timeEd32

I don't disagree with you that it's a lot of money - an amount where we'd have to be certain we're right - but putting this list together which includes 2 of the 7 most expensive defenders ever, one who cost almost £50m eight years ago, and at least a couple that are quite obviously not as good is not really helping your argument.

Clubs in breach of PSR because of the league's rising legal costs would be the ultimate irony.

The Athletic article is so much better. This is a very useful exercise in seeing how the exact same interview is spun in different ways. Hope comes out looking the worst.

Quotes from The Athletic that the others largely failed to include: “I have a few more grey hairs because of the level of ambition that we actually have,” said Mitchell, having met with Yasir Al-Rumayyan, the club chairman, on Sunday following Newcastle’s victory over Tottenham Hotspur. “He’s super ambitious and he wants us to perform at No 1 level.” What the exact timeframe is for Newcastle to reach the top remains unclear. It is something that the hierarchy must determine internally, before they will try to communicate that reset to supporters. “That’s the phase of discussion we’re having now,” Mitchell said. “You’ve got to align internally to set the right expectations along the right timeline, then you’ve got to externally communicate that as well.” Critically, Mitchell believes PIF recognises the limiting effect PSR has had on Newcastle’s rapid plan for growth. Rather than be deterred by that, PIF is embracing the need to change approach, he claimed. “He (Al-Rumayyan) can see that the club is growing, but he’s smart enough to know it’s moved very quickly over a very short period of time,” Mitchell added. “He knows infrastructure is important. He knows people’s IPs are important. He knows a higher overarching framework and strategy is crucial to get to where we want to get to. Using terminology like that shows there’s a plan and patience.”

They don't really need to once they are in the clear on past issues. They are now one of the five biggest clubs in the world in terms of revenue (#2 in the last published accounts with CL winning revenue), so the current rules suit them just fine.

It's still a lot for an 18 year old and there was reportedly a £4m+ loan fee so we basically used it as a hack to sign him on a six year deal. Clearly we felt it was too good of an opportunity to pass up at the time, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me after how June ended.

Part of the problem is the Italian media were reporting a fee that was likely higher than what we actually paid (and also some absurd wage claims). But even still I feel like the average opinion was "he's good, but not that good." Hall could definitely count as high and honestly I'm really wondering why we felt compelled to do that given what our PSR situation would have looked like at the time.

What a bullshit headline. The England quotes were some of the most effusive praise for Eddie.

We've likely largely missed the boat on the NFL, though with their continued focus on growing internationally it's certainly possible as a once in awhile thing. But really the NFL is just a three letter way of saying any non-football sport played on grass, plus concerts, other events, and non-NUFC football.

Kelly lower quality than Lascelles and particularly Krafth is a wild take.

If you only read the Hope piece then you'd definitely come away feeling like it was all quite negative and entirely focused on Eddie. Everyone should read the Hope, Edwards, and Douglas pieces because it definitely shows the spin Hope is putting on things. I wish the club would release a video of the entire interview.

Here's that section of UEFA's regulations (relevant parts bolded). There's no mention of needing to be in European competitions before or after this:

Yes, if using amortisation for purchases then you first have to deduct the remaining book value. I should have specified "player sale profit," which is not necessarily the same as the full transfer fee. I don't think the first part is true as that would be incredibly unfair to clubs who don't always qualify, though that would also be quite typical.

There's definitely an angle to some of these quotes that is a bit scary. But I'm choosing optimism / sticking my head in the sand for now.

The Edwards article is far better for just getting a stream of the full quotes. Overall I like the sound of a lot of what he's saying. There's a couple lines that made me grimace relating to Eddie, but also plenty of praise for him so I'm going to assume everything is fine for now.

Per Mitchell: Highest Guehi bid came two weeks before window closed. Decision made with Eales and Howe to not go higher. A £50m deadline day bid for Elanga did not happen Admits they did not have the sales they expected Says there will be a broader set of targets in the future

Mitchell: “[Yasir] wants us to perform not only through the money we spend – he wants us to be best in class across everything we do, whether that be youth development, the women’s team, scouting and recruitment, data and insight, coaching, innovation. He wants our position to be at the top, but to be there for the reasons that people admire as a really well-oiled, well-executed machine of a football operation.

A club makes the following sales: Current year: £0 Year - 1: £0 Year - 2: £50m In the accounts for the current year they can show £16.67m of player sales to add to their revenue because of the £50m sale in the first of that three year period. Now let's fast forward to the next year and say they only made £18m from player sales. The £50m year is gone so now it's: Current year: £18m Year -1: £0 Year -2: £0 Now they can only show £6m of sales. (One note on this: while phasing in these rules UEFA allowed clubs to basically pick whatever their highest number was at first. For example, in the first option they could show £50m because it happened in the three year period and in the second example they'd show the full £18m. But this has been getting phased out and the full set of new rules begins next season, which enforces the three year average AFAIK.)

UEFA's version allows for player sales to be averaged over three years, so most likely the PL would do the same.

Wouldn't "1-0 to the Geordie boys" be a simple and better alternative?

This one was so close...

I think a lot of the frustration about us not bending the rules or, especially legally challenging them, is greatly underestimating the blowback that would come against PIF/Saudi Arabia. It's entirely possible we're just not that high a priority or that they don't want to spend limitless amounts. But they also don't want to be seen as public enemy #1 in the world of football and that's how it would be portrayed regardless of the facts.

Wonderful

It becomes more and more outrageous on repeat viewings.

Who's meant to be offside here?