Boey_Jarton

Discouraged by "only wants Liverpool" Which in turn drives down price, which in turn leads to higher agent fees and higher wages.

This cunt any good ?

I was in no way suggesting that a football club should be run like a pension fund or a sovereign wealth fund.

This shitshow is certainly on PIF but there is a massive misconception on here on what PIF is and how they operate. They are a sovereign wealth fund and an investor. They would not ordinarily get involved in any day to day running of the private assets that they own. Similar in many ways to a pension fund in the UK. However, they do of course have the responsibility of establishing a sound management structure to run the club and this appears to be a shambles since Stavely left. No permanent CEO for the best part of a year is unforgivable and then we have the mess of Ashworth/Mitchell etc. I have no idea how PIF can effectively delegate under the current structure.

Toney on some sort of loan deal from Al Ahli would appear a logical solution to bail us out of this shitshow. Not going to happen but I'd like PIF to start actually leveraging their wider influence for the benefit of Newcastle and creatively addressing the challenge of PSR rather than just feeling sorry for ourselves.

If Sesko has accepted lower wages than NUFC offered, then he has the worst agent in footballing history.

Your logic is fine if Liverpool are willing to pay the asking price or even near the asking price. But you can't allow your best player and a rival PL club to unilaterally agree that a transfer can only take place to that club and allow that to artificially lower the price by £30m by taking out all competitive tension from the transfer process. In the same way, we cannot demand Wissa joins us for £15m because "he only wants Newcastle"

I deleted X for my own sanity about a week ago. It's a grim place.

Fair play. You go to such great lengths to twist arguments in favour of positions I am not even sure you believe in.

There is no agenda. The likes of Liverpool and Man U have huge online followings and there is an incentive for the likes of Jacobs and Romano to peddle what the fans of these clubs want to hear so they lap it up like clapping seals. And both of those clubs can pay significantly higher wages than Newcastle so in nearly all circumstances we will genuinely be second favourites when competing for a signing.

To be fair, it would be disingenuous, even for the bellend that is Fabrizio Romano, to even pretend to get excited by this deal.

This is like when my dad gets Samuel L Jackson mixed up with Denzel Washington.

Had to Google this player to check he was real. Sounds like an FM regen.

What are Romano's specific examples of where NUFC have been unwilling sellers? Presumably the opinion is based solely on the Isak situation, where LFC haven't placed a single bid, never mind one that reflects his market value. Romano churns out tweets that are designed for LFC supporters to lap up like clapping seals. It's how he gets paid.

Most Liverpool fans have that blind spot. They view their astronomical wage bill as a an output of their success, and not an input to their success. They see PSR as a solution to state funding doping that would create an uneven playing field, whilst also supporting the fact that PSR creates a defacto wage cap that allows them to have a squad cost that dwarfs 80 percent of their competitors. In truth they are no different to most football fans - they create a set of morals and guidelines that are entirely aligned with their own clubs interests.

You have more faith in our recruitment team than me.

If we are allowing dubz to move on, perhaps there is some logic. However, I'd prefer us to just buy a decent ball playing keeper with Pope as competition

If Ramsdale is the answer , what in god's name is the question??

Man U are 2/1 to finish top 5 so it would be a brave assumption that it'll be one season only. Admittedly we are by no means nailed on to secure CL again either. That said, a player's priority will always be wages.

If Newcastle agree to sell 25 year old Isak to Liverpool for anything below £150m, then some serious questions need to be asked. We held so many negotiating cards on this deal. Not least, the 3 years left on Isak's contract and the Ekitike deal. On Ekitike, as I said at the time, an obvious tactic would have been to tell both Liverpool and Isak that there would be zero negotiation on any deal if Liverpool proceeded to gazump us on Ekitike.

Given their summer, Brentford are well within their rights to play hardball on this one like.

And there is nobody to answer these questions with any power. We have had a departing CEO for the best part of a year and there is nobody within the ownership group that acts in any sort of executive capacity. Throw in the lack of Sporting Director and EH becomes the defacto voice of the club's strategic vision, which is not his job.

We have stunk out pre season friendlies as long as I can remember. "We are 1-2 weeks behind them in our schedule"

Yes you are correct. Having read that article, I was sad enough to read the details of the UEFA rules and it does imply that a sale of a player deemed an associated party transaction which crystallised an accounting profit would be treated as 'zero profit' for their Financial Sustainability Regulations.

Do you have a source for that UEFA treatment (zero profit) or is this just per @slbsn on twitter? I am not saying it's incorrect but the accountant in me suggests that it would be impossible to put a restriction on two willing parties, related or not, to conduct an ordinary business transaction that could be justified as taking place at arms length (i.e. fair market value).