bealios

I sent a similar message to the Council, plan is to keep them distracted whilst we secretly add another tier and hopefully we get by via the 4 year rule and nobody notices by the time they finish reading it.

Ignoring the fan sentiment for a bit, any redevelopment/new ground is going to be dead in the water on another site far away from SJP. There are so many local businesses in the City centre which only survive due to the location of the ground, and if the ground moves elsewhere, the City centre dies on its arse a bit. Not completely, obviously, but you will lose a lot of pubs/restaurants and probably retail without the footfall that a City centre ground brings. So it is basically current site or slightly shifted to Leazes Park - anything else is just not going to get past the many planning/local objections/politics. It is also this which makes it pretty inconceivable that the Council won't extend the lease - there will be a bit of bartering over the premium, and the fact it is PIF and this should fall outside of PSR means that Council will likely start high, but just the threat of the fallout if NUFC even suggest moving far from current location means that it should happen. Boarded up pubs are not a good look, particularly if there are leaks to the media about the Council being unreasonable etc., and elections to be won. Personally I'd love to just have a new stadium on Leazes, and that mock up I saw with the slight overlap of the ground with current SJP ticks all boxes - the corner flag of a new stadium might still technically be the old site, a bit of a link to the past. But with the Euros etc. - and without knowing whether we could sustain 65K/70K long term once the novelty wears off, I can see just extending the Gallowgate as the most pragmatic business sensible answer. I'd just offer some caution on anyone thinking this makes it significantly more accessible - I don't think it will. One of the reasons why our commercial income is so low compared to others is that the non-football side can generate so much - corporate/general hospitality etc. - just look at Arsenal/Spurs matchday revenue compared to ours, and the multiply that by 19+. It makes a difference. There is a myth that NUFC could never match that because of the London factor etc. - but I think that is bollocks - London grounds compete with many other clubs, NUFC do not - the nearest big club is in Manchester. If you make the options gradual, so there is a price point for everyone, they will sell out the corporate easily enough. It's not right, I don't like it, but it ends up being the price we have to pay to be in with a shout of joining the "Big Six". It wasn't that long ago that NUFC were 8th in the Deloitte list of income generating clubs in Europe. I think that is still feasible. What I don't think is feasible is that many many millions are spent on increasing the capacity of the ground by 8,000 - just to sell those 8,000 extra tickets at £40 a pop. £240,000 per game, £5m a season with cup games. Just cannot see it happening.

That's not as daft as it sounds. It wouldn't really be a fee "not to sign him". It's basically a loan deal, a transfer fee at the end if you keep him, a loan fee at the end if you don't. I don't know enough about it, but it is perfectly possible that the "loan fee" at the end could just be based on minutes used. But in the scheme of things, that isn't going to be huge money to make you tell Eddie Howe how to pick a team. Logic suggests it is either (a) he genuinely doesn't think he is ready, or (b) the implications of playing Hall are so financially massive that the board need to tell Eddie who he needs to pick. That second one if you think about it is quite a big deal, it would really need to be something major for the board to interfere in who the manager picks, particularly when we have been down to bare bones.

Have to admit, read that and thought it was a bit of a spoof. Has he really said that? Quite depressing if so, always had a bit of a soft spot for him as a bit of a chav trying to be intellectual, but he's now literally auditioning for a GB News talk show via twitter.

FMV is a complete red herring, it’s meaningless. It’s only relevant because of flawed FFP rules. It it literally expressed to stop an owner funding a team so that they might get anywhere close to an established team.

Is that right? I ask because I am interested not because I am doubting you by the way. I always thought what you said below was right based upon it being "football based" for FFP, but then the comments in the press about Everton messing up because they had accounted for the stadium loan interest in the wrong way doesn't seem to support that. Surely stadium/infrastructure spend is outside of FFP however you structure the financing?

Wage caps or transfer fee caps will get equally mired in legal challenges - with the added difficulty that none of the actual players/agents would support it. The only way to have a decent stab at real sustainability rules without being completely anti-competitive is to keep the current rules (certain percentage of income) but supplement them with an exclusion of any transfer fees paid up front (it won't harm future sustainability if transfer fees are paid in cash up front without the instalment basis when current (rich) owners are long gone, and with a similar bond/security for contracted wages. It's really not that difficult to implement. You just keep the current model but with a forward looking basis - a club can only operate if their current revenue matches a certain percentage of the next (5) years cost amortised cost. If a transfer fee has been paid in full up front, it doesn't count. If the future wages have been secured by way of bond/security, it is excluded from the calculation. If any club for cash flow purposes decided that they just want to work with the current model, with deferred transfer fees and wages coming down the line for the next 3 - 8 years, it needs to be a certain percentage of revenue.

Meh. Relegation fighting club makes Europe next season. Struggles year after. This has been happening for years. Only difference in the past is that rather than relegation threatened it was relegation certainties in our case, and rather than “Europe” it was Champions League. Also; when we say struggling, we go into 2024 top 7 - 10. Over reaction again.

Don't think I have been as confident going into a game against Man U in 40 years. 0 - 1 (McTominay)

End result: Actual Result: Absolute shitter, would have taken it before the game, and if you look at what they missed, if we did win it would have been the perfect definition of "hit and run". We didn't out play them, so we can't be disappointed with a draw. Eddie Howe - Majestic in his post-match interview and our perfect manager. Milan Game: Doesn't change much - we draw, we are in UEFA in later stages. Win and we have an outside chance of qualifying. Although it is not that much an outside chance, if I have my maths right PSG need to win away in Dortmund otherwise we qualify if we beat Milan. Game 6 is still meaningful So in the "group of death", we have performed, fucked over by a clearly wrong decision, and we are well placed. With a skeleton squad hampered by injuries. I am seeing progress here.

Isn't it just because we're successful and we're expected to win all of our home games now, no matter the opposition? I haven't been to the Etihad, but I have been to a fair few games at Chelsea during peak-Abramhovic era, and the atmosphere was shite. Same at Arsenal. Wasn't impressed at Old Trafford either. We just have less games now where the expected result is anything other than win. Not a massive coincidence that the best atmospheres in last year and a half have been Arsenal, PSG, Man Utd etc.? All with supporting reasons - PSG, champions league, Man Utd - revenge, Arsenal - final game of season after staying up/they were a bunch of twats this year. I haven't done as many home games as I would like this year, but not sure what other games have had great atmospheres and which have been particularly bad? I do admit thought that watching the game yesterday on the TV/stream - it sounded pretty quiet. I would say that from a personal point of view, having been going to 35 years or so, I have had more games stick in the mind for atmosphere since takeover than any others. But that might be recency bias, it might just be relief. PSG was the best atmosphere I have experienced, Arsenal on the last day of season was great. Man Utd at home after the Cup Final. Spurs the week after the take-over (for the first 20 mins or so). The other Spurs game obviously. Brighton at home last year. But I thought Leicester on the last day was dreadful given the circumstances (but probably because of the circumstances). I really think we're being a bit harsh on the atmosphere thing - are we any worse than Arsenal, Man U, City, Chelsea, Spurs, Liverpool etc.? And I don't mean comparing it against when they play Newcastle (where it seems recently the crowd would be fired up because nobody likes us now). Is the Etihad a cauldron when they play Burnley at home? I just think so many things contribute to it - a lot of it comes from perceived injustice - and being an underdog. I randomly remember a game during the Keegan years when we drew with Millwall 1 - 1, losing for most of the game, it was either near Christmas or New Year, and we equalised reasonably late on after having a bad run from the ref. - still remember it now, but probably because of what mood I was in that day, how much I had had to drink and what was going on in life at the time!

No idea what that means, but that might be an age thing. Anyway, when I wasn't so old I remember being able to be able to download YouTube videos really easily so if someone is tech savvy enough to be able to extract a highlights video from Discovery they can have my log in

There's 28 minutes on Discovery+ (i.e. TNT app) if you are a subscriber. Just had the same debate with my uncle, all he can find is the 4 minute highlights. Looks like they keep the extended highlights to TNT subscribers. Basically the same as BT I think.

Thought he was fantastic today. Anyway, on the release clause discussion, it’s not a great idea when you factor in Saudi league pushing up prices. 2 years time if Saudi league come knocking for Salah prices, we have no argument at all that he’s worth £150m. It’s £100m max. I know it’s a ridiculous number, but Caciedo and Rice have set a different pricing thtreshold, the former particular who nobody had heard of two years ago.

Just to flag for anyone who is fortunate enough to be able to swing it via work, it looks like the Champions League packages of 3 games via corporate hospitality is already live for sale. Logged on with my season ticket account earlier so don't know if that is only available to members, account holders or season ticket holders. Expensive obviously, cheapest is Park Grille at roughly £270 quid a ticket per match, 3 course meal included, booze extra. And obviously a 3 game commitment, and that's without knowing the fixture dates. Surely would have made sense to keep at least some of the hospitality areas open for single game packages - I get that they need to sell tables of a certain amount (i.e. 4) per game given the set-up, but by doing them in three game packages you're basically cutting out a market which might splash out for a single game for a birthday, or some of our overseas fans who might be prepared to pay that to go to one game given the likely opposition. It isn't as if they need to sell them in a package to maximise income - they're will all likely sell. Unless they're worried about "Game 3" being meaningless at that point....

Is there any reason why this isn't a "Topfiveometer" given that chances are that (a) that will be CL, and (b) even if it isn't it would still be huge given the extra games etc.? Don't want to mess up the maths obviously if someone has put the effort in to already set this up, but give how the season has started and how other clubs have looked, I don't think there is anyone other than Man City who look clearly ahead of us - it looks like Man City nailed on, Arsenal probably still a step above, but Man U, Liverpool, Villa, Spurs, Brighton, Chelsea, Brighton, West Ham have looked round about the same level or lower given what we have seen so far. League of 9 for 3 CL spaces after City and Arsenal seems a reasonable upper-end target? Obviously if we win the CL with a domestic cup thrown in, I'd happily accept top 8 as a reasonable achievement. Priorities.

Given the talent we have at the moment, madness he is fast becoming my favourite player. Had a long debate with my daughter today about the name she might have on shirt for the season - Murphy was in the top 3. Obviously pushing it for the letter count. And holding back that Bruno has a surname. Other one was "Burn". Long gone are the days where an Old Trafford goal led me to investing in "Papavasileiou".

With a very rudimentary understanding or accounting practices (and nothing specific re player costs) I'd say that cash flow is irrelevant for us (we have cash, we are just not allowed to spend it). It's more what the P&L account looks like when it is broken down to operational costs only. So I tend to agree when you amortise a player cost over a contract, it shouldn't really make a difference whether you sign in June or July. But there might be a detailed rule where you can spread the player cost over 5 years, but you may need to stick the agent cost as a one off in the current year. No idea really, but if we are delaying to 1 July, it may have something to do with that. Logically you have the benefit of a player for 5 years so you can spread it out. The agent does his job and is done at the point of transfer, so you may have to recognise that in the accounts in the current year. I love the fact that the transfer thread involves a debate on generally accepted accounting principles. Look how far we have come!

Honestly think the London thing is massively over-rated when it comes to footballers, it is just a media line. London is definitely a massive attraction in your early 20's and out on the lash all the time. If you are a professional footballer with the regimes that most decent modern clubs have, it really makes little difference. It isn't as if you're going to be larging it up in the Box in Soho every week. And most players will live in the suburbs close enough to training ground i.e. Chelsea and Cobham, not London. If you have a family, it moves the dial even further. Darras Hall is basically the same as Cobham/Hertfordshire. For players where London life makes a difference, it is almost self-selecting - you don't really them at the club to be honest. Not saying it has no impact at all, non-UK players it might help if you can get to the family on a non-Newcastle route quicker - but not enough to make a major career decision. I can say this with absolute authority being a Blyth lad who has lived in London since 2001! Anyway, back to Maddison - good player, always had doubts with how it went at Leicester when things weren't going well - looked broken at certain points. Would have liked to see what he could have done here at that price, but when we were quoted £50m plus was nervous that it had a high failure risk with little sell on value. I can definitely see why we don't seem to have been interested, and if we did pay him £170K pw I would be more worried. He doesn't warrant being way ahead of Big Joe, probably Bruno, and certainly ahead of Tonali from what I have seen.

Relatively new conversion from lurker to poster but this really boils my piss. City have literally spent less (net) then Man U and Chelsea. They have not cheated at all, no more than Liverpool cheated when they bought Peter Beardsley (sore point). Let them have tonight, they deserve it - we're just going to take it from them at some point.

Best team in Europe with the best manager wins Champions League - well done City, but really not deserving the commentator reaction that this - isn't it really what we all thought would happen? Kind of happy for the City fans though - I lived in Manchester around the time when they were 3rd division, so they are as close as we are going to get as a comparison if we progress. As much as you can say about City buying it, this City team hasn't won it by going mental, they've just bought well for their level and had an amazing manager. And they're not Chelsea or Manchester United, or Liverpool.

Honestly, we're all cheating if you take that view. If it was really fair you'd cap annual spend every year to the same amount for every team, rather than let the rich clubs spend a bit more because they happen to have been rich in the 30/40 years beforehand. We're not trying to everything "right", what we are trying to do is push the boundaries against what is allowed and what the other clubs who have had a bit of success before FFP have been allowed to do for decades.

Made my peace with the City win tonight. If they get it, more likely that Pep tries another challenge in Italy or something (what more can he do in his career, other than take a relegation certainty to the Champions League, not sure he is that good?). And Man U have already done it, so it isn't unique, so we can save the quadruple as our ultimate goal!

The thing with Financial Fair Play is that it has absolutely got nothing to do with fairness whatsoever. It is to perpetuate the status quo. I have a major objection to the whole "playing by the same rules" statement, because it is different rules for different teams. Manchester United and Chelsea can carry a wage bill of £200m per year, but Brighton/Villa/Everton/Newcastle cannot. Despite the fact they can clearly afford it due to a willingness of owners to invest. That is the very definition of different rules for different teams. It has been branded "Financial Fair Play" and sold as a sustainability issue. But it has nothing to do with sustainability - otherwise why would they be investigating long high value sponsorship deals. If a sponsorship deal is potentially "above market" then surely that is extra money going to the club - not less. That's where the analysis falls away, and makes it clear that it has nothing to do with sustainability. It also makes the system horrendously complicated. You could make all of this so very easy. Set an annual expenditure cap (or rolling 3 year cap). Make it the same for every team, and review it every year. If there is a concern amongst players that this restricts wages etc. - then just set it high enough so it matches what the top teams would expect to pay. In England, set it at £300m, which is probably around where Chelsea land taking into account wages and amortised player trading. Anyone can spend £300m per year on wages and amortised player costs - so it is a level playing field. That might bring in a genuine sustainability concern around clubs who do not have owners willing to invest who might be tempted to over-stretch themselves - but again, that is easily dealt with. Cap contract lengths at 6 years, and any club who exceeds a certain turnover to operating expense percentage needs to justify on an annual basis that they have funding (from whatever source) to cover that expenditure for a period of 6 years. Most will operate within current rules anyway. Those who wish to grow/invest and challenge the top teams need to show that what they are doing is sustainable - so if Everton's owner was prepared to commit to an equity investment which would cover the shortfall over 6 years, it passes. If we convince ARAMCO to sponsor our shirt sleeves for £50m per year, then so be it - the club is sustainable. If ARAMCO pull out, there is enough time to bring that annual expenditure down to reflect any new financial restraints we are operating under. I've always thought this to be fair, it is just more difficult to make that argument now without appearing horrendously biased and self-interested.

I might be ageing myself here, but do we still do official end of season “DVD” or equivalent? Last one I bought was the Pardew 5th placed season, but used to have some which I watched multiple times (92/93 for instance). Obviously not expecting something on physical media, but we have all of the footage from the club extended highlights, plus the “match cam” stuff which is released. Can’t help but feel a properly edited version with player interviews etc. would sell well.