Chop chop! Lets all gawp at Newcastle (again)

[bobzy]

1 hour ago, Pinebro said:

Looks like European Football will take a toll on their league form.

Will be difficult for them to make top 4 again.

Finishing 3rd in their group and winning Europa may be their best ticket.

They've had a great start to the season - this is a madness post.

[bobzy]

51 minutes ago, TheFish said:

At the same time you have 2 or 3 clubs pushing those traditional 'Top 6' clubs by being wealthy and/or well run. Brighton, yourselves and Newcastle are now a genuine threat to clubs like Spurs, Man Utd, Chelsea. None of these clubs are throwing the kinds of sums that we saw Chelsea and Man City splash when they were looking to break into the top of the table discussion. 

Dunno about that.  Newcastle have spent the thick end of £400m on transfers since the Saudi takeover.  That's a lot of money.

[VillaJ100]

56 minutes ago, TheFish said:

I think you're right here. Man City are currently dominant because they've got a fantastic squad with arguably the best manager on the planet. We've seen how quickly Man United have 'fallen' when they've failed to replace their iconic manager, let see how Man City fare without Pep.

I think the Premier League is more competitive than people give it credit. Yes, Man City appear to have dominated the title for the last few years, but it has often been pretty **** close. Arsenal, Liverpool, Man Utd have all pushed them close. In the 7 seasons since Pep came in, Chelsea and Liverpool have won a title each, and on two occasions the title was decided by a single point. 

At the same time you have 2 or 3 clubs pushing those traditional 'Top 6' clubs by being wealthy and/or well run. Brighton, yourselves and Newcastle are now a genuine threat to clubs like Spurs, Man Utd, Chelsea. None of these clubs are throwing the kinds of sums that we saw Chelsea and Man City splash when they were looking to break into the top of the table discussion. 

Man U have fell so badly though as the ownership is very hands off and the day-to -day board like Woodward etc were just shit and couldn't run a football club. It's only because they're some sort of marketing and sales organisation now with the football an expensive nuisance that they've managed to stay mostly in the top 6 - most clubs run that badly would probably have been relegated. Man City don't have those problems, managers come and go and while probably not quite as dominant their backroom team know what they're doing unfortunately 

Edited October 9, 2023 by VillaJ100

[TheFish]

9 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Dunno about that.  Newcastle have spent the thick end of £400m on transfers since the Saudi takeover.  That's a lot of money.

Compared to the amounts spent by Man City and Chelsea, it's not really. We've spent, sure, but not in the same ball park as those two at the point of their takeover. 

Chelsea were the biggest spenders in the league for the first 4 seasons under their new owner, Man City were the biggest spenders in the league for 3/4. Newcastle haven't been the biggest spenders in the league yet.

[TheFish]

25 minutes ago, VillaJ100 said:

Man U have fell so badly though as the ownership is very hands off and the day-to -day board like Woodward etc were just shit and couldn't run a football club. It's only because they're some sort of marketing and sales organisation now with the football an expensive nuisance that they've managed to stay mostly in the top 6 - most clubs run that badly would probably have been relegated. Man City don't have those problems, managers come and go and while probably not quite as dominant their backroom team know what they're doing unfortunately 

You're right, but I just don't know that Guardiola is going to be replaced without a significant drop off. Whoever they get in, just won't be as good at corralling those superstars into as ruthless and efficient an outfit as they are right now.

[bobzy]

46 minutes ago, TheFish said:

Compared to the amounts spent by Man City and Chelsea, it's not really. We've spent, sure, but not in the same ball park as those two at the point of their takeover. 

Chelsea were the biggest spenders in the league for the first 4 seasons under their new owner, Man City were the biggest spenders in the league for 3/4. Newcastle haven't been the biggest spenders in the league yet.

If it wasn't for Chelsea's currently ridiculous spend, you'd be ahead of the rest of the league by a mile since your takeover.

[TheFish]

56 minutes ago, bobzy said:

If it wasn't for Chelsea's currently ridiculous spend, you'd be ahead of the rest of the league by a mile since your takeover.

Not even close. We're 6th for gross spend and 4th behind Chelsea, Arsenal and Man Utd  for net.

[Random Precision]

1 hour ago, bobzy said:

If it wasn't for Chelsea's currently ridiculous spend, you'd be ahead of the rest of the league by a mile since your takeover.

We will spend more in upcoming windows, UCL prize money and the Adidas deal for shirts next year is reputably worth £40 million a season, and of course the PL monies. We’ll be ok.

[bobzy]

1 hour ago, TheFish said:

Not even close. We're 6th for gross spend and 4th behind Chelsea, Arsenal and Man Utd  for net.

Aye, fair - somehow had completely forgotten about Arsenal .  Either way, in an era of FFP, you've spent a vast amount.

40 minutes ago, Random Precision said:

We will spend more in upcoming windows, UCL prize money and the Adidas deal for shirts next year is reputably worth £40 million a season, and of course the PL monies. We’ll be ok.

I didn't say you wouldn't be OK.  You're propped up by the Saudi state for God's sake; even if something went poorly on your accounts you'd just shift another player out there like ASM.  You'll have zero money problems at all.

[Random Precision]

23 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Aye, fair - somehow had completely forgotten about Arsenal .  Either way, in an era of FFP, you've spent a vast amount.

I didn't say you wouldn't be OK.  You're propped up by the Saudi state for God's sake; even if something went poorly on your accounts you'd just shift another player out there like ASM.  You'll have zero money problems at all.

Yes……we got a fortune for ASM, think it was around £20 odd million, hardly a fortune. What the club has done is really ramp up the Commercial Dept which is beginning to pay dividends. Any sponsorship does and is approved by the FMV panel……although how they can assess what’s fair etc escapes me. I suspect if a legal challenge was made against FFP and FMV it could be ruled a restriction of trade, now if that ever happened the rest of the PL would have something to be worried about.

[bobzy]

16 minutes ago, Random Precision said:

Yes……we got a fortune for ASM, think it was around £20 odd million, hardly a fortune. What the club has done is really ramp up the Commercial Dept which is beginning to pay dividends. Any sponsorship does and is approved by the FMV panel……although how they can assess what’s fair etc escapes me. I suspect if a legal challenge was made against FFP and FMV it could be ruled a restriction of trade, now if that ever happened the rest of the PL would have something to be worried about.

I didn't say you got a fortune for ASM (though you got a decent amount to be fair - £26m was it?); just that you could shift him very easily.  I have no idea what your FFP circumstances would have been at that point (having spent over £400m on players, allowed a rolling £130m loss etc) but ASM going for £26m opens up your ability to spend quite substantially - basically £100m this season - if you were pushing those boundaries.  And you can do it at incredible ease because you're just selling to yourself.

Of course you're also ramping up the commercial department (again, whilst using yourself as sponsors; which is clever).  But you're never going to have financial difficulties because you can, essentially, circumnavigate a "normal" transfer market entirely.

[Random Precision]

4 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I didn't say you got a fortune for ASM (though you got a decent amount to be fair - £26m was it?); just that you could shift him very easily.  I have no idea what your FFP circumstances would have been at that point (having spent over £400m on players, allowed a rolling £130m loss etc) but ASM going for £26m opens up your ability to spend quite substantially - basically £100m this season - if you were pushing those boundaries.  And you can do it at incredible ease because you're just selling to yourself.

Of course you're also ramping up the commercial department (again, whilst using yourself as sponsors; which is clever).  But you're never going to have financial difficulties because you can, essentially, circumnavigate a "normal" transfer market entirely.

However any sponsorship has to be approved by the PL Fair Market Value Panel and any sponsorship even from PIF companies if believed to be above FMV wouldnt be approved. There are no rules that prevent sponsorship from PIF companies.

[bobzy]

4 minutes ago, Random Precision said:

However any sponsorship has to be approved by the PL Fair Market Value Panel and any sponsorship even from PIF companies if believed to be above FMV wouldnt be approved. There are no rules that prevent sponsorship from PIF companies.

You'd just hit whatever the max "FMV" is - which will be a nonsense.

And yeah, there's no rules around selling/buying players to/from PIF clubs.  There's no rules around getting max deals from PIF companies.  That's what I'm saying - I know you'll be absolutely fine financially.  You operate in circumstances that only Man City benefit from otherwise (and you watch them absolutely not get charged for breaching FFP).

[TheFish]

32 minutes ago, bobzy said:

Aye, fair - somehow had completely forgotten about Arsenal .  Either way, in an era of FFP, you've spent a vast amount.

I didn't say you wouldn't be OK.  You're propped up by the Saudi state for God's sake; even if something went poorly on your accounts you'd just shift another player out there like ASM.  You'll have zero money problems at all.

We've spent way, way more than we previously had done. Before the last window we spent €329m, 1993/94-2020/21 we'd spent €397m. In the 14 seasons prior, we spent about €43m gross on average. Everton, for comparison, spent about €58m.

In Net Spend terms, for teams that've played more than 9 seasons since Ashley's takeover in 07, only Southampton spent less while in the PL (New €17m vs Sou €9m), using Everton again, they averaged €24.6m. Man City €104, Man Utd €70m.

[TheFish]

18 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I didn't say you got a fortune for ASM (though you got a decent amount to be fair - £26m was it?); just that you could shift him very easily.  I have no idea what your FFP circumstances would have been at that point (having spent over £400m on players, allowed a rolling £130m loss etc) but ASM going for £26m opens up your ability to spend quite substantially - basically £100m this season - if you were pushing those boundaries.  And you can do it at incredible ease because you're just selling to yourself.

Of course you're also ramping up the commercial department (again, whilst using yourself as sponsors; which is clever).  But you're never going to have financial difficulties because you can, essentially, circumnavigate a "normal" transfer market entirely.

The ASM transfer's an odd one, £26m is no small potatoes, but given we're basically owned by the same people, couldn't we have argued that £40m is closer to his 'value'? There was a point before the takeover where Milan were interested and Transfermarkt had him at €40m and even then, they often lowball the sum the player actually goes for. 

Honestly I think they were so worried about the perception of impropriety they didn't inflate the fee anything like they could have. 

[bobzy]

1 minute ago, TheFish said:

The ASM transfer's an odd one, £26m is no small potatoes, but given we're basically owned by the same people, couldn't we have argued that £40m is closer to his 'value'? There was a point before the takeover where Milan were interested and Transfermarkt had him at €40m and even then, they often lowball the sum the player actually goes for. 

Honestly I think they were so worried about the perception of impropriety they didn't inflate the fee anything like they could have. 

Exactly this.  Don't take the piss, just get a decent fee and don't get people talking.  Same with the sponsorship deals; massively ramped up but basically just about touching what the top 4 clubs get - despite their regularity of achieving it.  Again, just keep it very normal but get it done.

[Random Precision]

On 09/10/2023 at 15:51, bobzy said:

Exactly this.  Don't take the piss, just get a decent fee and don't get people talking.  Same with the sponsorship deals; massively ramped up but basically just about touching what the top 4 clubs get - despite their regularity of achieving it.  Again, just keep it very normal but get it done.

https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/26_07_2013_09_39_47_Fair-or-foul-Part-1-and-Part-2-word.pdf

Quote

In part 1 of this article, the authors summarise the new measures that UEFA and the Premier League are introducing to protect and/or promote “financial fair play” and in part 2 they sketch the likely legal issues which arise under EU law – whatever the motivation of these reforms of football finance, the history of such initiatives since the landmark Bosman ruling suggests a significant risk that they may be open to legal challenge.

Interesting read

[bobzy]

1 minute ago, Random Precision said:

https://www.matrixlaw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/26_07_2013_09_39_47_Fair-or-foul-Part-1-and-Part-2-word.pdf

 

Interesting read

I’m sure it is.

But the question for me would be why entirely unknown (in the UK) entities who don’t operate in the UK would pay more than known massive companies for a chance to be a sponsor on a British football teams’ top? Further, why would they not have already sponsored other sides or indeed be competing in the sponsorship market? And why would these companies, with very obvious links to the same owners as Newcastle, happen to be the biggest bidders for all of Newcastle’s sponsorship?

But sure, fair value and all that. 

[VillaJ100]

The thing with the Saudis is the herd mentality as well - if one of the clubs is 'theirs' they will ALL support it.

[Random Precision]

2 minutes ago, bobzy said:

I’m sure it is.

But the question for me would be why entirely unknown (in the UK) entities who don’t operate in the UK would pay more than known massive companies for a chance to be a sponsor on a British football teams’ top? Further, why would they not have already sponsored other sides or indeed be competing in the sponsorship market? And why would these companies, with very obvious links to the same owners as Newcastle, happen to be the biggest bidders for all of Newcastle’s sponsorship?

But sure, fair value and all that. 

But they aren’t…..SELA £25 million a year isn’t exorbitant…..and Adidas, German company £40 million a year, I guess if it upsets other fans at Newcastle maximising revenue streams then so be it.