Why does it matter that Barry Moat doesn't have billions?

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

Moat's financial clout  is very important because football is a money business. He can be the best owner (decision wise) in the Premiership, but if he doesn't have the pounds, euros, dollars, yen, or naira to back it up, then it is worth nothing. If "Dave from NewcastleOnline Forum" bought the club, I'd be happy to have an informed and intelligent owner, but I'd be worried that a lakc of financial resources would hold us back. (To be fair though, I don't know Dave's financial state.)

[Teasy]

[Village Idiot]

Fulham are heavily subsided by Dodi yet still manage to be very average.

 

He's dead isn't he? 

 

Bah, I mix all those Al-Fayeds, I'm not British afterall.

 

Also, Barça and Real's presidents don't put a single penny of their own, and Laporta in particular isn't wealthy at all (Florentino is very rich and connected, but Real have had a lot of presidents that weren't)

[Frazzle]

Fulham are heavily subsided by Dodi yet still manage to be very average.

 

He's dead isn't he? 

 

Bah, I mix all those Al-Fayeds, I'm not British afterall.

 

 

I just though it was a conspiracy I wasn't aware of. 

[jdckelly]

Fulham are heavily subsided by Dodi yet still manage to be very average.

 

He's dead isn't he? 

 

Bah, I mix all those Al-Fayeds, I'm not British afterall.

 

probably is

I just though it was a conspiracy I wasn't aware of. 

[Lazy]

We need someone who can make good decisions and has lots of money, I think any club that wants to seriously survive in the premierleage needs lots of money these days.

[madras]

We need someone who can make good decisions and has lots of money, I think any club that wants to seriously survive in the premierleage needs lots of money these days.

sad isn't it ?

[Guest Heneage]

I'd say a club needs money to establish itself, but it can from there survive on little money. Arsene Wengers net spend at Arsenal has been £30 million, he's delivered league and cup success and a Champions League final, he has a team that has a large inpur from the club's academy, and generates funds from the youth players not deemed good enough. He fills the gaps with the odd big spend such as Vermalen or Arshavin. I'd love to see us be like Arsenal, having 5 or more players who've come through the academy, it would probably help the fans re-connect with the players.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

I'd love to see us be like Arsenal, having 5 or more players who've come through the academy, it would probably help the fans re-connect with the players.

 

Not sure about that, most of the players that come through Arsenal's academy have been bought in from elsewhere haven't they?

[madras]

I'd love to see us be like Arsenal, having 5 or more players who've come through the academy, it would probably help the fans re-connect with the players.

 

Not sure about that, most of the players that come through Arsenal's academy have been bought in from elsewhere haven't they?

great on one point that the players do come throught the academy and play the best football by far in the country right now....only problem is the lack of english players which in turn makes you feel that something ain't right.

[Guest Heneage]

I'd love to see us be like Arsenal, having 5 or more players who've come through the academy, it would probably help the fans re-connect with the players.

 

Not sure about that, most of the players that come through Arsenal's academy have been bought in from elsewhere haven't they?

great on one point that the players do come throught the academy and play the best football by far in the country right now....only problem is the lack of english players which in turn makes you feel that something ain't right.

I'm not saying they all have to be English or Foreign, look how folk have taken to Ranger, someone who is a decent prospect but really has done fuck all bar score for the reserves.

[ohmelads]

If we make it into the Premier League we will be in a major stage of transition, basically looking at a squad revamp just to survive. Our last squad got relegated, most the better players have gone since and NO new blood has come in. Take out the loan signings and you see how threadbare the squad is, before we even begin to talk about quality.

 

It's easy to point at the likes of Bolton who survived on meagre budgets and it might be doable with the right manager and the right owner in charge but you will never push on to the next level without funding. Basically nobody has ever done it, not in the modern era. This idea that we can come up, battle on like Bolton and survive, see an increase in revenue and claw our way to the top is fantasy. Teams like Newcastle and Everton have flirted with European football but they couldn't sustain it. More recently clubs like Spurs and Villa have threatened to push on but never did so despite spending vast sums. The only clubs who have pushed on and sustained it are those with the financial muscle to.

 

You can develop without the big money but there is a ceiling to your development. I have no problem with us bringing in the right people and doing things prudently and reaching that ceiling, because I believe the club would then be attractive to investors. But a skint owner will only take us that far. Even top 6 now looks beyond that ceiling, with Man City making it a big 5 and teams like Spurs throwing big money around.

 

To be honest at the moment all we can afford to care about is the short-term because we're a Championship club with big problems right now. Thinking too far into the future is a luxury we don't have. Just get rid of Ashley, try and get promotion and take things from there.

[UV]

I'd say a club needs money to establish itself, but it can from there survive on little money. Arsene Wengers net spend at Arsenal has been £30 million, he's delivered league and cup success and a Champions League final, he has a team that has a large inpur from the club's academy, and generates funds from the youth players not deemed good enough. He fills the gaps with the odd big spend such as Vermalen or Arshavin. I'd love to see us be like Arsenal, having 5 or more players who've come through the academy, it would probably help the fans re-connect with the players.

 

Not disparaging what Wenger's done at Arsenal at all - his track record with signings is superb - however when people point to Arsenal and say look what you can do with no money they never take into account the fact that Arsenal have the third highest wage bill in the premiership, double most non-CL clubs (over £100m in 08). That academy and holding on to the best that comes through it doesn't come cheap.

[UV]

Personally I don't care that Barry Moat doesn't have Billions and I don't think it matters because at the end of the day he has the clubs best interests at heart being a Newcastle fan and to be honest thats a million miles from where we are at the minute, so in my book it's a step in the right direction.

 

Agree with that tbh, in my previous post about not having high hopes for Barry I neglected to acknowledge this. Although it's not a popular view on here to favour owners who will have more than just a financial interest in the club (and some even consider it a negative) I think it's a massive positive. It's not just like he's a local and therefore expected to be a supporter either, he actually has been involved in the club giving money to fund the academy. In the absence of a mega-rich sugar daddy, I'd rather have someone like Moat give it a go than a Glazer/Hicks-Gillett/Ashley/random consortium who are only in it for the money.

 

[Mowen]

Caring for the club is an interesting one but ultimately it's preferable in my opinion, certainly to the likes of Glazer etc. as you say. The fear is that the heart will rule the head, but if he's able to distance himself from interference with the manager his knowledge of the club and football itself (i.e. roughly what's required for success) can only be a good thing.

[Guest dover]

How many Premier League clubs have mega rich owners?

 

Access to massive funds is what i said was required, Target of the mega rich is also what I said...

 

It was a genuine question. Man City, Chelsea, who else has a mega rich owner or is being targeted by them?

 

Sorry my bad.

 

In answer how about Liverpool, Arsenal, Portsmouth, Birmingham, West Ham,  targeted/owned by mega rich. In addition of course to chelsea, man city. Throw in Man utd financial clout and were out of the top eight and europe if thats how the game is going.

 

 

[TRon]

Personally I don't care that Barry Moat doesn't have Billions and I don't think it matters because at the end of the day he has the clubs best interests at heart being a Newcastle fan and to be honest thats a million miles from where we are at the minute, so in my book it's a step in the right direction.

 

Agree with that tbh, in my previous post about not having high hopes for Barry I neglected to acknowledge this. Although it's not a popular view on here to favour owners who will have more than just a financial interest in the club (and some even consider it a negative) I think it's a massive positive. It's not just like he's a local and therefore expected to be a supporter either, he actually has been involved in the club giving money to fund the academy. In the absence of a mega-rich sugar daddy, I'd rather have someone like Moat give it a go than a Glazer/Hicks-Gillett/Ashley/random consortium who are only in it for the money.

 

 

Good point.

[Teasy]

How many Premier League clubs have mega rich owners?

 

Access to massive funds is what i said was required, Target of the mega rich is also what I said...

 

It was a genuine question. Man City, Chelsea, who else has a mega rich owner or is being targeted by them?

 

Sorry my bad.

 

In answer how about Liverpool, Arsenal, Portsmouth, Birmingham, West Ham,  targeted/owned by mega rich. In addition of course to chelsea, man city. Throw in Man utd financial clout and were out of the top eight and europe if thats how the game is going.

 

 

 

Having a rich owner doesn't necessarily give the club access to massive funds though.  For instance despite Gillett and Hicks having lots of money they aren't significantly subsidising Liverpool (some might say Liverpool are subsidising them) they spent £4m this summer.  West Ham are owned by a bank who will not be significantly subsidising them and they'd need huge subsidisation to be out of out league financially (as would Portsmouth and Birmingham).

 

People seem unable to find out how much money the new Portsmouth owner has which is hardly encouraging for them.  Carson Yeung at Birmingham certainly isn't mega rich (nowhere near as rich as Ashley).

 

I'd say Manure, Chelsea and Man City are the only clubs with really big money behind them, the only clubs who we wouldn't be able to compete with financially in the transfer market should we go back up.

[ohmelads]

 

I'd say Manure, Chelsea and Man City are the only clubs with real big money behind them, the only clubs who we wouldn't be able to compete with financially in the transfer market should we go back up.

 

Liverpool may have spent small this summer but they've spent a bomb in recent years. I don't know the net spending but 25M on Torres, 18M on Mascherano and 20M on Keane all in the space of a year is a level of spending most other clubs have no hope of competing with.

[Darth Crooks]

I don't think we can expect to be packing the the financial clout that teams that spend 20/30/40 million on one or two players. I just wish the academy would be as productive as it seems to be at other clubs and we had a manager that isn't intent on getting an 'x' amount of millions to go on one/two players. Seems to have been a big factor with us in the past

[jdckelly]

I'd say a club needs money to establish itself, but it can from there survive on little money. Arsene Wengers net spend at Arsenal has been £30 million, he's delivered league and cup success and a Champions League final, he has a team that has a large inpur from the club's academy, and generates funds from the youth players not deemed good enough. He fills the gaps with the odd big spend such as Vermalen or Arshavin. I'd love to see us be like Arsenal, having 5 or more players who've come through the academy, it would probably help the fans re-connect with the players.

 

Not disparaging what Wenger's done at Arsenal at all - his track record with signings is superb - however when people point to Arsenal and say look what you can do with no money they never take into account the fact that Arsenal have the third highest wage bill in the premiership, double most non-CL clubs (over £100m in 08). That academy and holding on to the best that comes through it doesn't come cheap.

they do have a large wage bill however its designed with a wage cap i think so they don't spend beyond what they can afford. The acedemy running costs are high there but it more than pays for itself with young talent making it into the 1st team saving on buying a player for that position and those who don't make it are sold on to mid-table/bottom half of prem team and the money goes to keeping the academy going

[jdckelly]

 

I'd say Manure, Chelsea and Man City are the only clubs with real big money behind them, the only clubs who we wouldn't be able to compete with financially in the transfer market should we go back up.

 

Liverpool may have spent small this summer but they've spent a bomb in recent years. I don't know the net spending but 25M on Torres, 18M on Mascherano and 20M on Keane all in the space of a year is a level of spending most other clubs have no hope of competing with.

the effects of those yanks buyout are starting to hit liverpools spending and even with cl money their net spending is below a lot of teams this year. Though you are right rafas net spend is fairly big alright

[Teasy]

 

I'd say Manure, Chelsea and Man City are the only clubs with real big money behind them, the only clubs who we wouldn't be able to compete with financially in the transfer market should we go back up.

 

Liverpool may have spent small this summer but they've spent a bomb in recent years. I don't know the net spending but 25M on Torres, 18M on Mascherano and 20M on Keane all in the space of a year is a level of spending most other clubs have no hope of competing with.

 

You could also say they spent £18m on Johnson and £20m on Aquilani this summer and that looks like the kind of transfer dealings most clubs couldn't compete with, but there actual spend was still only £4m.  In the past they've been in a position where they could spend big, the debt Gillet and Hicks have put on the club have stifled that.  Obviously we won't be able to compete with Liverpool in the transfer market anyway because players will choose them ahead of us.  But I do believe only Man City, Manure and Chelsea would be totally out of our league financially.

[relámpago blanco]

 

I'd say Manure, Chelsea and Man City are the only clubs with real big money behind them, the only clubs who we wouldn't be able to compete with financially in the transfer market should we go back up.

 

Liverpool may have spent small this summer but they've spent a bomb in recent years. I don't know the net spending but 25M on Torres, 18M on Mascherano and 20M on Keane all in the space of a year is a level of spending most other clubs have no hope of competing with.

the effects of those yanks buyout are starting to hit liverpools spending and even with cl money their net spending is below a lot of teams this year. Though you are right rafas net spend is fairly big alright

Of course it is thats why teams find it so hard to break the top 4.  The CL money gives them a massive advantage which means it would be almost impossible to break nowadays without Billionaire backing.  I don't think we need to worry about challenging for CL places, I'd be happy being in the UEfa every couple of seasons and playing some decent football.

[Darth Crooks]

I'd be happy with 12th and finishing above the mackems