Adam P

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.

I think the margins could be smaller than that. The 70m losses are for 21/22 and 22/23. The PSR date was June 24 so there is something missing, no? The June date also 'creates a market' so it becomes a de facto time to sell. We probably did need a sale but i would say that if the CEO, COO or CFO are anywhere near what they are paid, then the deficit would be smaller than the minimum estimated selling price of Mineh. Otherwise they have built an unacceptable level of risk.

I note that the Athletic article says 'Premier League clubs are speculating' about our PSR status and then uses an 'insider' to say that we were close to having a PSR issues. My view is that the PSR angle was used by the club out of fear of a backlash against selling a homegrown and popular player. The noise around PSR intensified last week and was driven by people like Downie and Hope. The stories about Isak and Gordon could have some truth in them but as i reckon the PSR angle was being pushed into the media, seems like the same journalists were having this angle pushed to them too. When we concluded our transfer business last summer, the revenue we had coming in for the season would have been predicted to within a few thousand pounds. Our cost estimates including all wages to players etc, would have been predicted to within far greater degrees of accuracy. In short there were no surprises, in terms of cost or revenues, from August 2023 to June 2024. So when the club smartly brought in 68m for a reserve midfielder and a lad who had never played for us, it suggests they were in control. Swiss Ramble, the source of the '40m PSR' figure was looking at our accounts published last year, there are a lot of revenues not accounted into that figure. I may be wrong, but my read of the individuals in place within the executive roles at the club is that none of them run a business with the level of risk invovled where they could be 'up to 100m overspent' on budget. Its a farcical suggestion to me. My bet would be that without selling Minteh, we might have been close but that we knew we could make a deal months ago. Even then i am not convinced we were in real trouble. Anderson is a PSR sale in that we need to sell to buy the right players to improve us this summer, not that we need to sell to avoid a points deduction. Thats the beauty of spin.

A hotel owner is adamant that his clients shag hookers in his hotel? Sounds legit.

Just speculating on how the management will view his performance as one of their highest paid non-playing staff. They may see this as a failure of due diligence given that his playing colleagues were aware of his illegal gambling before he signed.

Was going to say the same thing, might be his reputation and position with management is not great after spending the majority of our money on a player with a gambling problem.

I think you misunderstood, the timing is one piece of evidence, cultural connections between police and institutions is another. The timing piece is important. The Tonali investigation was announced on 18th October and he was banned on 26th October. The part that you probably didnt pay attention to was that Investgations in Italy come after confidential pre-investigations. The Fagioli story broke by some Italian paparrazi figure on Aug 2nd, before it was official. The police pre-investigation of Fagioli was therefore underway well before August 2nd. If Tonali's name was part of that pre-investigation, then it was already underway before Aug 2nd.

Did you have a drink over lunch? It might have been a complicated sentence but you're not that daft.

If there was evidence that Milan knew, there would be court cases. The timing and circumstantial evidence suggests that consistent with Italian culture, back office relationships amongst institutions and authorities and the extremely odd nature of Milan selling a talismanic player one month before the investigation became public, all points in one direction. Presuming their innocence is very noble of you.