Mag3.14
-
Posts
360 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Mag3.14
-
-
3 hours ago, JigsawGoesToPieces said:
Cant see us filling 70,000 every week mind, especially considering we would have to increase the away allocation, and i cant see teams like Burnley, Sheff Utd, Southampton, Wolves, Fulham, Bournemouth etc would bring 5/6k.
I think 65,000 would be the sweet spot and could probably fill that more regularly.
If we have a stadium which is too big and were not filling it, we still have to pay stewarding, catering etc plus it will look awful on tv.
We don't need to increase the away allocation, for league games anyway, not if we don't want to - rules stipulate that its 3k minimum for stadia at 30,000+,10% of capacity otherwise
-
5 hours ago, Kid Icarus said:
Realising that's a massively smaller percentage of his pay than mine is to my mortgage
Its about 15% of his weekly wage - same amount a week I spend on beer!!
-
1 hour ago, ikri said:
The big loophole here is that infrastructure costs aren't included in FFP analysis but income from selling that infrastructure is included. In theory, our owners could give the club the money to buy Newcastle Race Course, which wouldn't impact our FFP figures, and then a month later the club could realise that they had no reason to own a race course and sell it to PIF for £500m and solve our FFP issues for a decade. No one really noticed the blatant flaw in the rules until Chelsea tried this with the hotel.
Yeah any kind of infrastructure, something like a stack fanzone perhaps
-
4 minutes ago, r0cafella said:
These new rules are terrible for us, no allowance for owner investment and IF related party transaction rules remain we are stuck on the outside looking in.
Think we need to see the actual detail, there were two votes apparently, one of which was unanimous. I can't see the likes of ourselves, Villa, Forest & West Ham going for this with those restrictions in place - odd.
-
7 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:
That's just wages. Need to add amortisation costs also.
My bad, I assumed the "staff costs" on the accounts would have included purchases & salaries - must be sailing close to the wind then if you include amortisation cost on top ?
-
2 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:
Out of interest, based on our turnover last season, what would we have been able to spend ?
74.1%, down from 94.6% the previous season - they're expecting similar for this season iirc. All good for premier league, but high for UEFA's more stringent 70% cap
-
Just now, Jack27 said:
Supposed to but AS hasn’t been able to the last few times so her shares have diluted slightly
Yeah, her holding is just under 7% now iirc
-
21 minutes ago, Ben said:
I'll be pissed of if this bloke takes any of our players this summer
You'd hope as part of any deal in ManU getting DA early they'd put in some "non-compete" clauses for our players and potential incoming transfers for at least the summer window, if indeed he goes before the summer.
-
5 hours ago, Pancrate1892 said:
St James 52,000+
SOS 49,000
Riverside 35,000
Darlington arena 25,000+
Gateshead international 12,000
Kingston park 10,000+
Daft ones
Murrayfield 67,000+
Elland road 38,000
Any others?
Maybe we could rename ourselves 'newcastle rangers' for a couple of seasons and go on a tour around the different venues
Magpie Rangers - we have a ready made song for that
-
6 hours ago, OpenC said:
Grace Donnelly has been putting in some heroic performances that you wouldn't expect of her recently, really commanding, but she was very hesitant and uncharacteristically glued to her line yesterday - not sure if they were drilled to expect a particular threat so not to play sweeper as she usually does - but you could see the whole back line was operating differently to usual, right from the opening exchanges. Ultimately there's no room for sentiment if you want to progress, I guess - I have no problem with Langley showing faith in GD though.
I wasn't close enough to judge how she did with the second yesterday but it looked like it all started from an absolute hospital ball from someone in midfield, Boddy I think? It looked like none of them dealt with the situation particularly well after that was given away.
I can't really recall it but I feel like the first came from us cheaply surrendering possession over on the right wing as well.
Aye true, the second came from an awful giveaway in midfield (couldn't make out who it was because of the shadow of the main stand) - literally passed to the # player under zero pressure.
Seemed to me the occasion got to them yesterday unfortunately, a trait that's plagued the men's team for decades.
-
55 minutes ago, et tu brute said:
And I know I keep saying it (I have every time I've watched her), a terrible goalkeeper. A new one needs to be the first upgrade this summer. Swap the two keepers round today and the score would have been different.
They signed an international keeper in January - dont know if she's been given any gametime yet?
-
18 minutes ago, Joelinton7 said:
We’re 2 1/2 years into the five and look to be completely hamstrung by financial rules. How are we going to do what he says in the next 2 1/2 years. We’re currently 10th and knocked out of all cup competitions.
I read that as within the next 5 years from now, pushing more to the pessimistic end of their initial assessment of major success within 5-10 years but still on target
-
5 minutes ago, Interpolic said:
I don't understand how it's woke or whatever btw? It's a design choice. It's like if Adidas decided to put the middle bit of our badge on a new shirt somewhere but changed the colour of the border to fit with the colour scheme of the shirt.
A load of bollocks for meatheads to fume over. Starmer is fucking pathetic for jumping on it n'all.
So you'd be happy if Adidas changed a little bit in the middle of our badge, like changing the colour of the black stripe to red? It's a national shirt and all about the identity
-
6 minutes ago, LFEE said:
This…
Not very patriotic at all but bonkers decision by whoever signed it off and would imagine most countries would have an issue with it. The price is sickening too.
Think people may be in for a shock when the new Toon Adidas tops arrive in June if they think £80-90 is expensive, sadly
-
27 minutes ago, Conjo said:
They're probably not wrong.
Hypothetically speaking (just pulling numbers out of my ass here), if we only expand with 7000 seats and nothing else is done:
The cost for upgrading is £50m.
Average income pr. additional seat £30
Average of 23 home games every season (and assuming full capacity in all games)
That's an additional £4,8m every season, meaning it would take 10+ years before we have recouped the outlay, before taking the loss of revenue due to reduced capacity during the expansion period, increased maintenance & running costs and inflation into account. In reality closer to 15 years.
It's a different matter with our current owners if the exercise is just to please fans and report a bigger revenue in order to increase our ability to spend more money on buying players within the FFP constraints, and the actual profitability to the business doesn't really matter that much. To Hall and Shepherd it naturally made more sense to just increase the ticket prices
Think you're being a little optimistic about the costing of adding 7k to the Gallowgate, that figure could easily be 4 times that. Also I'd think the av. income will per seat would be higher - Even without taking inflation into account, I cant see staying at SJP with a circa 60k capacity and no significant additional number of "corporate" accommodations not resulting in the base price of a seat/ST significantly increasing over time.
But yes even with these considerations the payback period from adding 7000 seats could easily be in excess of 15-20+ years -
1 minute ago, brummie said:
It won't be for this financial year, as it closes before the window opens.
It's basically the same situation you allegedly have - balancing things finely, pushing it as far as you can without exceeding it.
The accounts just published show the three year running losses - before deductions - as 37m (20-21), 0 (21-22) and 119m (22-23)
This year the 37 drops off, so we're basically at 119m minus deductions plus this year's loss as the cumulative total.
We've already binned 40m of home grown in this year, and we didn't spend hugely over last summer in any case, so I'd expect this one to be a lower loss (also as it will include more prize money and tv cash plus the UEFA stuff - 12m plus tv money share if we were to win it, 6m on our progress so far).
I really don't know what will transpire, but I think we are currently prob in a better place than you are, because we've got plenty of high value assets on the squad, many of whom are 'pure profit' as they've been here so long - Luiz, Konsa, Watkins (I think), McGinn, and Kamara and Tielemans who were free transfers, plus Ramsey. I wouldn't want to sell any, but I suspect we will - just to create some wriggle room (NB in the next financial year, ie next season).
Doesn't the FFP reporting window not close for the current season (23/24) on 30/06/24? England transfer window supposedly opens on June 14th, so that's a two week "grace" period to get players out - if not the likes of Chelsea may be stung for this year
-
To be fair, looks like she can play a bit ...
-
5 hours ago, midds said:
Isn't that because they just stopped taking loads of drugs?
hmm, possibly - With him and Brailsford at the helm, maybe we should be suggesting more frequent drugs checks for Man Utd players in future
-
6 hours ago, duo said:
The point still stands though in that Man U are hundreds of millions in debt and we're not. Yet its Man U who are allowed to spend.
As I understand it, P&S/FFP rules works on losses within a three year period not the actual debt - Man Utd have loans to cover this debt and have revenues to service the debt/interest payments (they've paid around £900m interest from the original ~£800m purchase in 18 years!) - Say it costs them £50m/year to service the debt they have revenues to cover it.
Makes a bit of a mockery of the "sustainability" bit of P&S (as it is with all leveraged buyouts) as if the banks/lenders ever called in that debt they'd likely be well and truely fecked
-
47 minutes ago, Eveready said:
This was my thoughts.
Was getting a bit confused by people saying we have to pay his full salary until he joins Man Utd (and thus should let him go to save money - maybe this is wishful thinking from Man Utd fans). Unless football director contracts are structured completely differently to regular employment contracts.
Would assume that he has a 12 month non-compete clause in his contract and likely a lengthy notice period.
He has resigned, in which case we can accept his resignation and keep him on gardening leave (being paid) whilst his notice period is served, he will then sit around for c.12 months stuck on a non-compete clause where we will not be paying him a penny.
The reports that we can keep him off Man Utd's books until 2026 suggests to me a 12 month notice period and 12 month non-compete - this is mostly conjecture, but the notice period + non-compete must add up to 24+ months if the 2026 date is true.
At worst, our exposure to sunk PILON costs looks to be £1.5m, a immaterial amount in the grand scheme of things.
Man Utd fans think that we should bow down and let him go? Fuck that with how they treated us with Lingard (and the player himself who had been there for decades). Wouldn't be doing them any favours at all, £20m or let him rot for 24 months, £1.5m to pay for Man Utd to delay their restructure is nothing.
Note: My role has a lot of crossover but I do not work in employment law or HR and happily to be corrected and educated on anything I got wrong above.
This is my understanding also. The 20 month figure being bandied about suggests 8 month notice/gardening leave period and 12 month anti-compete/restrictive covenant clauses.
I'd hope after all the effort we took to get DA from Brighton that we've got that part of his contract pretty well tied down. It would be up to him and/or the competing company to pay the required compensation to get those clauses nullified. If the contact is as watertight as I expect, the ball is very very much in our court
-
3 minutes ago, duo said:
It highlights the lunacy of the current rules.
Just a shame the FFP rules are on losses within a FY and not overall debt, otherwise they'd be well and truely fecked! Its said they've paid around £900m in interest charges in 18 years servicing the loans needed for takeover purchase in 2005 (£780m). So thats £50m/year on average on favourable interest rates - be interesting to see how they cope now with the increase in rates overall ...
-
1 hour ago, Klaus said:
Clearly had a bet with Pete Graves to call him that on purpose
-
PIF and Jamie Ruben putting in share capital where as Staveley is not hence her (company's) shares are being diluted - think this was always the plan I believe
-
4 hours ago, healthyaddiction said:
Not if he gets the government to pay for it.
Manchester already have had their bloody free stadium, get them share it with Man City
Alexander Isak
in Football
Posted
This is the problem the sly 6 have now because of FFP/PSR, outside of themselves I cant seen any other team taking their "cast-offs" for big money anymore, they've created a monster now they may have to live with the consequences ...