Delphinho123 Posted October 9, 2021 Share Posted October 9, 2021 If it’s managed properly and they abide by FFP rules then I’m not overly concerned. They’ll just spend the maximum they’re allowed to and we just have to be better than them because we’ll do something similar (spend money). They’re miles behind with their infrastructure and youth setup compared to ours and it will take a few years to catch up. The problem is if they don’t play by FFP rules or bend the rules like city did where their commercial revenue dwarfed that of Liverpool and United all of a sudden when they were bought yet had no fans. If they somehow act the same way and get away with it, they’ll spend huge amounts which will lead to success. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keyblade Posted October 9, 2021 Share Posted October 9, 2021 7 minutes ago, The Moustache of Teale said: Just had a look at Sunderland’s Ready to Go forum, which always makes me chuckle, on the fallout of the Newcastle takeover. My favourite post was simply: ”Burqa Grove” I used to love reading that forum, they have a good sense of humour that bunch. Sad what's happened to them. I've completely forgot about them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Griffin Posted October 9, 2021 Share Posted October 9, 2021 8 minutes ago, Delphinho123 said: If it’s managed properly and they abide by FFP rules then I’m not overly concerned. They’ll just spend the maximum they’re allowed to and we just have to be better than them because we’ll do something similar (spend money). They’re miles behind with their infrastructure and youth setup compared to ours and it will take a few years to catch up. The problem is if they don’t play by FFP rules or bend the rules like city did where their commercial revenue dwarfed that of Liverpool and United all of a sudden when they were bought yet had no fans. If they somehow act the same way and get away with it, they’ll spend huge amounts which will lead to success. I agree with your post but you should add Villa to the list with City as teams that bend the FFP rules. We were in breach of FFP and got away with it by selling Villa Park to ourselves. This loophole, like the loophole City exploited has now been closed. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tinker Posted October 9, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted October 9, 2021 All the teams are bending the rules with sponsorship deals that are bollox. Manure shirt sponsors gave them 235m over 5 years, teamviews gross profit was only 100m last year. How does that work, they are giving manure 20% of their profit every year? Newcastle will spend money , big money and all the winging from other teams , who have also bent the rules, is embarrassing and is almost as disgusting as the super league bollox these same teams thought up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
El Zen Posted October 9, 2021 Share Posted October 9, 2021 One Norwegian football writer called the takover «stoning football to death». I like it. A couple of celebrity-ish Newcastle fans here have come out and said they’re done with the club. I like that too. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
villalad21 Posted October 9, 2021 Share Posted October 9, 2021 1 hour ago, Delphinho123 said: If it’s managed properly and they abide by FFP rules then I’m not overly concerned. They’ll just spend the maximum they’re allowed to and we just have to be better than them because we’ll do something similar (spend money). They’re miles behind with their infrastructure and youth setup compared to ours and it will take a few years to catch up. The problem is if they don’t play by FFP rules or bend the rules like city did where their commercial revenue dwarfed that of Liverpool and United all of a sudden when they were bought yet had no fans. If they somehow act the same way and get away with it, they’ll spend huge amounts which will lead to success. Simon Jordan said since Mike Ashley has run them with profit for years they could easily spend 500 million this summer and not get in trouble with FFP. That's a big worry for me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimzk5 Posted October 9, 2021 Author Share Posted October 9, 2021 11 minutes ago, villalad21 said: Simon Jordan said since Mike Ashley has run them with profit for years they could easily spend 500 million this summer and not get in trouble with FFP. That's a big worry for me. If its the same interview I heard he said as Newcastle turn a profit they are free to spend what they want for the next 2 seasons and at the end of the third season ffp kicks in with allowed losses etc so they need to show a balance sheet that reflects the spend to avoid punishment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jareth Posted October 9, 2021 VT Supporter Share Posted October 9, 2021 3 hours ago, sidcow said: Yes, both. Flag shaggers need not look Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kiwivillan Posted October 9, 2021 Share Posted October 9, 2021 On 09/10/2021 at 06:06, maqroll said: Could NSWE bring in a third partner for added financial muscle... Wouldn't change FFP so irrelevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wainy316 Posted October 9, 2021 Share Posted October 9, 2021 44 minutes ago, villalad21 said: Simon Jordan said since Mike Ashley has run them with profit for years they could easily spend 500 million this summer and not get in trouble with FFP. That's a big worry for me. Well any billionaire owner would be able to do that there then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrBlack Posted October 9, 2021 Share Posted October 9, 2021 (edited) 2 hours ago, Peter Griffin said: I agree with your post but you should add Villa to the list with City as teams that bend the FFP rules. We were in breach of FFP and got away with it by selling Villa Park to ourselves. This loophole, like the loophole City exploited has now been closed. Can you point me towards where this loophole we breached was closed. All I can find is that we were investigated for over inflating the value of our stadium when we sold it, except, they found that we hadn't. Isn't the selling of a stadium for market value still allowed? Man City was different as they sold contracts for sponsorship way over market value , but before the rules got changed, so again, didn't break the rules, just found gaps in them. Edited October 9, 2021 by MrBlack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Griffin Posted October 9, 2021 Share Posted October 9, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, MrBlack said: Can you point me towards where this loophole we breached was closed. All I can find is that we were investigated for over inflating the value of our stadium when we sold it, except, they found that we hadn't. Isn't the selling of a stadium for market value still allowed? Man City was different as they sold contracts for sponsorship way over market value , but before the rules got changed, so again, didn't break the rules, just found gaps in them. The valuation of Villa Park was not the way we bent the rules. The fact that we sold our stadium to ourselves and accounted the sale price as a profit on our accounts was bending the FFP rules. If we had not done this we would have been in breach of FFP. Selling the stadium and treating that money as operating profit is bending the rules. In principle, this is no different to what Man City did. They sold sponsorship to the equivalent of themselves to avoid breaching FFP. Both Villa and Man City used a loophole to allow their owners to spend more money on players and wages than what other clubs could do. The fact that both loopholes have now been closed is evidence of that it was bending the rules. Edited October 9, 2021 by Peter Griffin Fixed a typo 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Griffin Posted October 9, 2021 Share Posted October 9, 2021 (edited) 1 hour ago, Peter Griffin said: The valuation of Villa Park was not the way we bent the rules. The fact that we sold our stadium to ourselves and accounted the sale price as a profit on our accounts was bending the FFP rules. If we has not done this we would have been in breach of FFP. Selling the stadium and treating that money as operating profit is bending the rules. In principle, this is no different to what Man City did. They sold sponsorship to the equivalent of themselves to avoid breaching FFP. Both Villa and Man City used a loophole to allow their owners to spend more money on players and wages than what other clubs could do. The fact that both loopholes have now been closed is evidence of that it was bending the rules. EDIT: We were actually investigated for selling the stadium at a lower than market price and not a higher than market price. The implication of this is that Villa would pay a lower rent each year, thus reducing our costs and as such increasing our profits and allowing us to spend more money Edited October 9, 2021 by Peter Griffin 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted October 9, 2021 Share Posted October 9, 2021 1 hour ago, villalad21 said: Simon Jordan said since Mike Ashley has run them with profit for years they could easily spend 500 million this summer and not get in trouble with FFP. That's a big worry for me. what! that Mike ashley could be an ok guy? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TRO Posted October 9, 2021 Share Posted October 9, 2021 8 hours ago, jacketspuds said: I’m order for Newcastle to get where they want to go in the next few years, they will probably have to do some creative accounting for FFP. It’ll become pointless to even have FFP. I wonder if the likes of City, Utd and Chelsea, who were so behind it in the first place, will try to get it scrapped so that they can keep up with Newcastle’s spending power. thats like a snail challenging a cheetah to a race. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post The_Steve Posted October 9, 2021 Popular Post Share Posted October 9, 2021 7 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAMAICAN-VILLAN Posted October 10, 2021 Share Posted October 10, 2021 I actually think Newcastle might indirectly make the European Leagues more competitive, there are only do many " elite players " and now they will become another club which could possibly afford them, so it will spread them out, as opposed to one or 2 clubs being able to get them all. It will also be one less club competing in the market below as well perhaps? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmirch Posted October 10, 2021 Share Posted October 10, 2021 It’s a reach but Stavely reminds me of Mason Verger. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bannedfromHandV Posted October 10, 2021 Share Posted October 10, 2021 2 minutes ago, MrSmirch said: It’s a reach but Stavely reminds me of Mason Verger. She’s horrific isn’t she. Her eyes look like the belong to someone who sold their soul to the devil a long time ago. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rodders0223 Posted October 10, 2021 Share Posted October 10, 2021 13 hours ago, Jimzk5 said: If its the same interview I heard he said as Newcastle turn a profit they are free to spend what they want for the next 2 seasons and at the end of the third season ffp kicks in with allowed losses etc so they need to show a balance sheet that reflects the spend to avoid punishment Pretty much what we did tbf. Went mental knowing the sanctions on losses would be 3 years away. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts