r0cafella

It’s based upon the issues I’ve outlined previously. Yes, we still have some low hanging fruit such as training ground and Training kit (I’m guessing stadium is a no go) but once we sign them deals the path to growing revenue will slow. We’ve had some great free hits with Adidas Sela and noon but they’ve all been signed now. The biggest brands want to be linked to the highest clubs and in order to be become one of the big boys we need success. We can’t obtain that consistently because we have a small budget it’s a vicious cycle. I don’t want to be negative but I’m yet to come across a theory which I believe is more realistic. our growth model will be player trading and that’s fraught with its own dangers.

Of course all clubs have the ceiling, but what’s our path to revenue growth? I can be almost certain our revenues won’t be close to spurs in 10 years. We simply don’t have a path to it imo. Our way to inflating our sponsors would be related party which are essentially capped, spurs have also built a stadium which prints money, meanwhile we continue to scratch our heads deciding what to do. Ultimately, if in a sponsor why would I sponsor us? When I can sponsor a team with a much bigger audience.

Thank you for sharing this, I appreciate it. Sadly I think bridging the gap is practically impossible as the catch up mechanics we had at our disposal have been either closed or fully utilised. (Our FFP position being favourable and our ability to sign related party deals with minimal fuss). We don’t have any competitive advantage over those above us and a common them I’ve notice throughout these types of posts is basically it will be fine in time which isn’t realistic Imo.

Our revenue needs to increase at a faster rate than those above us in order for us to “catch up”. Anything less and we are falling further behind. As of the current rules, the only way we will be able to make up this ground is by trading players and trading better than anyone else does. For us to compete on a consistent basis the task is Herculean, the gap is huge and we are significantly behind in all aspects and that’s after we’ve dropped 400m.

Can’t see the entire thread thanks to musk. I do hope the thread points out the fact it doesn’t actually matter who we hire if we can’t compete due to FFP though.

This would be real financial fair play hence why it’s not allowed.

With all respect I don’t think that was the stated aim of FFP, it was sold as protecting clubs from going bust. A function which it actually doesn’t perform given no limits are placed on the amount of debt a club can carry. I also find the concept of “hyperinflation” in football to be wide of the mark but I take your point. Ultimately what people need to understand about FFP is quite simple. 1, The larger your revenue the more you can spend. 2, in order to increase revenue succes is required. 3, in order to become successful investment is required. 4, investment is severely limited (and if I understand the new rules correctly it’s actually against the rules). In conclusion, FFP doesn’t do what it was supposed to do and it severely hampers competition. It’s not a system fit for any purpose other then removing the ladder.

What is the concept of FFP? not a var fan either and it’s clearly poorly implemented, the rules of the game should also have been clarified prior to it’s implementation as well.

This is an absolutely mental take

So basically city get the free pass and everyone else has to suck it up? I think what needs to happen is everyone is given a historic limit of whatever the top spender has spent adjusted for football inflation. - this would be a free hit for everyone. Then moving forward annual spending caps are put in place which are the same for all clubs and not tied to revenue. Go over your annual cap and your relegated no ifs but’s or maybes. Infrastructure womens team not included. Basically level the playing field, those who want to compete can, those who want to ride the gravy train can go explain it to the fans.

Wouldn’t such an arrangement fall under related part transactions and thus subject to FMV? Basically if we tried to do it the League could in theory assign a salary for the player regardless of what we pay them (for FFP purposes).

These costs are very small overall in the FFP thing, city are also doing that with a bunch of costs. if a club tries to do it with player’s salaries the rules willl be changed.

It’s almost as if he knows absolutely nothing.

You, we need to increase revenue and I don’t think we can raise enough at SJP to compete with the big 6. It’s quite clear we are going to have to raise revenue organically as related party transactions have been shut down. Adding say 8k regular seats won’t be enough to bridge the gap, we need a more modern experience. Ultimately if people are content with finishing upper mid table we can carry on as we are but we are at the glass ceiling already.

Voting for measures which constrains everyone’s spending is a great way to protect yourself from the downside too.

It’s pretty on brand at this stage tbh.

What podcast is that? I’d like to have a listen to it.

Not saying they aren’t or your wrong but they also have the same considerations in terms of build new or revamp. I anticipate we will expand btw, and it will be a mistake imo as it won’t drive enough revenue.

I want to see them invest aggressively initially especially into infrastructure so we can stand on our own two feet.

I think the point is, and openc can correct me from his view. Is that it doesn’t actually matter weather they lack interest or not, ultimately if they aren’t allowed to invest (which they aren’t as the rules are written) and they don’t challenge said rules (no evidence we are mounting any challenges) then we simply will be stuck at a level which is someway shy of the other big clubs. We can’t be successful without investment and we can’t invest without being successful. It’s vicious cycle. The owners are obviously aware of this because they accepted spend equates to performance in the Documentary.

I think it’s based upon them being tied up in various rules which will make raising the required money to challenge practically impossible.

Oh no doubt, point being Man United have just had the guy buy the minority stake and he’s already whipping up a committee with local stakeholders and going cap in hand to the Govt. Meanwhile on Tyne side two years later crickets. And to be clear here, this talk of competing with Man United and Chelsea within 5 years isn’t me talking, it’s the words of the ownership. I’m just curious to see what gives and asking for others opinions.

Bloomberg reported they won’t be spending much this summer. But it remains to be seen. Even if they spent massively year on year for league will remain utterly irrelevant.

And sorry for the double post but the more I think about it, the more I think a new stadium is an absolute must.

If what you’ve written was true it wouldn’t surprise me. That being said I can’t categorically state it’s the case. I do feel as though we could have been quicker mind and it does feel as if we put our hands up and say what can we do rather than actually doing anything about this predicaments we find ourselves in. The below was said two years ago and seemingly no progress made. While they aim to increase the 52,000 capacity at St James’, there are no plans to build a new stadium. “It would be like tearing your soul out,” Ghodoussi says. They are looking at sites for a purpose-built, world-class training ground. “That will probably take three years, maybe a little bit more,” Ghodoussi says.