Other clubs' transfers

[lovejoy]

5 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

This is the thing with all this embarrassing "cartel" craic, and it is embarrassing believe me. 

 

The "cartel" argument falls apart the moment you ask what Newcastle fans actually want instead. You don't want a level playing field, you want no restrictions on the wealthiest owners in world football.  The established clubs built huge revenues over decades through success, fanbases and commercial growth. You can argue that gives them an advantage, but your answer is essentially "our owners are richer than yours."

 

Like Veruca Salt in Willy Wonka, a lot of you are shouting "I want it now!" Almost like you're blocking out the already huge amount of investment from your owners, or the fact they can continue to pour money into your stadium, training facilities and youth facilities without affecting PSR. Your growth in the five years since they've taken over is colossal. Doubled revenues, won a trophy, regularly competing in the Champions League yet still complaining about the "cartel." Your owners have invested far, far more than ours have.
 

If PSR disappeared tomorrow, you wouldn't be getting rid of a "cartel" You would simply replace it with a system where the club backed by the deepest pockets wins. Dick all to do with sporting merit, just a different route to financial dominance. Without PSR, Qatar could buy Burnley and make them title challengers in a couple of seasons. That's not saving football, it's reducing it to a bidding war between states. You're complaining about unfair advantages while demanding the biggest unfair advantage of all.

 

The real debate is whether PSR is the best way to regulate spending, not whether clubs should be allowed to spend unlimited sovereign wealth fund money. Should there be sustainability rules though? Abso-fucking-lutely. 

Froggy I like you and I think you talk a lot of sense, but this is bullshit and you know it.

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, Curva Sud Milano said:

 

When you sell properties that belong to the Club you are "robbing" your own fans. It is much, much worse than selling your best players.

I think the news has been somewhat misreported/misinterpreted we essentially sold the club to ourselves. You mention the fans but the fans never owned the ground so I'm not sure who's being robbed here?

 

I think I understand what your getting at but it doesn't really make sense in this context as it was just moving which cell the stadium sat in the clubs accounts so we wouldn't breach PSR. 

[RUHRLYASLEEVESUP]

7 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

This is the thing with all this embarrassing "cartel" craic, and it is embarrassing believe me. 

 

The "cartel" argument falls apart the moment you ask what Newcastle fans actually want instead. You don't want a level playing field, you want no restrictions on the wealthiest owners in world football.  The established clubs built huge revenues over decades through success, fanbases and commercial growth. You can argue that gives them an advantage, but your answer is essentially "our owners are richer than yours."

 

Like Veruca Salt in Willy Wonka, a lot of you are shouting "I want it now!" Almost like you're blocking out the already huge amount of investment from your owners, or the fact they can continue to pour money into your stadium, training facilities and youth facilities without affecting PSR. Your growth in the five years since they've taken over is colossal. Doubled revenues, won a trophy, regularly competing in the Champions League yet still complaining about the "cartel." Your owners have invested far, far more than ours have.
 

If PSR disappeared tomorrow, you wouldn't be getting rid of a "cartel" You would simply replace it with a system where the club backed by the deepest pockets wins. Dick all to do with sporting merit, just a different route to financial dominance. Without PSR, Qatar could buy Burnley and make them title challengers in a couple of seasons. That's not saving football, it's reducing it to a bidding war between states. You're complaining about unfair advantages while demanding the biggest unfair advantage of all.

 

The real debate is whether PSR is the best way to regulate spending, not whether clubs should be allowed to spend unlimited sovereign wealth fund money. Should there be sustainability rules though? Abso-fucking-lutely. 

Decent bait, get a few I reckon 

[Froggy]

3 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

This is such a load of shit and you know it. 

 

Im yet to see a single poster on here say they want the tables titled in our favour? What we want is a ruleset which is fair and believe me it's really easy to draw up rules which are fair however no such hope of this coming to pass. 

 

Why don't we have rules where everyone can spend the same? Id be over the moon with that personally, is that me tilting the deck in our favour?

I've literally answered this in my post. You want nothing to do with historical significance or organic growth. You want a straight shoot-out between clubs with the deepest pockets. 

 

1 minute ago, lovejoy said:

Froggy I like you and I think you talk a lot of sense, but this is bullshit and you know it.

 

Most posters on here think I talk sense until I say something they don't agree with, then I'm clueless all of a sudden. We need sustainability rules, and you know it. 

If Sunderland were owned by PIF, and Newcastle were owned by Mike Ashley again, how would you feel about PSR then? Would you still be calling for it to be removed so everyone was on a "level playing field?" Of course not. You want rid of it now because nobody would be able to stand in your way.

[lovejoy]

3 minutes ago, Froggy said:

I've literally answered this in my post. You want nothing to do with historical significance or organic growth. You want a straight shoot-out between clubs with the deepest pockets. 

 

 

Most posters on here think I talk sense until I say something they don't agree with, then I'm clueless all of a sudden. We need sustainability rules, and you know it. 

If Sunderland were owned by PIF, and Newcastle were owned by Mike Ashley again, how would you feel about PSR then? Would you still be calling for it to be removed so everyone was on a "level playing field?" Of course not. You want rid of it now because nobody would be able to stand in your way.

I wouldn’t be calling for anything because it wouldn’t impact us in any way, I hadn’t really heard of it prior to

our takeover because it simply didn’t apply to us due to the way we were being ran.

 

so I’m guessing i’d still be in that boat in your hypothetical situation.

 

i’ve also never called you ‘clueless’.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 06:57 by lovejoy

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Froggy said:

I've literally answered this in my post. You want nothing to do with historical significance or organic growth. You want a straight shoot-out between clubs with the deepest pockets. 

 

 

Most posters on here think I talk sense until I say something they don't agree with, then I'm clueless all of a sudden. We need sustainability rules, and you know it. 

If Sunderland were owned by PIF, and Newcastle were owned by Mike Ashley again, how would you feel about PSR then? Would you still be calling for it to be removed so everyone was on a "level playing field?" Of course not. You want rid of it now because nobody would be able to stand in your way.

Historical significance was also bought during a time when it's allowed. 

 

And why are you telling me what I want when I've already wrote it? I want rules which allow everyone to compete on an even footing as should everyone. 

 

This is what competition is, same reason why heavyweights fight heavyweights and not fly weights. 

 

So the question is, are you against my suggestion?

[Froggy]

15 minutes ago, Poon Raccoon said:

Says the fella whose team is 1.3 Billion in debt yet still spends outrageous money on players.

 

We all know who ‘games’ the system, with the PL help of course.

 

Leveraged buyout. Thankfully there's rules in place to stop this happening again.

 

But again, this line of thinking shows that you would happily see great clubs in ruin and American bankers walking away with their money. No care for the actual footballing landscape.

[lovejoy]

2 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Leveraged buyout. Thankfully there's rules in place to stop this happening again.

 

But again, this line of thinking shows that you would happily see great clubs in ruin and American bankers walking away with their money. No care for the actual footballing landscape.

Not sure any of us care that much about the ‘football landscape’ to be honest. Not outside of our own clubs.

[Froggy]

1 minute ago, r0cafella said:

Historical significance was also bought during a time when it's allowed. 

 

And why are you telling me what I want when I've already wrote it? I want rules which allow everyone to compete on an even footing as should everyone. 

 

This is what competition is, same reason why heavyweights fight heavyweights and not fly weights. 

 

So the question is, are you against my suggestion?

 

Your fans complain that PSR protects clubs with the biggest revenues, but your solution is a system that protects clubs with the biggest owners. I'm not convinced that's an improvement.

Your suggestion of completely removing all profit and sustainability rules is madness. You suggest this would mean a level playing field, but I massively disagree.

Not saying the system is without flaws, but it's absolute removal would be a disaster for football with the money now involved from foreign states.

[cubaricho]

21 minutes ago, Froggy said:

This is the thing with all this embarrassing "cartel" craic, and it is embarrassing believe me. 

 

The "cartel" argument falls apart the moment you ask what Newcastle fans actually want instead. You don't want a level playing field, you want no restrictions on the wealthiest owners in world football.

 Come on dude. 

[Froggy]

2 minutes ago, lovejoy said:

Not sure any of us care that much about the ‘football landscape’ to be honest. Not outside of our own clubs.

 

I have picked that up over time on here to be fair.

 

I've never seen a fanbase hate as many clubs as the Newcastle one.

[r0cafella]

Just now, Froggy said:

 

Your fans complain that PSR protects clubs with the biggest revenues, but your solution is a system that protects clubs with the biggest owners. I'm not convinced that's an improvement.

Your suggestion of completely removing all profit and sustainability rules is madness. You suggest this would mean a level playing field, but I massively disagree.

Not saying the system is without flaws, but it's absolute removal would be a disaster for football with the money now involved from foreign states.

So you don't think it should be a level playing field? Yes or no will suffice. 

[lovejoy]

Just now, Froggy said:

 

I have picked that up over time on here to be fair.

 

I've never seen a fanbase hate as many clubs as the Newcastle one.

Okey dokey 👍🏼

[Dr.Spaceman]

A lot of Newcastle fans I speak to just want us to be able to spend as much as the teams at the top of the league, not be given the right to outspend them.

 

Froggy, you're talking shite here.

[r0cafella]

For those that want some numbers. 

 

Last 5 years net spend Gordon money not included. 

 

https://www.football365.com/news/transfers-premier-league-five-year-net-spend-man-utd-man-city

[Froggy]

1 minute ago, Dr.Spaceman said:

A lot of Newcastle fans I speak to just want us to be able to spend as much as the teams at the top of the league, not be given the right to outspend them.

 

Froggy, you're talking shite here.

 

Nah, I'm not. This is usually how it goes when you're hit with things you don't like.

[KingArthur]

9 hours ago, Holtender said:

The whole system is to prevent ambitious clubs like ours challenging the shit 6 . Clubs like ours are the only hope left for every other club in the premier league with any sort of ambition but we all know the closer we get the more obstacles wil be put in front of us . K9

Clubs like you (or Newcastle) do not generate enough revenue to compete year in year out. So eventually wheels will come off. We had that last season.

[Froggy]

3 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

For those that want some numbers. 

 

Last 5 years net spend Gordon money not included. 

 

https://www.football365.com/news/transfers-premier-league-five-year-net-spend-man-utd-man-city

 

When you're talking about Liverpool's spend last summer, it's £450m. When it's Newcastle's spend, the net spend tool comes out. You have spent a lot of money since PIF came in. You're up there with the biggest spenders in the league despite your revenues being half the size of the others.

 

You will grow and grow even under PSR rules, as your owners can pour money into infrastructure and continue increasing commercial deals. You will be able to spend more than anyone else eventually. 

[r0cafella]

5 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

When you're talking about Liverpool's spend last summer, it's £450m. When it's Newcastle's spend, the net spend tool comes out. You have spent a lot of money since PIF came in. You're up there with the biggest spenders in the league despite your revenues being half the size of the others.

 

You will grow and grow even under PSR rules, as your owners can pour money into infrastructure and continue increasing commercial deals. You will be able to spend more than anyone else eventually. 

 

Keep waving your hands man.  

[The Prophet]

Everton leading the race for Hackney, according to Ornstein.

[KingArthur]

47 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

This is the thing with all this embarrassing "cartel" craic, and it is embarrassing believe me. 

 

The "cartel" argument falls apart the moment you ask what Newcastle fans actually want instead. You don't want a level playing field, you want no restrictions on the wealthiest owners in world football.  The established clubs built huge revenues over decades through success, fanbases and commercial growth. You can argue that gives them an advantage, but your answer is essentially "our owners are richer than yours."

 

Like Veruca Salt in Willy Wonka, a lot of you are shouting "I want it now!" Almost like you're blocking out the already huge amount of investment from your owners, or the fact they can continue to pour money into your stadium, training facilities and youth facilities without affecting PSR. Your growth in the five years since they've taken over is colossal. Doubled revenues, won a trophy, regularly competing in the Champions League yet still complaining about the "cartel." Your owners have invested far, far more than ours have.
 

If PSR disappeared tomorrow, you wouldn't be getting rid of a "cartel" You would simply replace it with a system where the club backed by the deepest pockets wins. Dick all to do with sporting merit, just a different route to financial dominance. Without PSR, Qatar could buy Burnley and make them title challengers in a couple of seasons. That's not saving football, it's reducing it to a bidding war between states. You're complaining about unfair advantages while demanding the biggest unfair advantage of all.

 

The real debate is whether PSR is the best way to regulate spending, not whether clubs should be allowed to spend unlimited sovereign wealth fund money. Should there be sustainability rules though? Abso-fucking-lutely. 

Getting rid of PSR doesn't only mean no restrictions to wealthiest owners. Teams like Leicester had problems and had to sell players, and they dont have world's most wealthiest owners. Getting rid of them would mean these ridiculous situations are avoided.

Like you said, there are easy ways to limit spendind by rules, without forcing teams to sell their best young players / local talent away. 

The bit in the bold is how the football has been for ages?
edit. You think getting rid of PSR rules is "madness", but I doubt you were thinking the same when they weren't there and ManU were able to spend whatever they wanted and benefited greatly from this?


The "cartel" problem is that no matter how shitty transfers teams like Chelsea or ManU make, it seems to have no affect on their ability to spend again. Now team like Aston Villa, 4th last season and Europa League winners, are going to have to sell their most prized asset to their biggest rivals, so they can go on next season. With these rules in place, it means it takes decade(or maybe decades) for smaller clubs to achieve constant success.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 07:28 by KingArthur

[Yorkie]

Gross and net spend are outdated metrics these days given how revenues and expenditure are recorded. Plus, those figures only present a very rudimentary picture which removes crucial context about the differences in how clubs can interact with the market.

 

For instance, Liverpool fans could huff copium about net spend all they like - that club deserves pelters for their performance relative to their gross spend because they had unfettered access to the market and still delivered an absolutely pathetic title defence. 

[Froggy]

2 minutes ago, KingArthur said:

The "cartel" problem is that no matter how shitty transfers teams like Chelsea or ManU make, it seems to have no affect on their ability to spend again. Now team like Aston Villa, 4th last season and Europa League winners, are going to have to sell their most prized asset to their biggest rivals, so they can go on next season. With these rules in place, it means it takes decade(or maybe decades) for smaller clubs to achieve constant success.

 

You really think this? I know Chelsea have swindled the rules to avoid punishment (similar to yourselves), but we were absolutely restrained by PSR and have undergone massive cost-cutting measures to try and become more financially compliant. 

 

Not entirely convinced Villa need to sell Rogers, I think they're just willing to sell him because it's an insane amount of money for an overrated player. Nobody was forcing them to pay £200k a week for Rashford and Sancho. If they are in financial difficulty I would say those sort of decisions are more of a factor.

[Froggy]

2 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

Gross and net spend are outdated metrics these days given how revenues and expenditure are resisted. Plus, those figures only present a very rudimentary picture which removes crucial context about the differences in how clubs can interact with the market.

 

For instance, Liverpool fans could huff copium about net spend all they like - that club deserves pelters for their performance relative to their gross spend because they had unfettered access to the market and still delivered an absolutely pathetic title defence. 

 

Next time I'm in Newcastle I'd genuinely like to sit down and talk to about this stuff properly over a pint. Things come across so much more aggressive with text.

[Yorkie]

Just now, Froggy said:

 

Next time I'm in Newcastle I'd genuinely like to sit down and talk to about this stuff properly over a pint. Things come across so much more aggressive with text.

 

My only aggression was towards Liverpool/Liverpool fans not around to defend themselves.