Derek Llambeezy

[Yorkie]

I would be in favour of lessening the amount of Euro League matches (straight knockout is more exciting anyway). It just irritates me thats it's been accepted by those at the club as a distraction. It needn't have been. Now it is being used as an excuse for our pretty dismal domestic campaign, which is just a nonsense.

 

I still think it's the most winnable competition we ever feature in, however sporadically.

[Pilko]

The old UEFA format with a group of 5 and just the four fixtures, two at home and two away would be far better if they wanted a group in there somewhere.

[mrmojorisin75]

found this interesting:

 

Llambias revealed that the five players they signed in January cost £31m but it was all within tight guidelines.

 

“We’ve maintained a very good standard on the pitch working within our financial model and our transfer policy,” he said. “The new signings all stayed within our model. January for us was fantastic business but we had already done two of those deals [Yoan Gouffran and Sissoko] as pre-contract deals for the summer. The injuries and the position we were in the league [near to the relegation zone] meant we brought those deals forward. Was that good business for me? No. But for the club it was still fantastic business. It cost us an extra £10m in fees and wages but it’s worth it. Our net spend in January was £31m so it’s a huge chunk.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/newcastles-financial-model-leads-to-boast-of-14m-profit-8551904.html

[Nobody]

That's including wages though.

[Ronaldo]

£31m? That doesn't sound anywhere near right.

[Tiresias]

£31m? That doesn't sound anywhere near right.

 

Nile Ranger's payoff is most of it 

 

[BottledDog]

found this interesting:

 

Llambias revealed that the five players they signed in January cost £31m but it was all within tight guidelines.

 

“We’ve maintained a very good standard on the pitch working within our financial model and our transfer policy,” he said. “The new signings all stayed within our model. January for us was fantastic business but we had already done two of those deals [Yoan Gouffran and Sissoko] as pre-contract deals for the summer. The injuries and the position we were in the league [near to the relegation zone] meant we brought those deals forward. Was that good business for me? No. But for the club it was still fantastic business. It cost us an extra £10m in fees and wages but it’s worth it. Our net spend in January was £31m so it’s a huge chunk.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/newcastles-financial-model-leads-to-boast-of-14m-profit-8551904.html

 

Nice to see Ashley has given them a rocket up the arse regarding the quality of our football this season.

[Incognito]

They want to see us playing attractive football. Oh good.

[LRD]

£31m? That doesn't sound anywhere near right.

 

Hotel stay in Paris, man. Daily caviar and champagne along with some entertainment costs the best part of 31m.

[aussiemag]

I don't think 31 mill is much for the transfer fee and multiple years of wages for 5 new players. I'm guessing Haidara isn't on much. Mbiwa, Sissoko and Debuchy will be on around 50 000 each. Gouffran around 30 000. Should be more than 31 mill

[Raconteur]

Yup, Llambias is clearly going along with the new fad of combining the transfer fee and wages (for the length of the contract) when wanting to talk about how much they've spent...

[Ishmael]

£31m? That doesn't sound anywhere near right.

 

Transfer fees + agent fees + misc transfer costs + extra wages added to the originally agreed summer starting contracts.

 

So he's factoring in the added 6/7 months of wages, I think.

[Guest Roger Kint]

£31m? That doesn't sound anywhere near right.

 

Transfer fees + agent fees + misc transfer costs + extra wages added to the originally agreed summer starting contracts.

 

So he's factoring in the added 6/7 months of wages, I think.

 

This

[Interpolic]

So total bollocks then, and a pointless and bizarre way of speaking about transfers.

 

[Benwell Lad]

Yup, Llambias is clearly going along with the new fad of combining the transfer fee and wages (for the length of the contract) when wanting to talk about how much they've spent...

 

.... which in these days of fans taking so much interest in their clubs' financial performance is exactly how it should be.

Since Bosman it roughly works that depending on length of contract remaining, higher transfer fee equals lower agent's fee, signing on fee and salary. A lower transfer fee means the opposite, so the buying club pays one way or the other.

 

Back to Dekka, previously much maligned by many, but as a CEO or whatever his title is his performance has been pretty eye catching and his CV will be looking much better in the football business.

[Ishmael]

So total bollocks then, and a pointless and bizarre way of speaking about transfers.

 

 

Well, no.  That's real money that the club has spent, which it a) didn't want to and b) hadn't factored in to the long term running of the club.

 

We are now a few million weaker financially than we would have liked.  However, it was a wise investment given the potential losses of relegation.

[mrmojorisin75]

So total bollocks then, and a pointless and bizarre way of speaking about transfers.

 

 

dunno, can't say that it's bollocks when so much in football finance depends on wages these days

 

 

[mrmojorisin75]

Back to Dekka, previously much maligned by many, but as a CEO or whatever his title is his performance has been pretty eye catching and his CV will be looking much better in the football business.

 

in fairness, if he was at a club that had a more fickle fan base he'd have been long gone because there would be virtually no fans left...he's doing alright now aye but the first few years under MA and DL were an utter disgrace, at a lot of other clubs the fans would have walked many times over

[Nobody]

So total bollocks then, and a pointless and bizarre way of speaking about transfers.

 

 

dunno, can't say that it's bollocks when so much in football finance depends on wages these days

 

 

Aye, just because it's not the way we are used to think about transfers, doesn't mean it's bollocks. In fact, from the running of the club's perspective, that's arguably the best way to look at spending, as it implies planning ahead.

[mrmojorisin75]

So total bollocks then, and a pointless and bizarre way of speaking about transfers.

 

 

dunno, can't say that it's bollocks when so much in football finance depends on wages these days

 

 

Aye, just because it's not the way we are used to think about transfers, doesn't mean it's bollocks. In fact, from the running of the club's perspective, that's arguably the best way to look at spending, as it implies planning ahead.

 

yeah it's a new approach and people aren't used to it, it'll probably catch on at some point

 

 

[Interpolic]

I don't buy £31m as a figure for a start. Secondly wtf is he going on about when we were supposedly in for players last summer and they held their hands up and admitted they made a mistake not getting them in? How can they have it both ways and factor in additional wages since January when we actually should have had a handful more players on the books since August?

[mrmojorisin75]

I don't buy £31m as a figure for a start. Secondly wtf is he going on about when we were supposedly in for players last summer and they held their hands up and admitted they made a mistake not getting them in? How can they have it both ways and factor in additional wages since January when we actually should have had a handful more players on the books since August?

 

what's the alternative though?  he says we spent 31m in january but we could have signed the same players in the summer for more and spend 48m?  don't really see what you're getting at there, they didn't sign the players in the summer, end of story

[Ishmael]

I don't buy £31m as a figure for a start. Secondly wtf is he going on about when we were supposedly in for players last summer and they held their hands up and admitted they made a mistake not getting them in? How can they have it both ways and factor in additional wages since January when we actually should have had a handful more players on the books since August?

 

He's choosing to compare the two sets of possible events, set a) "the actual events" and set b) "the events had we not invested in January".  You could call set c) "the events had we invested in the summer" and add that to the discussion, but they are far away from the actual events as to be deemed irrelevant to the discussion.  How far back shall we take the possible permutations?

 

Basically, he's dealing with the hear and now and the January decisions are what counts.  They would have planned for the summer without January's expenditure, so it is relevant to discuss it.

[Interpolic]

Mental. They spend nowt last summer and are not only given a clean slate for that, they can go on about spending additional money in comparison to the following summer and nobody raises an eyebrow.

[Guest icemanblue]

I don't get that, like. They ballsed up last summer, admitted it, then made huge strides to put it right. I don't think they're being given a clean slate by many, but they're rightly being praised for giving us one of our best ever transfer windows.