r0cafella

Yes, that’s correct. Obviously right now with the current FFP rules we are in a pinch that would have eased as the first year of takeover rolled off, with these new rules it’s more straight forward but will give us less margin. FMV is the probably the biggest issue as a lot of our dealings would be related parties (sponsoring us over our rivals makes little sense for most businesses). And obviously this has been regulated to the ground since our takeover.

And it’s rapidly approaching the time we shit or get off the pot. That being said, it appears we have voted in favour of these rules and I would imagine that would discredit any case we have. Without anything changing ie these rules being implanted and us complying with them, we can safely assume the previous stated ambitions are no long a thing and we are happy going along with the status quo.

That’s happened is so typical Newcastle as well. We finally get a chance to compete on level playing field and before a ball has been kicked boom you can’t sign new sponsors. Then right then. You can sign sponsors but we will say how much they are worth now the final nail is your owners are rich? So what they can’t spend a dime as we’ve changed the rules again.

If I’m reading these rules correctly dokko is totally wrong. under the previous rules, the owners could absorb some of the losses, which gave us a small competitive advantage over those who wouldn’t. This is no longer a thing it’s all based on revenue where we are 7th iirc. you tie this in with our other previous competitive advantage (our owners financing via sponsors) this is also now extremely difficult due to FMV rules (which were tightened) and we are basically hard stuck why would anyone sponsor us for a large sum when they can get the money to our established rivals who have a much greater presence than us? It makes no sense to sponsor us over spurs for example. In order to grow revenue you have to be successful, in order to be successful you have to invest. Now it seems like once again we’re meekly accepted these rules (we voted for them on the face of it). As amortisation is included in this calculation we are currently way over the 70%, in fact these rules make any form of large squad changes very difficult (buying an influx of players will hit amortisation, so selling your best players to those with more head room becomes even more of a thing). What that tells me is our owners are just happy to be on the gravy train moving forwards and we will be content with fighting for the Europa league with West Ham. Unless we get rid of FMV rules I don’t see how we progress and even if we did we would breach the tougher rules for clubs in the CL. Tldr these rules actually fuck us harder and they are even more of a stich up than the old ones.

Rough night for us, we didn’t look at the races tonight and played somewhat in to Chelsea’s hands. Impossible game coming up as well, fortune really has been against us this season nothing much has gone our way at all.

It’s even worse than that, as you mentioned the Mackems can’t compete with west ham ever during these rules and that’s no matter what. As with us, the Mackems could be taken over by bill gates and it wouldn’t make any difference. I could be wrong but I’m guessing the new rules have zero headroom for owner investment, so we have business which are prohibited from equity investment, it’s the anti growth coalition Truss spoke about.

Gg, if the rules relating to sponsorship also remain in place we can’t compete under these rules, we need to be successful to raise our revenue and to be successful we need to invest in all areas of the club aggressively. ultimately if we’ve voted for these rules and we don’t challenge them then we hit our glass ceiling already and progressing will be slow and extremely difficult. Absolute farce of a league.

Not the technical player a lot were hoping for.

Good stuff, to me it’s important the manager and sporting director have a clear dividing line; ultimately if a hard decision needs to be made it would his job to do it. Although our owners are very hands on so who knows

The fee was relatively small, it was a no brainer at the time given where we were.

I get what your saying but it kinda strips of it the context. Targett was great on loan and viewed as a no brainer to buy. WRT Hall, we were all clamouring for him especially after how well he played against us.

No, they would need a big fee and he’s probably on what’s Bruno’s on. I think he’s a good player when used correctly but not for us.

Aye club may see it as almost a positive too in that they can still give bdb game time. On a free you definitely take the punt.

It’s one of those signings which looks bad in the short term but could turn out to be a master stroke, like Gordon.

Kelly is rather injury prone no? And not a real left back at that iirc?

Indeed, we need objectivity not mates.

We desperately need a LB, a RW a CB and a forward and also replacements for anyone we sell especially if they are current starters.

I can see that element being watered down in the future, that is actually too much even for those idiots.

I don’t expect it to change sadly, I believe Palace are having internal issues so a lot of politicking going on where they are concerned.

Actually, that’s where it becomes interesting because we know the league is essentially a cartel, and usually cartels will behave in the manner the league is, ie lack of competition; price fixing etc. And nobody challenges it because they all benefits from it as do cartel members. Before we came along everyone was absolutely content with the status quo. If I’m palace I know I can never compete with City so I’m just happy to sit back and enjoy the massive revenue coming in for doing rather little. The bottom line is; nobody wants to watch palace vs Brighton and everyone wants to watch Liverpool vs City and it’s these factors which give the big clubs the leverage to tilt the rules in their favour.

Of course it is, if you look at the owners of the clubs they are the most ardent capitalist in the world, but they adopt socialist structures such as parachute payments and solidarity payments it’s all rather bizarre but at its core as you mention is absolute self interest. Again, what FFP is when you strip it back is cost control and the more you control your cost the more profit you make, sadly for the owners they are also extremely egotistical so these rules create a brake and help them all control costs. Ultimately they all want to make money.

Of course he is, the big clubs are the ones pulling the strings? Why? Because that’s the deal with the devil and the cost of the more even distribution of funds. You can be absolutely certain the those cunts talk about how much money real and Barca make from tv and how they deserve more? They will also crow how much more engagement they get and how they know what’s best as they have the most revenue. It’s the nature of the beast.

Why would they be fucked on FFP? The big 6 are smart enough to know (FFP is the creation of the big clubs btw) that FFP is fantastic for them. Infact it’s fantastic anyone who isn’t ambitious and is happy to exist, it limits competition throughout the whole pyramid so if your backwards looking either by choice or circumstance FFP is great, your costs are limited and your competition can’t just outspend you so your market position is protected. when thinking about these financial rules throw away the “fan” hat and put on the business one. Everything then becomes crystal clear.

Yes sir, actually the entire thing is just one big funnel to the top and nobody else is allowed to join the table, Sheik Mansour was the last person allowed to board that train.

Guys, please understand the PL shareholders are the club, masters is an employee of the PL, he does as he’s commanded by his masters. If he happens to leave nothing will change he has no real power.