1881

For those enjoying wallowing in nostalgia, hope you don’t mind me giving my site a plug. Plenty of season diaries and match details already loaded for the seventies and eighties plus lots more! Toon Times

Definitely against QPR came on for Reilly- the Spurs game was his second appearance, again as a sub

yes - that is how I understand it

My first games were away from home in 1972/73 as my family had moved South for work. Winning 2-0 at Arsenal, finished 2-2 followed by winning 2-0 at Tottenham finished 2-3 with Spurs winning with the last kick of the match. Not surprisingly, I have always expected things to go wrong ever since. First home match was in East Stand with dad in October 1974 against Luton with Tudor scoring the winner just before the end. Started going regularly in 1981/82 in the Corner until part-season season-tickets were introduced in the promotion season of 1992/93. Memories of smells tabs, beer, brewery, hot dogs and piss. Crowd surges, fireworks, snowball fight with the Gallowgate. Getting soaked on a regular basis. Mostly crap football usually involving booted balls up the wing.

The way the amortisation works and how it impacts when you sell is still the same as Ghandis said. The difference is that: under the current rules any profits that you make on sales of players count in the year that the sale is made under the new rules any profits that you make on sales of players are spread over three years so you only get a third of it in the year the sale is made then another third in the following year and another third in the year after that. So if we sold an academy player for £15m in the current rules that £15 would count immediately under FFP. In the new SCR world it would only bring in £5m immediately then another £5m in the next year and another £5m in the year after that. allegedly the intention is to stop clubs relying on last minute “fire” sales like we did with Anderson and Minteh. Supposedly this is a bad thing but it smacks of another thing to help the cartel clubs.

Can anybody lend Aaron a washing line? Former United goalkeeper from the 1950’s Jack Fairbrother was ahead of his time, but Mr Ramsdale seems to be behind his.

One of the important differences between the current system and SCR is how profits on player sales are accounted for. Easiest to give an example and hopefully this is correct. so a scenario where: player signed for £50m on a five year contract player sold for £60 million after three years current system Amount that would count towards FFP for year sale made would be: £60m minus £20m (ie because still had two years left on contract) = £40m New system Amount that would count towards SCR for that year would be: £60m minus £20m (ie because still had two years left on contract) =£40m However the profit made now has to be spread over three years so you would only get: £13.3 million in the current SCR year and then £13.3 million in the following SCR year and then £13.3 million in the following SCR year BUT when it is brought in I am thinking (possibly incorrectly as I have not seen it mentioned anywhere) sales made during the last two seasons will also need to be included therefore, for example, we would get a third of the profit that we made on the Isak sale.

This was an often used approach in Victorian times (generally in the Scottish Referee newspaper), perhaps we could try the same thing now…

Does look like him!

It will always be the Tommy Knox ground to me, in memory of a true sixties “superstar”,

and the lack of squad quality inevitably forces our hand in terms ofthe tactics we employ. We competed by being ultra intense, but this is not sustainable. The cartel rules making it virtually impossible to build a better quality squad whilst also having to replace ageing players with the income we have. The owners need to be more honest/realistic about expectations because we are probably going to have to go backwards before we go forwards again.

that’s why I said it was a facetious comment, I know what was meant and was not ignoring it

Facetious comment but perhaps maths wasn’t his best subject (2 points better than 3 points)!

Unfortunately the way of the world now is that what is said on social media becomes articles on mainstream media, becomes things our CEO alludes to, becomes things which Howe will continually be hassled about at press conferences. It is all pure negativity when we need the dial to be at 11 on the positivity scale for the remainder of the season.

I think what is getting massively blown out of proportion is the reaction the the derby defeats. Hugely disappointing, but not worthy of all the negativity.

Totally agree that a change of strategy is required and if Howe is unwilling to work within that strategy it is a completely different narrative. But at the moment the narrative appears to be has somehow failed this season or isn’t the man to take us to the next level.

Fascinating and disgraceful. The media and sponsors “own” football now so the clubs with the biggest worldwide fanbases must be supported and protected at all costs to make sure everyone on the gravy train can keep on board.

They must do, but I imagine (based on no knowledge whatsoever) the amount involved will be dwarfed by how much they get from a big money move.

If Eddie Howe is sacked in the summer or resigns due to all the negativity and/or lack of support it will (imho) be one of the worst days in the history of the club. And as a fanbase we will rightly be viewed as one of the most ungrateful and deluded.

With Tonali’s agent allegedly touting him around other clubs after what happened with Isak it does appear that the three-year agent “itch” is a real thing. An agent mentioned on Sky Sports last year that when a player signs for a new club the payments made to an agent are almost always made over three years. Therefore once a player is at a club for longer than three years the agent is getting no more income from that club. Inevitably therefore it is the agent’s interests to get the player to move on after three seasons so they can get themselves another windfall.

thank you

I got the information I posted above from theesk.org. Do you know what is meant by the bit in bold below. By what mechanism do you make a loss on a player sale? To prevent extreme annual fluctuations in spending capacity, the SCR framework utilises a three-year rolling average for player trading profits. While squad costs (the numerator) are assessed based on current-season wages and amortisation, the revenue benefit from player sales (and/or losses) is smoothed over a 36-month period.

Sales will no longer be recorded immediately under the new SCR rules that are coming in from next season and they would (surely for fairness) have to factor in previous sales that were made within the three-year limit. what I don’t understand is how player trading profit will be calculated and how this fits in with amortisation which continues to be over the length of the contract up to max of five years. Three-year rolling profit averaging To prevent extreme annual fluctuations in spending capacity, the SCR framework utilises a three-year rolling average for player trading profits. While squad costs (the numerator) are assessed based on current-season wages and amortisation, the revenue benefit from player sales (and/or losses) is smoothed over a 36-month period. For example, if a club generates a £90 million profit from player sales in a single summer, they do not receive the full £90 million boost to their revenue base for that specific season. Instead, £30 million is added to the Adjusted Revenue Base for the current season, and the remaining £60 million is credited in equal installments over the subsequent two years. (This is of course a non-cash consideration, it’s purely regulatory). This mechanism ensures that a one-off fire sale cannot be used to fund an unsustainable surge in wages that the club cannot afford in future years once the profit is exhausted from the calculation.

yes I think they gave a presentation to various media outlets and they were his responses to direct questions from the press which were not filmed, otherwise I am sure someone would have released the video. It is possible he wasn’t expecting such a question and was caught off guard

As far as I understand under the new Premier League SCR rules (at a high level) your expenditure has to be less than or equal to 85% of your income. Above that you will be fined and if even further above you get docked points. The actual levels can change depending on how much you are above or below the 85% limit in any given year. when you sell a player the income you receive (for SCR) purposes is split over three years. So we can only include a third of the Isak sale price in 2026/27. It is possible this season counts as the first year in which case we would only benefit again in 2027/28. I am assuming the cost of purchases is still included over the period of the contract (amortisation) so all that needs to be factored in too plus all the wages and agent fees!