Jackie Broon

I don't want to take that chance, most of the hints are out there if you look for them though. Eddie's 'slip' added to that.

It never reached a conclusion, the Council were likely to approve it but the club abandoned the application when it was called in by the government to be determined by inquiry. That shouldn't be confused with the likes of the Covid public inquiry, planning inquiries are commonplace. These every chance it could have been successful and could have run alongside the application for expansion, the club just threw in the towel.

I think any stadium development would have to involve at least part of Leazes Park. I doubt there's enough room on there alone for an Etihad Campus. I just want to stress, I don't know anything definitinve, it's just an educated guess.

I won't say exactly what, but, putting a few things together, I have a strong feeling that a decision has been made to go for a new stadium at Castle Leazes and the process of working towalds that is underway. Not really ITK by the way, just putting together a few things I've heard and picked up,. I might be completely wrong.

I suppose it depends what those proposed changes were and they could just as well been pulled because there isn't an outcome of the case yet.

Seems like he has jumped the gun, put 2 + 2 together, assumed that stuff would come out after the meeting and he'd look like he was the first to break it.

It's possible that the outcome could be that the concept of APT could be judged to be unlawful, but the case was brought in relation to the changes that were made late last year and UEFA's APT rules would still be in place unless they are also challenged or they decide to take into account the legal precedent set in the UK. Like you say, it depends on the outcome but the APT rules being completely swept aside would be a very significant victory.

I haven't seen anything that suggest the case goes further than the current fair market value rules which were brought in late last year, this article it indicates that Man City's case is in part that the PL's rules are more restrictive than UEFA's FMV rules, which implies that they are happy with the UEFA rules. https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/08/manchester-city-claim-premier-league-analysis-commercial-income-unfair

This probably doesn't sweep the PSR and APT rules aside, it probably just takes the APT rules back to where they were a year ago, with the onus of the PL to prove that associated party transactions are not fair market value rather than on the clubs to prove they are.

Affected clubs, like Man City and us, would probably be able to apply for an injunction or something.

Yeah, that's how I read it too. A meeting is much more likely to indicate Man City have won and the rules need to be changed, which can only be done with the agreement of the clubs, otherwise it would just be business as usual.

Dream scenario would be an Etihad campus style facility at Castle Leazes, the existing St. James site and maybe Hunters Moor if more land is needed.

Newcastle needs a new indoor arena, the Sage site is in doubt now, if an arena could be incorporated that could bring in a decent amount of additional revenue.

Yeah, I think there is more of a realisation on here that we need to move in order to be able to have a meaningful increase in capacity and a multi-purpose venue that can generate the revenue to help us to compete.

Apparently you can also stand behind a barrier in the tunnel and watch the post match interviews for a £1000 a pop at Man City.

As has been discussed many times before, in technical terms it's unlikely to be possible to build up without an additional structure behind the existing stand to physically support the stand and for the access and concourse. There just isn't likely to be room for that without unacceptable impacts on light and the setting of Leazes Terrace. In terms of impacts on light there are two separate potential issues, planning and civil law right to light. Chelsea's new stadium was actually stopped by civil law right to light, rather than planning.

The 1bn figure that has been widely reported was arrived at by Bloomberg multiplying the amount Staveley received for her shares from PIF, that was picked up and circulated around every media outlet as a valuation of the club. Forbes estimate our value at £595m https://www.forbes.com/lists/soccer-valuations/

Current big 6 clubs are a different beast, they are very valuable because they are in a de facto monopoly position. It is virtually impossible for any club outside of the big 6 to bridge the gap with the limitations of PSR, even with the backing of a state it's not clear we're going to be able to do that, and if we are it's probably going to take a decade and billions more in direct and indirect investment. We would not turn a profit currently, we have been running at a loss of £70m per season and would not have got the Sela/Adidas deals etc. without the influence of PIF.

Case in point, Moshiri is selling Everton for £400m, after he put in £750m trying and failing to bridge the gap to the big 6. There is no profit in owning an ambitious club outside of the big 6.

That includes the £1bn that was paid to settle the BeoutQ dispute and allow the takeover to go through. Discounting that my point still stands, any potential profit will be eaten up by the cost of bridging the gap to the big 6.

The sale price was £2.5bn, the higher figure includes investment they committed to make. PIF/RB have essentially spent 1.7bn on us already, plus whatever they have put in with associated party sponsorships. We're just not going to get to big 6 levels of revenue and value on good leadership alone. They will have to funnel money into the club through associated party sponsorships and massive infrastructure investments, that will be expensive and not guaranteed to work. We are an incredibly high risk / low reward as an investment, it just does not add up that they see us that way.

Chelsea were sold for £2.5bn. We're a very different proposition to an established big 6 club within the constraints of PSR. We're not going to be worth billions without billions of investment, that's if they can find a way to get those billions in around PSR.

Yeah, that small matter too. Doesn't really make much sense as an investment, even if there were someone actually willing to pay £1bn for us, which I seriously doubt given our PSR constraints. It just doesn't stack up that PIF see us as an investment for profit.

Their total investment so far is £305m purchase price and £392m injected via share allocations since, so £697m invested. Although probably technically more than that via associated party sponsorships.