Adam P

Where has the 'Stavely was pushed out' narrative come from? I thought their debt to the parent company could no longer be financed through their equity share, so their position was financially unsustainable. I know she loved us and all that but she is a business woman not a fan.

I assume that when we propose to spend 15 to 20% of the club's revenue and commit to investing 4m a year in wages that the sign-off on every stage of the negotiation goes above the CEO. Depends on how precisely and confidently they see each stage of the negotiation moving. If they know that the minimum price that selling club would accept at the outset but decide to try and purchase at a lower price, then maybe the whole strategy gets signed off with the owners by the CEO. Thats not how it always works and maybe the CEO has sign off to go to a certain price but once that price is passed (first or second offer) then the whole team have to re-convene with the owners to get the additional investment funds signed off. The fiduciary (?) risks are enormous for the business given the relative size of the total investment expenditure to the overall business.

Anyone recognise the bloke on the Broondale platform? Trying to work out why he does the knowing eyebrows. Cant be random.

Fully agree. Almiron would be an excellent no.2 for the RW position. He was instrumental in our 2 best results of last season. Opens the scoring against PSG (THE moment of the season) and seals the game at the SOS with the press and excellent weighted pass to Isak for the second of the game.

You've got to assume that the injuries to our defence have determined the priority for where we spend. Botman's return date may beat expectations but it also may not in which case we have an ageing Schar, Burn and Krafth at CB. If Botman wasn't injured we may not have invested so heavily in a new CB but its a priority to sort out the back, then bring in the RW. Maybe without the injury the priority spend would have been the other way round.

Otherwise you are right, if there really was a PSR angle that we were in panic about then there is no way we get good deals. Thats why the good deals were the proof needed that we were not in panic mode.

The deals were already agreed. Takes weeks to do a deal. The PR angle is once we know we are selling which is not when we know we are selling.

You could park a bicycle in the gap in my front teeth. You can draw your own conclusions from that.

In which case soz then. Dont think we were in a panic and dont think we were anywhere near the size of the points reducing deficits being claimed in the press. I could be wrong too.

I was referring to the post which starts with this nugget. My guess: 2 days prior to the PSR deadline we started to panic about a potential points deduction...

My scenario of the the CEO and COO meeting in the corridor and realising they were 2 days away from a points deduction. And your scenario where this was an actual 'strategy' that they panicked about last minute.

Like the Ben Jacobs story, of course. Gordon definitely wobbling.

My view is that without the sales, we would have been sailing close to the wind. Swiss Ramble said he didnt include CL revenue in his 40m deficit estimate. Probably a few other revenue lines much higher last season too. Wage bill probably higher, so not all positive. PSR deficit based on best publicly availble info right now is likely somewhere around 5 - 20m. If it was 5m (as our net revenue increased by 35m) then it was probably seen as low risk.

No, the PSR part of my post was at the last two sentences. Which bit didnt make sense? The crazy made up scenario? My point entirely. To be fair the amount of shite from the press has been confusing, i just dont get the narrative that we panic sold and i dont get the 70m PSR loss figure being bandied around.

The premise of this is crazy. Two days before the PSR deadline we started to panic about a points deduction and decided to sell someone. That basically says since August 2023, when the financial losses were visible with a very high degree of certainty, we thought ''we'll see if someone bites in January, if not fuck it we'll take a points deduction'' and then somehow (randomly the CEO and CFO bump into each other in the office corridor?) two days before the deadline, one of them mentions the strategy and they thought 'hang on, we didnt think this through'. Sorry to be so direct about it but thats my bet for 'furthest from reality'. Best public estimate of our PSR loss = 40m minus the difference in income/revenue between 22/23 and 23/24. As Swiss Ramble based the 40m on the 22/23 revenues.

Posted 3 hours ago "Regardless of whether they had managed to get players out before June 30, Newcastle were always going to be able to spend from July 1 — but recouping more than £60million gives them a greater capacity to invest, as that permits breathing space across the new three-year rolling PSR period. With 2021-22, the first season post-takeover, dropping off the books, that means a loss of £70.7m is removed from the calculation.

Side kick of Captain how, man.

True. The business is run on money as well as PSR rules though. We haven’t lost 68m down the back of a legal sofa, we now have it to spend.

There are two reasons why PSR is invoked for selling players, one to offset losses, one to generate additional financial freedom to sign players needed to develop.

In which case my mistake, i thought Froggy said they waited until after the date before deciding to pay us. However, that does mean we were likely paid 2m (their position) meaning we were at risk of being 70m over spent on PSR and we couldnt quite get 70m together for Anderson and Minteh, meaning we called the mancs and said 'aye ok give us that 2m then'. I personally find that too absurd to even consider as plausible but what do i know.

Darren Eales' CV includes 14 years as a trader selling burgers on the quayside market, an admittedly successful stint in online gambling and has a BTEC qualification in excel, course he didnt have a plan.

Not sure what you are arguing, as that was my point too. The compensation was sorted after the PSR date meaning it didnt feature in our decsion making. If it had been a feature of our decision-making the only option to make it count for us woulld have been to push the date the compensation was paid forwards. They didnt, therefore its an irrelevance. Man U apparently have decided when it was paid. As we didnt push for anything to be done quicker then PSR was not part of the decision-making.

Madras has been part of the inner clique of simpletons on this forum since the noughties. Plays the wacky amusing uncle nowadays.

Got it, although i am still not clear if your thinking has the increased revenue for 23/24 built in. Is that 35m based on what were bringing in, in 22/23? Sounds like we are roughly looking at it the same, we knew we could get at least 20-25m for Minteh and our PSR deficit wasnt far from that. It makes no sense to think it was 68m so the narrative around Anderson sale was clearly managed. Cheers for the extra clarity anyway.

The idea that we were risking points deductions playing chicken with arbitration strategies for compensation for a staff member is wild for me. When Eales got the job, i doubt he was recounting massive bluff strategies in Vegas as his key selling point.