Other clubs' transfers

[AyeDubbleYoo]

Every club having the same budget is really the only fair way. Along with some measures to make sure they aren’t risking the future of the club, like proven funds to back up spending or funds being put in a certain account etc. 

 

It’s basing it on current income at an arbitrary point in time that locks in the advantage of the existing top clubs. 
 

I mean, not sure there really is a good solution since even a budget gap disadvantages the teams that can’t/won’t spend up to the cap. Guess it depends if we’re looking at financial sustainability or just pure sporting fairness. 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 09:28 by AyeDubbleYoo

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, Froggy said:

 

The fact you have to go back 70 years to try and negate my point should tell you everything. If the league wasn't competitive, clubs like Palace, Brighton, Bournemouth and Brentford wouldn't be breaking their historical ceilings on a regular basis. Chelsea, Spurs, Man United etc. are finishing in the bottom half of the table. 

 

8 different Premier League clubs have won major trophies since 2025.

 

I also said the league is more competitive than it has ever been. Competitiveness isn't just about first place. 

 

 

Not sure how complaining about clubs having global support can be considered a mic drop. It's pretty weak to be honest.

 

I won't take lectures from someone about my support when I spent thousands of pounds watching us labour to 15th.  

 

 

This isn't so weak. I agree with this (aside from a lot of fans wanting to be able to spend what PIF are capable of spending).

The issue is more that the league moved away from being ultra competitive due to money coming in from outside the local area - football has always been in part driven by money.  The league was skewed when clubs could find their incomes topped up from outside.  It’s now at such a ridiculous scale that historically big clubs like a Newcastle now need a PIF to invest in them to get them competitive again.  

[TheBrownBottle]

1 minute ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Every club having the same budget is really the only fair way. Along with some measures to make sure they aren’t risking the future of the club, like proven funds to back up spending or funds being put in a certain account etc. 

 

It’s basing it on current income at an arbitrary point in time that locks in the advantage of the existing top clubs. 

Do you mean equal income, or equal spending limits?

[Dr.Spaceman]

4 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Maybe so. It's not the impression I've been given from numerous debates on here.

 

I think Newcastle is a great club and a great city. It's not like I'm making up arguments to have a go. 

 

If you don't watch PSR abolished entirely, what alterations would you make where it would be seen as fair in your eyes? 

 

A cap, calculated to ensure the top teams can still spend a shit load that doesn't limit the spending of those below them. It has to be a level playing field and at the moment it's about as far from that as it can be. Clubs who are promoted and then thrust into Europe should never be considering selling their best players to raise revenue.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 09:30 by Dr.Spaceman

[Dr.Spaceman]

I also think there needs to be another incentive for finishing higher in the league than prize money. What that is, I do not know. Maybe a bye in the cup or something.

[Nobody]

Newcastle and Man U have had fairly similar results in the last five years (a title, a final, similar average league positions) I'd say, so it seems fair to me that we should have the rights to have the same amount of revenue as they do, even if that revenue comes from our owners.

 

[Froggy]

6 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

Every club having the same budget is really the only fair way. Along with some measures to make sure they aren’t risking the future of the club, like proven funds to back up spending or funds being put in a certain account etc. 

 

It’s basing it on current income at an arbitrary point in time that locks in the advantage of the existing top clubs. 
 

I mean, not sure there really is a good solution since even a budget gap disadvantages the teams that can’t/won’t spend up to the cap. Guess it depends if we’re looking at financial sustainability or just pure sporting fairness.

 

Aye identical budgets would never work.

 

If a club invests in its academy, expands its stadium, grows a global fanbase, has huge commercial deals and generates hundreds of millions more revenue than another club, why shouldn't it be able to spend more? If every club had the same budget, you're basically telling clubs that's all a waste of time as there's little reward. 

 

Clubs with bigger fanbases, stadiums, histories etc. would still have advantages in attracting players as well. If Man United had £150m for transfers and £150m a year on wages, and Hull City had the same, it's still very unlikely a player is going to choose Hull. You'd likely end up with many of the same clubs near the top anyway, just with a lower overall quality of football as all of the best players would be in other leagues.

Not that I have any bright ideas on how to sort it, but I think what we have now is much better than nothing at all.

[black_n_white]

At a high level there should be an equal spent cap for all clubs, and one that rolls over if you don’t spend it all in a season. The risk is that a team like Hull may get a cap way out of their budget and go into debt, so with that I can’t see it working out.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 09:40 by black_n_white

[Froggy]

2 minutes ago, Nobody said:

Newcastle and Man U have had fairly similar results in the last five years (a title, a final, similar average league positions) I'd say, so it seems fair to me that we should have the rights to have the same amount of revenue as they do, even if that revenue comes from our owners.

 

Your revenue has grown 140% since 20/21, ours has grown by 35%.

 

If you narrow that down to the last three seasons where we've been poor and you have been excellent (relatively speaking), your revenue has grown by 34% and ours has grown by just 2.9%.

 

The gap is closing, and closing fast. 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

16 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Do you mean equal income, or equal spending limits?

 

I was thinking equal spending limits that aren't based on income. 

[Optimistic Nut]

2 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

Your revenue has grown 140% since 20/21, ours has grown by 35%.

 

If you narrow that down to the last three seasons where we've been poor and you have been excellent (relatively speaking), your revenue has grown by 34% and ours has grown by just 2.9%.

 

The gap is closing, and closing fast. 

 

We have one bad season off the pitch and it'll set us back, you have two bad seasons, you brush it off and it's like nothing has happened. 

[Kid Icarus]

3 hours 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. 

 

Fundamentally this is the lie you keep telling yourself over this that's like a linchpin in your argument.

 

No one's deductive reasoning should end on a root cause of 'The established clubs built huge revenues over decades through success, fanbases and commercial growth.' and I don't think yours' does either. 

 

The question that's hanging there and you don't address is 'well how did they build those things?'

 

The answer is that the established successful clubs in England didn't achieve success by getting up early in the morning, going down the pit and working that little bit harder than everyone else, like it was the Hovis advert it keeps getting presented as, they did it through cold uncaring capital investment that dwarfed that of other teams. That's not a criticism, it's just the market every team has worked under for years because it's just an extension of the same system most businesses work under.

 

Over the years a handful of clubs have used their huge capital investment, invested wisely, gained success and created a positive financial feedback loop through on field and off field success. I know you know this, I'm not telling you anything here, I'm just laying it out.

 

Other clubs and fans don't think that's fair? Too bad, It's dog eat dog, it's laissez-faire, everyone else is just jealous they didn't do it. And on it went with clubs rising and falling, and some maintaining, then a few defected from the league itself to get on the PL gravy train set up to benefit them, then tried it again in 2020.

 

That is until there was the recent threat that another huge investor comes along and wants to do exactly the same thing they did to everyone else and make them part of that same everyone else in the process.

 

Then those same clubs used their hefty resources and did just as huge companies do outside of football, when they lobby the state, the media, and the population, to lobby the Premier League, its clubs, and its fans, and had the gall to turn around to the same clubs and fans they'd been lauding it over for decades and said "Come on, we need to do something about this, for the sake of everyone, for the integrity of the game"

 

What a joke. The clubs involved, and the Premier League want to paint all of this as fair play regulation for the good of everyone, but that stated goal is barely holding up as a pretence when the other 14 see not just the double standards at play (fines over here, points deductions over here for example) but the way in which the actual main driver for the rules themselves clearly isn't fair play, but protectionism - ie the reason for the cartel tag.

 

A collection of rules that effectively say "It would undermine the integrity of the competition to let this one or two clubs have an unfair advantage, so here are some rules that limits it to the 6 that already have an unfair advantage and also artificially protects them even further with this rule in the process."

 

The ladder has been pulled up on the same set up that allowed them to get there. Rules for thee not for me, I'm alright Jack. 

 

You can call us embarrassing and paint it as us being brats - for wanting what you and the other big clubs had for decades, for us, Villa and everyone - that's your opinion. I certainly don't want unrestrained spending, to just buy a dream team, and undermine the integrity of the game in that way, but I completely understand people looking at the full picture and coming to the conclusion of fuck it, what integrity? The idea it's being upheld is a joke, there's no honour among thieves and we should join in in bending a rigged game to our advantage.

 

I don't even necessarily disagree with a lot of what you're saying. If your whole point was look, yeah it's hypocritical and the set up is rigged to favour these clubs, but at the same time we can't just have one club's owners dwarfing everyone else's wealth 100 to 1 so we do need something in place I'd agree and I think plenty would.

 

It's the whole see no evil, we all pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps, refusing to do any additional deduction beyond that thing you keep doing that's annoying, particularly as you're pairing it with calling us all embarrassing.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 09:50 by Kid Icarus

[Froggy]

Just now, Optimistic Nut said:

We have one bad season off the pitch and it'll set us back, you have two bad seasons, you brush it off and it's like nothing has happened. 

 

What was our bad season outside of the Amorim one? The 8th place finish where we played in the Champions League and won the FA Cup?

 

Even the Amorim season we got to a European final and made £60m+ from the Europa League alone.

 

Remains to be seen how much of a set back this season will be for you as well. 

[TheBrownBottle]

5 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

I was thinking equal spending limits that aren't based on income. 

Makes sense - I don’t think there’s a ‘right or wrong’ answer to this, just curious. 

[Poon Raccoon]

2 hours 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.

So you have a crack at our team for 'gaming the system', then you come out with "Leveraged buyout. Thankfully there's rules in place to stop this happening again". Wow.

 

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. 

As your team had before PSR was brought in, no restrictions. The cartel argument is valid, otherwise why are these rules in place ?

 

What would have been valid and made the most sense if we wanted a truly level playing field financially is anchoring, that would stop clubs spending what they like including Newcastle which puts your wealthiest owners argument to bed. But guess what...........

 

The established clubs built huge revenues over decades through success, fanbases and commercial growth.

 

and;

 

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.

 

The above is EXACTLY how your team got there themselves ! There was no PSR so you could buy and do what you damned well like, you HAD that route to financial dominance with no restrictions. 

 

But now that you are there, you want to keep that for yourselves and restrict those that can from getting there.

[Froggy]

7 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

Fundamentally this is the lie you keep telling yourself over this that's like a linchpin in your argument.

 

No one's deductive reasoning should end on a root cause of 'The established clubs built huge revenues over decades through success, fanbases and commercial growth.' and I don't think yours' does either. 

 

The question that's hanging there and you don't address is 'well how did they build those things?'

 

The answer is that the established successful clubs in England didn't achieve success by getting up early in the morning, going down the pit and working that little bit harder than everyone else, like it was the Hovis advert it keeps getting presented as, they did it through cold uncaring capital investment that dwarfed that of other teams. That's not a criticism, it's just the market every team has worked under for years because it's just an extension of the same system most businesses work under.

 

Over the years a handful of clubs have used their huge capital investment, invested wisely, gained success and created a positive financial feedback loop through on field and off field success. I know you know this, I'm not telling you anything here, I'm just laying it out.

 

Other clubs and fans don't think that's fair? Too bad, It's dog eat dog, it's laissez-faire, everyone else is just jealous they didn't do it. And on it went with clubs rising and falling, and some maintaining, then a few defected from the league itself to get on the PL gravy train set up to benefit them, then tried it again in 2020.

 

That is until there was the recent threat that another huge investor comes along and wants to do exactly the same thing they did to everyone else and make them part of that same everyone else in the process.

 

Then those same clubs used their hefty resources and did just as huge companies do outside of football, when they lobby the state, the media, and the population, to lobby the Premier League, its clubs, and its fans, and had the gall to turn around to the same clubs and fans they'd been lauding it over for decades and said "Come on, we need to do something about this, for the sake of everyone, for the integrity of the game"

 

What a joke. The clubs involved, and the Premier League want to paint all of this as fair play regulation for the good of everyone, but that stated goal is barely holding up as a pretence when the other 14 see not just the double standards at play (fines over here, points deductions over here for example) but the way in which the actual main driver for the rules themselves clearly isn't fair play, but protectionism - ie the reason for the cartel tag.

 

A collection of rules that effectively say "It would undermine the integrity of the competition to let this one or two clubs have an unfair advantage, so here are some rules that limits it to the 6 that already have an unfair advantage and also artificially protects them even further with this rule in the process."

 

The ladder has been pulled up on the same set up that allowed them to get there. Rules for thee not for me, I'm alright Jack. 

 

You can call us embarrassing and paint it as us being brats - for wanting what you and the other big clubs had for decades, for us, Villa and everyone - that's your opinion. I certainly don't want unrestrained spending, to just buy a dream team, and undermine the integrity of the game in that way, but I completely understand people looking at the full picture and coming to the conclusion of fuck it, what integrity? The idea it's being upheld is a joke, there's no honour among thieves and we should join in in bending a rigged game to our advantage.

 

I've never called you (or the Newcastle fanbase) embarrassing. I have enormous respect for the club, city and the fans, though like many fanbases (including ours) you're not without your sense of entitlement. The dishing out of the cartel line is what I find embarrassing. It's used for every negative situation that you seem to encounter. 

 

Yorkie's post here is an example, and Yorkie is one of the best lads I've met, but he's strong with the cartel craic.

 

On 19/02/2026 at 13:19, Yorkie said:

I believe Pedro was our first choice and if we'd managed to get him, the whole season looks quite different, in part because I think the summer looks a lot different too. But Chelsea got him cos PSR.

 

Delap was first in line but I think that's just because of the opportunistic nature of it. He was available at a really good price so we might as well have staked a claim. But Chelsea got him cos PSR.

 

Ekitike came after Pedro and was clearly seen as a like-for-like Isak replacement. But Liverpool got him cos PSR. 

 

Sesko was next but Man Utd got him cos PSR. Then we're scrambling a bit but thankfully the cartel had already shot their load, giving us a free run at Woltemade.

 

Every time you miss out on a player, it's because of PSR. In October you were all buzzing that you had Woltemade over Sesko as well. It's stuff like this that I can't have at all.  Especially since Woltemade's total fee/wage cost is very similar to Sesko. Money was never the issue, the appeal was.

 

13 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

I don't even necessarily disagree with a lot of what you're saying. If your whole point was look, yeah it's hypocritical and the set up is rigged to favour these clubs, but at the same time we can't just have one club's owners dwarfing everyone else's wealth 100 to 1 so we do need something in place I'd agree and I think plenty would.

 

It's the whole see no evil, we all pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps, refusing to do any additional deduction beyond that thing you keep doing that's annoying, particularly as you're pairing it with calling us all embarrassing.

 

This is exactly what I'm trying to say. I hate the idea of being owned by middle eastern countries with unlimited wealth. Financially, Qatar was by far the better option for Manchester United, but most of us wanted Ratcliffe instead. 

 

The thing is, if the rules were dismantled, there's a strong chance the Saudi's would come in for the likes of Liverpool and Man United as well. It would be a complete shit show. 

 

I'm ultimately interested in what people think is a better solution to the current PSR regulations. I think they're doing a pretty decent job at stopping it all spiralling out of control.

[KaKa]

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 10:14 by KaKa

[Curva Sud Milano]

You're waging war among your clubs when the problem is actually a general one and affects everyone. If there are 16 clubs with negative balances, the problem isn't just Chelsea or Manchester United... the 85% cap is laughable and unsustainable by anyone. It's normal that afterward you have to sell hotels, women's teams, parking lots, and stadiums, and when you have nothing left to sell you can only buy players who cost a maximum of 30 million and pay them half their wages today.

Do you want fair rules? Clubs with negative balances can't play in the PL, they take a short trip to the Championship and return when their bank accounts are healthy... but I bet the fans are the first to not want this.

[KaKa]

Anyway ...

 

@Curva Sud Milano since you're here at the minute, what is the deal with Leao? Where has it gone wrong with your team, and where do you see him doing well and getting back on track? Also, I see he's been playing upfront more this past season, like he did when he was at Lille. Is he good as a striker? Or much better on the left?

[leffe186]

51 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

 

…

 

You can call us embarrassing and paint it as us being brats - for wanting what you and the other big clubs had for decades, for us, Villa and everyone - that's your opinion. I certainly don't want unrestrained spending, to just buy a dream team, and undermine the integrity of the game in that way, but I completely understand people looking at the full picture and coming to the conclusion of fuck it, what integrity? The idea it's being upheld is a joke, there's no honour among thieves and we should join in in bending a rigged game to our advantage.

 

I don't even necessarily disagree with a lot of what you're saying. If your whole point was look, yeah it's hypocritical and the set up is rigged to favour these clubs, but at the same time we can't just have one club's owners dwarfing everyone else's wealth 100 to 1 so we do need something in place I'd agree and I think plenty would.

 

It's the whole see no evil, we all pulled ourselves up by our bootstraps, refusing to do any additional deduction beyond that thing you keep doing that's annoying, particularly as you're pairing it with calling us all embarrassing.

 

It’s somewhere in between. Like you, I can completely understand people hurling scorn at the idea that PSR has been born from integrity and I have no illusions that football club ownership has ever been or aspired to be some kind of paragon of virtue. But at the same time I have been doing that additional deduction you talk about for nearly 30 years now. I’m really fucking tired

 

You talk about wanting what Man U and the other rich clubs had for decades. You did have what they had. In the 1997-98 Deloitte Touché report, Newcastle had the 5th highest revenue in the world and the 2nd highest in England. I wish they had brought in some version of PSR at that point. Would it have preserved the hegemony? Maybe. Newcastle, Villa and Leeds had benefitted from being on an upswing just as the Premier League and its TV money came in. They were all in the world’s top 20 at that point.

 

Some form of PSR in the late 90s might have stopped Ridsdale fucking Leeds up. It might have stopped Ken Bates overspending and having to sell to Abramovich, and if it didn’t it would have restricted him. It would have stopped Shinawatra and Abu Dhabi ejaculating money all over Man City. It might have even stopped Leicester going into administration in 2002, and despite @KingArthur forgetting it they did end up getting a billionaire owner. It might not have helped Villa under Deadly Doug, but it might have stopped them overspending to try to keep up with Chelsea et al. And I’d like to think it would have kept you guys at the top too. 

All water under Stamford Bridge now of course. What it wouldn’t have done though - and what it doesn’t do now - is definitively stop other clubs from competing. The idea that the successful clubs all pulled themselves up from their bootstraps is silly of course. But within the rules…Bournemouth did. Brentford did. We had far more resources than them…but fewer than you in 1998. And we did too. 
 

Fans just have to suck it up for the most part. It’s not your fault that your ownership squandered that opportunity and then totally fucked everything by selling to that cunt Mike Ashley. We couldn’t make Levy do all that stuff he did, although we could buy enough tickets and merch to help him along. I hate Arsenal by law, but they have been brilliantly run for the most part including longstanding support for women’s football that is now really reaping dividends - literally. Their fans are lucky bastards…but we could have done the same and so could you.

 

I’m glad you don’t want unrestrained spending and I believe you - but there are absolutely loads of Newcastle fans that do. There are lots of Spurs fans that would think the same. I disagree with them all. I just think your club, supporters and owners can bridge that gap within the rules anyway, like we did. You’re a huge club, the only one in a large city with a big supporter base and big, beautifully-located stadium. The Saudis have already been upgrading infrastructure, put a ton of money into the first team squad, is working on (and ploughing money into) the stadium and new stadium possibilities, put a ton of money into upgrading the youth development team and taking players from other clubs. They’ve even invested in the women’s team, although that’s false-started. It will happen far quicker than it did with us because we were generating the money ourselves. Why not be patient?

[Froggy]

@lovejoy ^ that's a mic drop.

[Joe1984]

1 minute ago, Froggy said:

@lovejoy ^ that's a mic drop.

He left out Portsmouth... 😄

 

 

[LFEE]

3 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

 

It’s somewhere in between. Like you, I can completely understand people hurling scorn at the idea that PSR has been born from integrity and I have no illusions that football club ownership has ever been or aspired to be some kind of paragon of virtue. But at the same time I have been doing that additional deduction you talk about for nearly 30 years now. I’m really fucking tired

 

You talk about wanting what Man U and the other rich clubs had for decades. You did have what they had. In the 1997-98 Deloitte Touché report, Newcastle had the 5th highest revenue in the world and the 2nd highest in England. I wish they had brought in some version of PSR at that point. Would it have preserved the hegemony? Maybe. Newcastle, Villa and Leeds had benefitted from being on an upswing just as the Premier League and its TV money came in. They were all in the world’s top 20 at that point.

 

Some form of PSR in the late 90s might have stopped Ridsdale fucking Leeds up. It might have stopped Ken Bates overspending and having to sell to Abramovich, and if it didn’t it would have restricted him. It would have stopped Shinawatra and Abu Dhabi ejaculating money all over Man City. It might have even stopped Leicester going into administration in 2002, and despite @KingArthur forgetting it they did end up getting a billionaire owner. It might not have helped Villa under Deadly Doug, but it might have stopped them overspending to try to keep up with Chelsea et al. And I’d like to think it would have kept you guys at the top too. 

All water under Stamford Bridge now of course. What it wouldn’t have done though - and what it doesn’t do now - is definitively stop other clubs from competing. The idea that the successful clubs all pulled themselves up from their bootstraps is silly of course. But within the rules…Bournemouth did. Brentford did. We had far more resources than them…but fewer than you in 1998. And we did too. 
 

Fans just have to suck it up for the most part. It’s not your fault that your ownership squandered that opportunity and then totally fucked everything by selling to that cunt Mike Ashley. We couldn’t make Levy do all that stuff he did, although we could buy enough tickets and merch to help him along. I hate Arsenal by law, but they have been brilliantly run for the most part including longstanding support for women’s football that is now really reaping dividends - literally. Their fans are lucky bastards…but we could have done the same and so could you.

 

I’m glad you don’t want unrestrained spending and I believe you - but there are absolutely loads of Newcastle fans that do. There are lots of Spurs fans that would think the same. I disagree with them all. I just think your club, supporters and owners can bridge that gap within the rules anyway, like we did. You’re a huge club, the only one in a large city with a big supporter base and big, beautifully-located stadium. The Saudis have already been upgrading infrastructure, put a ton of money into the first team squad, is working on (and ploughing money into) the stadium and new stadium possibilities, put a ton of money into upgrading the youth development team and taking players from other clubs. They’ve even invested in the women’s team, although that’s false-started. It will happen far quicker than it did with us because we were generating the money ourselves. Why not be patient?

 

I agree with the overall patience point. Where the Spurs comparison falls down sadly is £10 to a Spurs fan means a lot less than to a NUFC fan in general.

 

Any rules based on revenues is just a green light to screw fans as much as possible on tickets/merchandise/tours/food/drink etc etc. Evil genius. As is UEFA only hitting clubs with finical sanctions yet rewarding them financially with coefficient success as opposed to the PL hitting clubs with sporting/points. Hats off to whoever devised the framework to it all. No movement on PSR/SCR transfer inflation % and now the kicker that the money is automatically split over 3 years I believe so in effect even less PSR headroom for those needing to trade and wanted to build quickly.

 

 

[Kid Icarus]

1 hour ago, Froggy said:

 

I've never called you (or the Newcastle fanbase) embarrassing. I have enormous respect for the club, city and the fans, though like many fanbases (including ours) you're not without your sense of entitlement. The dishing out of the cartel line is what I find embarrassing. It's used for every negative situation that you seem to encounter. 

 

Yorkie's post here is an example, and Yorkie is one of the best lads I've met, but he's strong with the cartel craic.

 

 

Every time you miss out on a player, it's because of PSR. In October you were all buzzing that you had Woltemade over Sesko as well. It's stuff like this that I can't have at all.  Especially since Woltemade's total fee/wage cost is very similar to Sesko. Money was never the issue, the appeal was.

 

 

This is exactly what I'm trying to say. I hate the idea of being owned by middle eastern countries with unlimited wealth. Financially, Qatar was by far the better option for Manchester United, but most of us wanted Ratcliffe instead. 

 

The thing is, if the rules were dismantled, there's a strong chance the Saudi's would come in for the likes of Liverpool and Man United as well. It would be a complete shit show. 

 

I'm ultimately interested in what people think is a better solution to the current PSR regulations. I think they're doing a pretty decent job at stopping it all spiralling out of control.

No I get that you're saying the use of the cartel line is what's embarrassing, that's what I meant. It's a perfectly accurate description of the set up in the league, the term hasn't been come to on a whim, it's because those clubs are acting in the way a cartel, or in more accurate terms imo, as any oligopoly does and protecting their shared interests while also competing with each other.

 

Every time we miss out on a player it is technically because of PSR. With no PSR we could blow every other club out of the water with fees and wages, that's the reality of it. We can agree and disagree on whether that's a good or bad thing, or the rules are too strict, but you can't deny as a basic principle that PSR is the main reason we miss out on players.

 

And that also comes onto another point you're making: the appeal. Money is appeal, success, honours, history etc are all appeal. Again, it's about how we create appeal in the first place, and about how that's restricted.

 

Buzzing about Woltemade over Sesko isn't a disqualifying thing either. He was probably about our 8th choice - money, appeal, ability to create appeal all factors - and at that point we were all about to be incredibly happy just that we were able to get Strand-Larsen for 70 odd million. A huge overspend.

 

Totally understand wanting Ratcliffe, bit with hindsight has it not shown you that these things have no race or nationality? Him being from where he is has had seemingly no bearing on his ruthlessness on the proles at Man United. He's no less at Man United to make a huge mountain of cash than anyone else would be.

 

I'd argue spiralling out of control is what already happened years ago tbh. At best it's stable door after the horse has bolted, but really it's pulling the ladder up. What we need isn't viable, the game would need to die (and prefer to) before it brought in what I would propose.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 11:09 by Kid Icarus

[leffe186]

10 minutes ago, LFEE said:

 

I agree with the overall patience point. Where the Spurs comparison falls down sadly is £10 to a Spurs fan means a lot less than to a NUFC fan in general.

 

Any rules based on revenues is just a green light to screw fans as much as possible on tickets/merchandise/tours/food/drink etc etc. Evil genius. As is UEFA only hitting clubs with finical sanctions yet rewarding them financially with coefficient success as opposed to the PL hitting clubs with sporting/points. Hats off to whoever devised the framework to it all. No movement on PSR/SCR transfer inflation % and now the kicker that the money is automatically split over 3 years I believe so in effect even less PSR headroom for those needing to trade and wanted to build quickly.

 

 

Yeah, UEFA’s nonsense also highlights the broader point that complicates salary cap stuff of course. It’s not the closed shop of the NFL. Funnily enough, Tottenham the place has an almost identical salary range to Newcastle with obviously mental rents etc, although that’s just because it’s a relatively deprived area of London. I do agree, but I’d rather improve the criteria of PSR than get rid of it. Really all I want is for Chelsea and Man City to not have happened, and in the absence of a wishing stone I’d rather not have it happen any more.