TheBrownBottle

I'm aware of what Trump and Musk are up to, and they are retrograde steps - but there is still a difference between that and a dictatorship which can execute and prosecute on a whim.

They literally don't have laws, Rod. There is no Rule of Law in KSA.

Everton aren't West Ham tbf - they're significantly bigger than them. Everton's historical average gate ranks them as 7th (we're 5th if anyone is curious) - and that's with Goodison limiting their capacity for decades now. That only tells you the proportion of their support which is local, not how big the local support is.

I'm still confused as to why Burnley would sell a talented young goalkeeper for a loss, even though he's improved since they signed him. Don't we normally go mental when the Arsenal press / support go on like this re Isak?

It is easy to write this in a country where you can publicly criticise your government - a pretty fundamental difference between KSA and the US or UK. And if they did arrest you, you do have the Rule of Law - unlike KSA. And so on, and so forth.

There is an argument that Everton has a bigger fanbase than us

Snap

At least one really good one would be a good start

So Hojlund - a centre forward - scored more but assisted less than Elanga - a winger? That seems shocking to me

They are raising ticket prices - but they also couldn’t do it in the way that they likely happily would; we aren’t successful so cannot command tourist money like the big six. We also are in the poorest area of Britain, with a limited catchment area. They couldn’t charge what Spurs or Man Utd can. The commercials were decimated under Ashley, like you said. But the biggest commercial deals have already been signed; commercial deals in reality come from success, so unless PIF uses the leverage then we can’t get near the big boys. Arsenal are a much bigger club, have a huge worldwide fanbase, and have won things with regularity for the best part of a century - commercial sponsors want that association. We’ve never won a trophy which you can watch back in colour, and our worldwide support is tiny in comparison. NUFC is a big club in the region, not internationally - that’s what drives serious commercial increases. To get those increases, therefore, needs Man City or Chelsea-esque money pumps - and we can’t do that. So unless the rules and regs change significantly, we’re approaching our ‘natural’ ceiling. NUFC without being put on steroids will not break the £400m turnover barrier. Commercial growth is not built on the cleverness of the staff involved - it is built on footballing success.

Because it is unsustainable to remain at the top without it. Football is - and has pretty much always been - based around finances. Who can spend the most on wages and transfers wins - this is why if you look at who was at the top of the table in most European leagues, it’s the same clubs pretty much any decade over the last 60 years or so. So if we go back 60 years ago, the top seven was as follows that season: Man Utd; Leeds; Chelsea; Everton; Forest; Spurs; Liverpool. Yes, it is possible to be competitive on half the income of an Arsenal - you can win the odd cup with a bit of luck, or qualify for Europe from time to time. But to do that with regularity - or to become ‘no 1’, the stated ambition of the Chairman? You need the revenue to do that. And we’re miles away from that. Without it, you don’t hold onto big players - you will lose them to clubs who can pay more. If Isak demands to be paid what a Haaland or Mbappe gets, we couldn’t offer anything like that - so he’d be off. We can never attract the best players, and if we develop them, then they’ll inevitably be off for megabucks elsewhere.

15 years by my reckoning. Both outcomes of course have about 0% probability - NUFC will not be able to grow commercials 40% year on year. Which deals are left to be done which would do that next season? Our kit supplier, and both main kit sponsors are done.

I wouldn’t argue that, but if Arsenal’s increase at 29% p.a. and ours by 40% p.a. then we wouldn’t be catching them any time soon.

100% mate, agreed on all points

I think there’s something in that, personally. Look at the divvies who turned up at Staveley’s Barclays case to offer support - and the numbers in ours who’ll bend over backwards to blow smoke up the arse of PIF, despite what they are. You buy yourself a horde of loyal, angry and unquestioning nutters online.

There’s no difference - related party transactions is a standard term in commercial procurement; any second company which had links to PIF would under an FMV test. It has no difference to what was meant by associated party. The rules were tightened and made less opaque in 2021, but FMV was already in place. We couldn’t just get a £100m ground sponsor - which is why Man City didn’t.

Do you mean the sportswashing that’s usually pointed at fans of clubs who end up defending the indefensible because the indefensible are funding their favourite football club? Not sure, but it’s at the very least a positive externality for the club’s owners.

Yeah, on this one, you’d be wrong - unless of course FMV could be proved. Man City are up on charges for manipulation and breaching the FFP rules and regs - including potentially illegal actions to circumnavigate them. Of course just as today the club could bank the money, but it wouldn’t ‘Hit the books’ for FFP purposes. Here’s an extract from the PL Handbook for 20/21 - the season before the takeover (rule E.46):

To close any remaining gaps - but FMV already existed. It was the APT rules which closed the remaining gaps. It was never possible for PIF to come in and chuck huge sums of money about. If they (or Staveley) thought that it was, then they were guilty of doing the same amount of due diligence as Mike Ashley did.

Many of the rules were already in place - it wasn’t possible to ‘do a Man City’ when PIF bought the club. The football press misled an excited fanbase tbh.

I thought it was the case when we bought him, as well as when we sold him. Tbf I wasn’t the only one based on the start of this thread. I don’t think we’ve lost a world beater - and even if we have, we look daft whining about it. I’m sure Chelsea look back at the sales of Salah and De Bruyne and think ‘maybe we should have kept them’, maybe Man City think the same re Cole Palmer. I’m not especially convinced that Minteh is in that category.

Yep - the season the takeover occurred we posted £180m to Arsenal’s £369m - a £189m delta. Arsenal has just posted £616m - given our income is likely around £315m, we’re likely 60% further behind today than when the takeover took place. We’ve actually lost a lot of ground on Arsenal over the last three years! It doesn’t take this long - and the commercial dept isn’t the one actually doing any of the running. We could’ve had no-one there and still got the Sela and Noon deals (both are PIF companies).

It went from £466m to £616m - a £150m revenue increase.

No-one said anything about booing him - it was more than a significant portion of the support are being the biggest fannies imaginable about a winger who was bought precisely for this reason; to be sold for FFP headroom.

Arsenal’s revenues have grown more in one season than ours have in total since the takeover - this is the problem NUFC has, the increases we’ve had are not seeing us substantively gain ground on the ‘Big Six’.