being odds on for a trophy, for not living in London or whatever. Now you're not allowed to do that. You're incentivised into selling your academy products rather than playing them, you're incentivised to fill your stadium with tourists and day trippers who'll pay larger sums for regular match days.

We're having to build an events arena for NFL games and Beyonce concerts that also doubles as a Premier League stadium for 19 weekends a season. That's mental. Why should an ambitious club have to spend £1.5bn on an asset away from football, so that they can compete at football? Were it not for this nonsense, there's no way Spurs would be dropping €350m on 5 players despite being the league's laughing stock.

The game is rigged.

I agree but Newcastle helped rig it

As did Villa who moan as well (and are quite happy to do clearly dodgy deals to help the greedy 6 out)

Should be remembered both Newcastle and Villa voted in favour of SCR (6 clubs didn't they weren't one of them)

They also voted against TBA which was basically a spending cap based on the lowest Premier League club.

Clubs moan but the majority voted these rules in or they wouldn't be here.

[The Fish]

Interesting that your commercial revenue has increased 600% since the takeover.

Now call me a cynic if you wish but it does make you wonder how and why that is ?

I see your not-so-subtle barb, but I'll answer it honestly and hopefully that'll provide a little more clarity.

When Ashley bought us in 2007 our commercial revenue was comparable to Spurs. 14yrs later we didn't even get paid for all those Sports Direct signs around the ground. So we were starting from whatever level is beneath the basement.

We also had no CFO, or Commercial Director, or any real board level appointments. It was all under the purview of Lee Charnley, a man who could only look more like Penfold if he was standing beside the actual Dangermouse.

Then when the Saudis dumped their blood money into the club we suddenly started making c-suite appointments, and we then started to see the benefit in having an 'official energy drink partner' and all that. Getting related parties certainly shortened the path between opportunity and agreement, but don't kid yourself that we have unfairly benefited from having a sugar daddy owner to the same degree as Man City or Chelsea.

Every single one of our commercial deals have had greater scrutiny than anyone before or since. And fine, whatever, it is what it is. But when Chelsea are doing all they can to circumvent the rules and don't even get a pts deduction? Yeah, it's rigged.

[Jammy 07]

I see your not-so-subtle barb, but I'll answer it honestly and hopefully that'll provide a little more clarity.

When Ashley bought us in 2007 our commercial revenue was comparable to Spurs. 14yrs later we didn't even get paid for all those Sports Direct signs around the ground. So we were starting from whatever level is beneath the basement.

We also had no CFO, or Commercial Director, or any real board level appointments. It was all under the purview of Lee Charnley, a man who could only look more like Penfold if he was standing beside the actual Dangermouse.

Then when the Saudis dumped their blood money into the club we suddenly started making c-suite appointments, and we then started to see the benefit in having an 'official energy drink partner' and all that. Getting related parties certainly shortened the path between opportunity and agreement, but don't kid yourself that we have unfairly benefited from having a sugar daddy owner to the same degree as Man City or Chelsea.

Every single one of our commercial deals have had greater scrutiny than anyone before or since. And fine, whatever, it is what it is. But when Chelsea are doing all they can to circumvent the rules and don't even get a pts deduction? Yeah, it's rigged.

I've done quick google search and yes it appears you've managed quite a few decent commercial deals in recent years so all above board it would seem.

Honestly it's a shame you've not been able to break into the big boys league and please don't take that the wrong way as it still might happen. However it's looking less and less likely which must be huge disappointment to most Newcastle fans after the high expectations following the takeover.

[The Fish]

I agree but Newcastle helped rig it

As did Villa who moan as well (and are quite happy to do clearly dodgy deals to help the greedy 6 out)

Should be remembered both Newcastle and Villa voted in favour of SCR (6 clubs didn't they weren't one of them)

They also voted against TBA which was basically a spending cap based on the lowest Premier League club.

Clubs moan but the majority voted these rules in or they wouldn't be here.

How do you figure Newcastle helped rig it? You mean Ashley voting for FFP way back when? Since the takeover the rules have been changed to stop PIF sponsoring us to the same degree as Etihad do Man City, or whatever. They've changed the rules about selling players to so called "sister" clubs. they've changed the rules about loaning players from similarly linked clubs. Put it this way, we're the only club in the top flight who cannot register a profit for any players sold to the Saudi League.

My wife said we could either go to Wagamamas or Las Iguanas for tea. Me and the boy voted for Las Iguanas, she voted for Wagamamas. The option to go to the local was never floated.

Same for Newcastle, Villa and these rules. Those clubs have chosen the least worst option, so did I.

SCR is better than PSR was, for us and Villa . And there must be a good reason why we voted against anchoring. I can only assume it's because they think our progress is more likely under SCR.

Personally I'd want a debt-linked anchoring scheme. I don't think it's right that Man Utd can owe over ~£750m to financiers and ~£540m on transfers and still spend with abandon.

[The Fish]

I've done quick google search and yes it appears you've managed quite a few decent commercial deals in recent years so all above board it would seem.

Honestly it's a shame you've not been able to break into the big boys league and please don't take that the wrong way as it still might happen. However it's looking less and less likely which must be huge disappointment to most Newcastle fans after the high expectations following the takeover.

Unless something changes (and I've not given up on that being the case) nobody will break into the top 6 consistently.

[weasel]

How do you figure Newcastle helped rig it? You mean Ashley voting for FFP way back when? Since the takeover the rules have been changed to stop PIF sponsoring us to the same degree as Etihad do Man City, or whatever. They've changed the rules about selling players to so called "sister" clubs. they've changed the rules about loaning players from similarly linked clubs. Put it this way, we're the only club in the top flight who cannot register a profit for any players sold to the Saudi League.

My wife said we could either go to Wagamamas or Las Iguanas for tea. Me and the boy voted for Las Iguanas, she voted for Wagamamas. The option to go to the local was never floated.

Same for Newcastle, Villa and these rules. Those clubs have chosen the least worst option, so did I.

SCR is better than PSR was, for us and Villa . And there must be a good reason why we voted against anchoring. I can only assume it's because they think our progress is more likely under SCR.

Personally I'd want a debt-linked anchoring scheme. I don't think it's right that Man Utd can owe over ~£750m to financiers and ~£540m on transfers and still spend with abandon.

The only real shortcut I see for teams now is in having a couple of 'superstars' playing for them - whereby people around the world who seem to support a player rather than a team suddenly become fans and you can increase worldwide merchandising. That or win a few trophies.

As such though it is the closed shop - you need to be successful or spend big to sign the 'superstars' and similarly to buy enough players to win a few trophies. I think the real hope for a team like Newcastle is to combine their fan base with the recruitment of teams like Brighton etc so that you can buy the superstars before they become superstas (a bit like with Guimares and Isak) but be able to afford the top wages to try to keep them at the club and hope on getting 5 or 6 top quality players all within a year or two so as to build a team and win before the vultures swoop. You then position yourslelf alongside a Man City in that you then keep attracting players, are able to pay big wages, players want to come (despite not having a world wide club reputation - no offence big fish little pond in terms of local area but little fish big pond worldwide).

Of course doing that is far easier said than done. Ideally also it helps to have a production of your talent to be able to flog or play for you - sort of like what City have now so it is easier to balance the books (after overspending etc to get to this point).

[Jammy 07]

Unless something changes (and I've not given up on that being the case) nobody will break into the top 6 consistently.

Pretty sure you’ll agree that it’s more about silverware and that’s something that Newcastle & Crystal Palace for example have shown is eminently achievable.

We dream about winning another title but if that’s not possible then please give me an FA Cup or European League.

Top 6 is for owners but fans will forgive multiple poor seasons if they can have one special one every so often.

[Cjay]

How do you figure Newcastle helped rig it? You mean Ashley voting for FFP way back when? Since the takeover the rules have been changed to stop PIF sponsoring us to the same degree as Etihad do Man City, or whatever. They've changed the rules about selling players to so called "sister" clubs. they've changed the rules about loaning players from similarly linked clubs. Put it this way, we're the only club in the top flight who cannot register a profit for any players sold to the Saudi League.

My wife said we could either go to Wagamamas or Las Iguanas for tea. Me and the boy voted for Las Iguanas, she voted for Wagamamas. The option to go to the local was never floated.

Same for Newcastle, Villa and these rules. Those clubs have chosen the least worst option, so did I.

SCR is better than PSR was, for us and Villa . And there must be a good reason why we voted against anchoring. I can only assume it's because they think our progress is more likely under SCR.

Personally I'd want a debt-linked anchoring scheme. I don't think it's right that Man Utd can owe over ~£750m to financiers and ~£540m on transfers and still spend with abandon.

What would be the alternative though?

[The Subhuman]

What would be the alternative though?

A well proposed salary cap

[Cjay]

A well proposed salary cap

They tried.

No club could spend more than 5 times the prize money received by the bottom club.

Was rejected by most clubs

[The Subhuman]

They tried.

No club could spend more than 5 times the prize money received by the bottom club.

Was rejected by most clubs

No surprise that's just daft.

[Cjay]

No surprise that's just daft.

How else do you do it?

Wages are what they are players aren't going to take a wage drop

[Cjay]

Here they go again

Spuds spoofing their way in again

[Cjay]

This silly sod rejected Everton because they wouldn't pay him enough now wants out so he can get a bigger pay day

[Jammy 07]

This silly sod rejected Everton because they wouldn't pay him enough now wants out so he can get a bigger pay day

Think he got the shock of his life when Spurs left him out of their 25 man squad.

Serves him right but will probably get his own way eventually as that what usually happens.

[The Fish]

The only real shortcut I see for teams now is in having a couple of 'superstars' playing for them - whereby people around the world who seem to support a player rather than a team suddenly become fans and you can increase worldwide merchandising. That or win a few trophies.

As such though it is the closed shop - you need to be successful or spend big to sign the 'superstars' and similarly to buy enough players to win a few trophies. I think the real hope for a team like Newcastle is to combine their fan base with the recruitment of teams like Brighton etc so that you can buy the superstars before they become superstas (a bit like with Guimares and Isak) but be able to afford the top wages to try to keep them at the club and hope on getting 5 or 6 top quality players all within a year or two so as to build a team and win before the vultures swoop. You then position yourslelf alongside a Man City in that you then keep attracting players, are able to pay big wages, players want to come (despite not having a world wide club reputation - no offence big fish little pond in terms of local area but little fish big pond worldwide).

Of course doing that is far easier said than done. Ideally also it helps to have a production of your talent to be able to flog or play for you - sort of like what City have now so it is easier to balance the books (after overspending etc to get to this point).

I think you'll have seen in our business this window we've had to move from buying players who on the cusp of greatness (Bruno, Isak, Gordon, et al) to players who we hope will become great (Toure, Steur, Hornicek). This is the only way we can even compete for Europa, let alone Champions League.

The academy is somewhere that's seen a lot of investment and there are really exciting prospects in there. Ashley neglecting that for 14yrs is criminal and just poor business sense. An academy costs very little to maintain (in the scheme of things) and it can be relied upon to regularly produce saleable assets. Not every player is going to end up moving for £35m like Elliot Anderson, but selling one player to a Championship club for £1.5m keeps the lights on and pays for the next group of kids to come through. So if you can bring through 5 of 6 players every year that either move on to the lower leagues, get sold for big money or, make it in your own team... surely that's sound business?

[The Fish]

What would be the alternative though?

Debt-linked anchoring.

5 times the revenue of the 'poorest' club would give every Premier League clubs the freedom to spend around £600m on fees and one year of the contract. Non CapEx debt has to be serviced first, so financial debt and transfer debt is taken away from that allowance.

So, this means that the elite clubs can still financially compete with any continental rival, the ambitious clubs can speculate, no club can put themselves in too much debt as that would only decimate their allowance next season. It would be in the elite clubs' interests to fatten the coffers of other PL clubs.