tarie4

Mostly concentrating on spreadsheets, peak value and not selling Minteh. SpreadsheetWarriors PSR and MintehLoyal.

Post of the day this 👍

Hey, wait until he beats three Man City defenders and scores a goal in the top corner. I'm sure most people have a general idea of what PSR and the club's accounts are with this in mind, I then find it interesting that people can keep going over the same theories day after day. As we are all aware, this outcome was inevitable. That is the crux of my argument. In any case, I will now discreetly withdraw from the conversation.

It continues to rumble on without my involvement my good sir, and it will do so for a very long time. However, I find it intriguing that the individuals who assert their knowledge of PSR and the club's financial situation are the same ones who complain about the sale of Minteh. Surely, if you are well-informed about the club's finances, you would not persistently complain about the sale of Minteh. It is understandable to express disappointment initially, but after that, becausenof your "indepth" understanding of the rules it is important to accept the situation and move on. The club is obviously hurt by losing Miniteh, and so are many but we've accepted that it was necessary and moved on. They even folded in the Ashworth saga, if the rumors are true. But hey, they got Mitchellin a few days later. They've moved on, man. This is the aspect that I find most perplexing, Some people just can't let go and keep whining about stuff we can't do anything about now.

I understand. However, I would like to know where you derived the statement, "You seem to consistently want others to provide all the evidence to the point that I can't tell if you're trolling." That is the reason for my post. If you follow the conversation from when I asked TCD a question, which was replied by someone else quoting your analysis and calculations, I said that the calculation can't be taken as a fact, as you also clearly point out that it is an estimated guess. Given the current atmosphere of hostility and arrogance, engaging in a discussion where we can both question and debate would be a waste of my time and everyone involved. Instead, it would be more prudent to allow events to unfold and then discuss them based on facts rather than hypotheticals. I am open to engaging in a respectful and productive conversation with someone who is willing to ask questions and be questioned in return. So saying something like "want others to provide all the evidence" when you acknowledge that there is a bit of guess work in you calculations defeats this would you not agree?

Put it this way, Carroll was sold for 35 million. I wouldn't have accepted that bid for Carroll, but the club did. I was sad, but I still said it was fantastic business. I must admit that if there was no PSR I would not have personally accepted a bid of 33 million for Miniteh, however, if the club chose to accept such an offer, I would still acknowledge it as a remarkable piece of business. 33 million for Miniteh in my opinion is fantastic business.

Excuse me, I believe you may have misunderstood my posts. When someone makes a statement with absolute certainty, such as claiming that the club was mismanaged, isn't it reasonable for me to request an alternative perspective? I understand that this is a blog and we have the freedom to express our opinions, but in a constructive discussion, it seems appropriate to provide more than just a general statement like "it was mismanaged." Would you not agree?

I ask questions to understand how you arrived at your conclusion or reasoning. The figures and statistics are easily accessible to anyone interested, but I am more interested in how they are interpreted. No one outside the club can accurately determine our financial flexibility from the figures, since most were unaware of the exact amount required for compliance. Therefore, I ask to better understand your interpretation. Instead of engaging in a meaningful and respectful discussion, you resort to insults.

No, however, I do see some significant gaps in the calculations provided, with emphasis on SIGNIFICANT. I will refrain from elaborating on this matter due to the apparent arrogance displayed by you and others in your arguments. I believe time will reveal the this, and I will revisit this topic in the near future. For now, I will remain silent regarding this.

Interesting, very interesting. "The good news is that £70m now drops off going into the new cycle so we have got that chance to know what our available headroom is." Any thoughts what that might be?

Could you please explain how you are calculating that?I am having a bit of difficulty understanding.

Very well. I will defer to your judgment sir.

I hope he doesn't fail. I wish him the best of luck in his career. I really want him to reach his full potential. I would never wish for a player to fail. He has left, and we cannot change that. Let us accept it and move forward. Miniteh and the board that sold him have done so, and now it is time for us, the supporters, to do the same.

Arda Güler cost Madrid 20 million plus add ons. I know who is the better prospect. Do you? Man City bought J. Alvarez for 14 million. I don't think Miniteh will start for Brighton this season. Let's wait and see. Imagine Brighton paid 30 million for Pedro. Who would you start out wide if they both played for Newcastle? Pedro would be better than Almiron and Murphy, but Minteh wouldn't.

You have not provided the requested information. I have asked for it, but you have not given it to me. Please provide these underlying objectives.

We all want the best for Newcastle while we may have differing opinions on the matter, let us respectfully agree to disagree. 33 million was fantastic business for an untested player.

You have read our perspective from atleast 6 pple and haven't conceded any ground too. Pot kettle comes to mind. Again you misquote me, I didn't say the club doesn't make plans. I said it sets clear objectives and then set strategic plans from those objectives. Clearly proves my point. I mean this is from someone who says Brighton bent is over in the Minteh deal.

Club management and ownership do not create detailed plans, they establish clear objectives. For instance, in a recent interview in Germany, Eales discussed objectives rather than plans. Similarly, Staveley mentioned in an interview that the primary objective was to retain all of our star players. After establishing the clear objectives they then formulate plans, it is important to remember that the objectives should remain constant, even if the plans need to be adjusted due to unforeseen circumstances. In this case, the objective was to retain all of our star players, and this was successfully achieved. In the business world, such an accomplishment is typically rewarded with a bonus. However, it is puzzling to observe that some individuals discuss plans without clearly defined objectives. PIF sets objectives, and the board is responsible for meeting them. Failure to do so should result in appropriate consequences. For instance, Eddie's objective for this season is to qualify for European competition. The specific strategies he employs to achieve this goal are secondary. If he fails to meet this objective, it would be reasonable for him to face job termination. I trust that this explanation clarifies the importance of objectives in business and sports.

You're avoiding the main issue again. We didn't sign anyone in January, so the 60 million deficit was already there in the summer of 2023. The board, including Ashworth, was aware of this. The primary objective, as confirmed by Staveley, was to retain all of our key players. This goal was successfully accomplished. You say we should not have left ourselves exposed, Look, we took a risk by buying players like Gordon, Tonali, Hall, Barnes, Tino, and Miniteh. But if we hadn't taken that risk, we wouldn't have any of them now. And it turned out well, didn't it? Staveley said she didn't want to leave before we were PSR compliant so that Eales and the board would be in a strong position, and I honestly think she did a great job. For Minteh and Anderson, we gained Gordon, Tonali, Hall, Barnes, Tino, new contract for big Joe, Pope, Botman Isak etc. Staveley and the others really did a great job there, mate. They took some risks, but it all worked out in the end. Can you say it didn't? Also, to say Eddie is on record regretting the sale of Anderson is moot. Eddie is also on record regretting letting Shelvy, Wood, Paul and Matt go. He is a professional and gives a professional answer. The correct one imo.

Hey, just like TCD, you're not explaining how we'd cover the 60 million PSR gap. The bullet points don't mention it. Unless I missed something, I'd expect something like... 1. The acquisition of Barnes resulted in an unnecessary expenditure of 12 million. 2. The acquisition of Tonali resulted in an unnecessary expenditure of 15 million. 3. The acquisition of Hall resulted in an unnecessary expenditure of 7 million. Not 1.Maybe we thought we'd go further in Europe and at least get into the Europa knockouts? 2.Maybe we thought we'd finish higher in the league with that investment? 3.Maybe we expected more sponsorships or a big value one fell through? 4.Maybe we planned on an inflated deal before the new APT requirements came in? 5.Maybe we thought it'd be easier to sell one or more of Miggy, Lascelles, Targett, Lewis, Fraser, Dubravka, Wilson, or Trippier in January or June? 6.Maybe Ashworth had planned on selling Joelinton and others and when he left we had to scramble for a plan B? 7.Related, maybe once Ashworth left no one was strong enough to counter Eddie's desire to keep all his players? 8.Maybe we just assumed we wouldn't be able to keep Bruno and pre-spent some of that money? 9.Maybe we didn't think the PL rules had any teeth and then Everton/Forest happened? These are not solutions but hypothetical scenarios. If one suggests that the board did not handle the situation appropriately, their solutions should be more specific. "5.Maybe we thought it'd be easier to sell one or more of Miggy, Lascelles, Targett, Lewis, Fraser, Dubravka, Wilson, or Trippier in January or June?" As it turned out, we were unable to sell the players we intended to, rendering that argument moot. However, we were able to sell Minteh, who was a valuable asset. The primary contention from TCD and others is that Minteh should not have been sold. In light of this, I would like to understand the alternative course of action that the board should have taken. It is important to note that no other clubs were interested in the other players we sought to sell, or the offers received were insufficient. Once more, I find myself perplexed by the notion that our management is lacking. Instead of offering vague possibilities and uncertainties, it would be more prudent to present concrete plans to address the 60 million deficit.

This is what the board did. I am not interested in hypothetical scenarios or possibilities. I have already shared this information earlier. Staveley made some moves, mate. First, she gave big Joe a contract. Selling him for 40 million is just wishful thinking. We'd have to buy a replacement like Onana for 55 million. So not only did we spend more to replace him, but we also blew a big chunk of this season's budget and ended up in the same place. Then, she sold Minteh for 33 million. Brighton paid 30 million for Pedro. That's some fantastic business, mate. And let's not forget the shady deal with our pals at Forest. But here's the thing, as of today, we're PSR compliant. We kept our purples and blues, and if we just spend 60 million between now and the end of the window, it's to improve the first 11, not to replace anyone. She left Mitchell in a strong position. Could you please advise what, in your opinion, the board should have done differently to ensure that we are in at least the same position as when Staveley and her associates left us? If you could kindly provide well-reasoned and thorough solutions on how to address the significant financial deficit we were facing, rather than hypothetical scenarios and uncertainties that have been provided all day, I would be more inclined to agree with your perspective. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this matter.

If Barnes is valued at 12 million, what about the remaining 48 million? It could be argued that the 60 million requirement was entire business from Gordon, Tonali, Barnes, Tino, Miniteh, and Hall. I comprehend the concerns and hypothetical situations involved, but given that we did not sell any star players and are compliant, it is unclear how one can conclude that we are poorly managed. All that has been presented are hypothetical scenarios and "what ifs and Maybes" You do not provide any concrete solutions, only theories. I would appreciate it if you could outline what the board should have done differently, rather than presenting theories and hypothetical situations.

As long as you continue to bring this up, I will continue to ask how we could have better handled the situation. Please provide specific details on how you would have addressed the 60 million deficit. Simply stating that we should not have acquired Barnes, who only accounts for 9 million, does not address the remaining 50 million.

May I ask, what do you think the club could have done differently? I have asked. @The College Dropoutthe same thing but won't get a response. We had a deficit of approximately 60 million that needed to be addressed. If we exclude the acquisitions of Hall, Gordon, Barnes, Tino, and Tonali, which total around 50 million, we still require an additional 10 million. However, let us consider our current squad Without these players It would be unfair to solely criticize the acquisition of Barnes, as his value is only around 9 million, we would still have a shortfall of 50 million. A possible solution could have been to refrain from making any purchases from Gordon to Hall, with the exception of Minteh. I believe that you and TCD are only addressing a superficial aspect of the issue. It would be more beneficial to identify which specific players should not have been acquired. Unfortunately, discussing player sales is not relevant as there was a lack of interest in our players, despite our efforts to facilitate transfers. To summarize, we faced a significant financial gap of 60 million. I kindly request your assistance and @The College Dropout in identifying potential solutions to address this deficit, while retaining Minteh in our squad.

That's an interesting view, but like I said before, this argument is useless considering the current state of the club. We have all our star players, we follow the PSR rules, and we don't need to replace anyone. We can only get better from here. In reference to the ongoing discussion, I understand that the primary focus of your argument is the retention of Minteh as a valuable asset to the team like@The College Dropout In your perspective, you believe that acquiring Barnes was not essential, and to some degree, that is accurate. However, I would personally prefer to have Barnes in the current squad rather than Minteh. I believe most individuals would share this sentiment. What are your thoughts on this matter? We are compliant with the PSR and have retained all of our star players. This is a significant achievement for the board, and while we can speculate about potential outcomes, the reality is that we are in a strong position at present. This is a major success and a testament to the skill and expertise of Staveley and the board.