manorpark

As someone who has attended SJP (and loved it) since 1968, I can confirm that the current SJP is a very recent incarnation and is only about 25 years old. The proposed "Leazes Park Stadium" will be light years better for the club than the recent version of SJP and (as mentioned earlier) will cover part of the same 'footprint' as SJP, from all the information we currently have. It will be G R E A T !!!!!

I think that the majority of people who support Newcastle United have come to realise that (sadly) staying at the current St James' Park would condemn our club to perpetual 'relative' mediocrity. Moving to a new stadium holding (hopefully) 75,000 people, that is almost in the same City Centre location as SJP (just a little bit further into Leazes Park) gives the supporters and the club the very best of all worlds. Significantly, we will then be able to start making progress against the Cartel of the Sky 6 and the Premier League. It will be G L O R I O U S !!!!!!!!!

Unlikely !

I know UEFA have slightly different squad cost ratio rules to the one being currently 'trialled' here by the EPL, but I was not aware that they had any of their own APT rules at all?

We do not know how many times we did this do we?

All I want is fairness. This requires the formal disbanding of the Cartel, and the removal of all those individuals at the Premier league who helped to form and maintain the Cartel. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel

There is no way that unlawful and void rules can be left largely the same and 'tweaked a bit' in November 2024 in three areas and suddenly (magically) become lawful. We await the tribunals imminent confirmation of that obvious fact, but meanwhile La La Land (sorry, Masters and the Premier League) continue to bluster that the November 2024 'variation' of the void rules remain fine, perfect, and threaten that they are 'still in force'. The Premier League as currently structured is finished.

If we have the evidence that between 2021 and November 2024 our income (Turnover/Revenue) was restricted by the established "void" APT rules, by reducing our sponsorship over those years, then we can sue to get those deals approved - thus vastly increasing our future commercial income. That will enable us to spend much more in the future.

If that happens, and City (understandably) accept this, then City pass all their papers to us and WE then take over !! Yes.

That's all the information I have I'm afraid!

Yes, here are those hidden Gallowgate End steps, still there . . .

Especially not when we score 7.

https://theanalyst.com/eu/2025/02/newcastle-vs-arsenal-prediction-league-cup-semi-final

We did, not sure what that says about our owners? I trust our owners, but I don't always understand them.

Originally yes, though with different percentages. Now adopted by the Premier League, currently this season running alongside PSR, with a view to fully adopting it next season.

No, if these rules were continuing, then the £70M loss in our first post-takeover year would drop out of the equation (3 year cycle) being three years ago, so we would be fine. However, they have thought of a new way to stop us with their new "Squad Cost Ratio" rules !!! Their determination is impressive, I have to say.

Probably in 5 years time !!

I still have the booklet that shows this . . .

Revenue for 23/24 was £314M

Except we do not get Sky Sports News "Big 6 Coverage". They get (at least) 20 minutes detailed and loving coverage every hour. WE get 30 seconds coverage once every three days . . if that !!!

Yes.

That would be a complete 100% waste of time and money, for NO gain whatsoever.

I agree about Longstaff and Almiron, but not the other two.

This is a VERY high quality analysis of our football club, of the depth and quality that you never see on Sky Sports or any other London Channel.

NOT weird at all, watch it and you will see. The guy wants to remain anonymous, for a while, until he sees if his 'new channel' becomes popular.