Jackie Broon

We still have the ability to inflate sponsorship deals, our Adidas deal is worth double that of Villa's. When I pointed that out before you essentially said us and Villa aren't in the same boat because we have more potential. We don't have the ability to inflate deals to the extent we would without the way the FMV rules are currently operated, but we are probably still be doing it and getting deals that we wouldn't get if we weren't state owned.

We are but the difference is we have the backing of a state behind us, and higher turnover and lower wage bil. We have the potential to find that revenue, they probably don't. We're some way from bridging the financial gap to the big 6, but we're pulling clear of everyone else.

I think it's been more a case of people willing him to develop into a top player because he's a local lad. There's been little evidence on the pitch that he would have ever become more than a squad player for us.

MGW - 6 goals 10 assists in 42 games, 1 goal every 588 mins Elanga - 5 goals 9 assists in 39 games, 1 goal every 535 mins Hudson-Odoi - 8 goals 2 assists in 34 games, 1 goal every 273 mins Jacob Murphy - 3 goals 8 assists in 28 games, 1 goal every 533 mins

Villa seem to be heading for an Everton-like situation in a year or two. They lost £116m 22/23, their turnover £50m lower than ours and their wage to turnover ratio is like 95%.

It's not rather, it's both percentage of turnover and allowable loses, mirroring the UEFA system.

It would be interesting to see the statistics for how far backwards Trippier has 'progressed' the ball. His point randomly and then pass it back to a central defender move has become almost like the Scott Parker spin.

In the PL Handbook: A.1.38. “Cash Losses” means aggregate Adjusted Earnings Before Tax after: (a) write back of: (i) amortisation and/or impairment of Players’ registrations up to a maximum of five years; and (ii) profit or loss on the transfer of Players’ registrations; and (b) inclusion of net cash flow in respect of transfers of Players’ registrations;

It doesn't work like that, for example Pope's fee will be amortised at £2m per year for 5 years beginning 21/22.

Yes because, like the current system, it would entrench the current hierarchy. There would never be an opportunity for other clubs to catch up with the big 6, the gap would just get wider and wider. If spending is capped it should be a level playing field where everyone can spend up to the same amount as the top club.

Yes, that was the January when we bought Trippier, Wood, Bruno and Burn. But it doesn't really work that way in terms of FFP because fees are spread over 5 years. More important for us is that our revenue increased by £76m in 22/23. These sales will also create more headroom.

The park as a whole is Grade 2 listed, but that's not the same as Leazes Terrace, which is Grade 1 listed. There is a massive difference in significance between Grade 1 and 2. Only around 2% of listed buildings are Grade 1. Grade 2 listed buildings/parks in particular aren't sacrosanct, they can be altered or completely demolished with adequate justification The loss of a corner of the park could potentially be justified against the public benefits of a new stadium and heritage benefits of improving the setting of Leazes Terrace.

We don't own the land St. James' Park is on, we can't sell the stadium. The PL have closed / severely slowed down the avenue of lots of partnership deals. Each deal would have to either be genuine or demonstrated to be FMV. There have been signs of us throwing spanners in the works from behind the scenes, such as the spending cap proposal.

It potentially would be if the Sela 'partnership' resulted in us getting a deal double that of Villa's. We just don't know what's going on behind the scenes, yes they aren't taking an outwardly aggressive approach, their approach seems to be more long term proxy war than direct conflict. Also, there's not much we can do in terms of direct conflict unless we're actually charged and have something to fight against. Chelsea have aggressively exploited loopholes but we just don't have access to those same loopholes, we don't have property worth tens/hundreds of millions and it's not clear yet whether they have been successful in exploiting those loopholes, it's a very high risk strategy. Anyway, isn't all the panic in this thread that we haven't been complying with the rules?

All of the reports have been that PIF are very hands on, possibly excessively so, that every financial decision has to be run past them causing unnecessary delays.

We got a deal with Adidas double the value of the deal Aston Villa got, while at the same time there was an announcement of a 'partnership' is announced between Adidas and Sela. Just because attempts at PSR circumvention haven't been obvious doesn't mean they aren't happening. We just don't make sense for PIF as a financial investment, they essentially spent £1.1bn to buy us and have invested another £400m+ since then. Even discounting the cost of solving the BeoutQ issue it's a very high financial risk, high reputational risk, low return investment if they're just looking to build our value and then flip.

Because he was a Dan Ashworth signing that Howe doesn't fancy and we've decided to cash out to free up funds to spend on players that Howe actually wants

My mistake, looks like what has to be submitted by 31st March is estimated accounts for the current season.

25/26 would be the next season, the PSR caculation isn't submitted until 31st March.

And we won't actually know anything until at least March, which is when this year's accounts are submitted to the PL. Any punishment probably wont come until 25/26.

They will, but that definitely wouldn't involve giving us any leeway.

All of these reporters have been talking about June 30th as a deadline, now he's saying 'well they can declare a near miss deal', which there isn't any provision for in the rules (although I don't lnow if it the income could be put into the previous year in accounting terms?) Seem like he's setting it up so if sales don't happen by Sunday he's not shown to be wrong.

What Eales was talking about was about sales of players releasing future increases in income, speculating to accumulate rather than plugging a ffp hole (although I realise that he wouldn't say that). The Trippier rumours seemed to be driven by unexpected interest from Bayern rather than us trying to sell. Trying to move on Miggy seemed to be connected to us trying to release funds to spend in January rather than plug a ffp hole. Maybe we are in that much FFP trouble, but I think it's unlikely.

I just can't see us putting ourselves in that position, obviously the club would have been fully aware of our position in relation to FFP since August (or December accounting for CL income), there have been no surprises or changes, I just can't see that we got ourselves into a £30m hole last summer and have done nothing about it for 10 months. And there's just no way the club would let anyone outside of the club know our financial position or that we need to sell, this is probably just educated guesswork by someone who makes a living from educated guesswork to give the impression of insider knowledge.

The Castle Leazes development included part of the Leaezes Park being built on. Yes it seems unlikely that we'd get permission to completely obliterate the park, but loss of part of the park with compensation on the existing site of St James' Park, with benefits to the setting of Leazes Terrace together with the public benefits of a new stadium, seems likely to have a good case to offset the impact of that.