Other clubs' transfers

[lovejoy]

28 minutes ago, Froggy said:

@lovejoy ^ that's a mic drop.

Nah, this is still the line;

 

 

Millions of the soppy twats have for decades tilted the finances in favour of Man Utd and Liverpool - gormless glory seekers from Truro to Dublin to Oslo pulled the league away from what it should be.  So I’ll take fuck all in terms of lectures from any ‘fans’ of the big three who play in red.

[Yorkie]

6 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

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.

 

Framing it this way plays into Froggy's argument about us wanting access to unlimited Saudi wealth. 

 

We miss(ed 🤞) out on players because PSR funnels those players to certain clubs. 

[TRon]

48 minutes ago, Curva Sud Milano said:

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.

 

 

Can't speak for other clubs, but given Newcastle have the richest owners in the world, they could easily fund growth by investing money in the same way Manchester City, Chelsea and PSG did. With a few years of success, there would be no negative balance. 

 

Clubs without rich investors are the ones who should need to balance their books, and if they can't they go out of business like with any other venture. That is the nature of the free market. 

[leffe186]

19 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

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...

 

 

 

I’d definitely be interested in what you’d propose, not least because I’m too old and tired to want to think about it that much . I’m guessing it would be very similar to what I’d want.

 

I do agree with you that PSR is the main reason you miss out on players, but as you say the  reason for that is that if you had unrestricted spending you could blow everyone except Man City or presumably anyone else owned by billionaires out of the water. That’s kind of the point of the argument. Every single time a Newcastle fan says “PSR stopped us from buying X and that’s annoying” they are by extension saying “we want to have unrestricted spending”. That’s what puts people’s hackles up.

[TRon]

2 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

I do agree with you that PSR is the main reason you miss out on players, but as you say the  reason for that is that if you had unrestricted spending you could blow everyone except Man City or presumably anyone else owned by billionaires out of the water. That’s kind of the point of the argument. Every single time a Newcastle fan says “PSR stopped us from buying X and that’s annoying” they are by extension saying “we want to have unrestricted spending”. That’s what puts people’s hackles up.

 

 

Well that's because we do. 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 11:30 by TRon

[Wingus]

The only way of keeping it fair from a financial point of view is just to have a free market, like almost every other business sector operates in.

 

If you want it fair from a competitive point of view, then you need spending/salary caps which are the same for everyone, which would just mean more profits for clubs owners.

 

The two are mutually exclusive though. 

[The Prophet]

3 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

 

Well that's because we do. 

 

 

 

 

Speak for yourself.

[Kid Icarus]

14 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

Framing it this way plays into Froggy's argument about us wanting access to unlimited Saudi wealth. 

 

We miss(ed 🤞) out on players because PSR funnels those players to certain clubs. 

I don't think it does tbh. It can still be true and I can still say I don't want it.

[Kid Icarus]

14 minutes ago, leffe186 said:

I’d definitely be interested in what you’d propose, not least because I’m too old and tired to want to think about it that much . I’m guessing it would be very similar to what I’d want.

 

I do agree with you that PSR is the main reason you miss out on players, but as you say the  reason for that is that if you had unrestricted spending you could blow everyone except Man City or presumably anyone else owned by billionaires out of the water. That’s kind of the point of the argument. Every single time a Newcastle fan says “PSR stopped us from buying X and that’s annoying” they are by extension saying “we want to have unrestricted spending”. That’s what puts people’s hackles up.

That's an extension that I don't think is true. I was making a point to Froggy about why PSR restricts us in all situations when brought to its logical end, but that doesn't mean that it's what's desirable or at the crux of every Newcastle fans' argument for why PSR should be loosened.

 

 

Edited yesterday at 11:43 by Kid Icarus

[KingArthur]

49 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?

Which club doesn't have a billionaire owner these days? Leicester didn't spend huge amount of money (very little actually) on transfers, not even when they won the league and got in the UCL. They ended up being in the shit though. 

Football club is like a company, it has risks. The billionaire owner has different ways to protect their asset (club) against that risk. Rules could be put to place to ensure that, no problem. I don't know many people or anyone really who wants unlimited spending.

Bournemouth got up and has hit the ceiling. Brentford got up and has hit the ceiling. Neither of them can invest, their best players will be poached, they need to scout better and better all the time.

But to be honest, I don't care so much. As a foreigner, it is just a fun hobby to me to watch Newcastle United. I just think money has pretty much ruined the whole top level football.

 

[Optimistic Nut]

Not sure what rules there can be, but Coventry should be able to spend the same as Man City, Chelsea & Man Utd if they have the funds. 

[duo]

If you can show proof of funds you should be able to spend what you want

[leffe186]

13 minutes ago, Kid Icarus said:

That's an extension that I don't think is true. I was making a point to Froggy about why PSR restricts us in all situations when brought to its logical end, but that doesn't mean that it's what's desirable or at the crux of every Newcastle fans' argument for why PSR should be loosened.

 

 

 

I think it’s very often true, and I suspect it’s far more often than you think. Flav the Spurs podcaster did a survey a couple of years back (around a time that the Qataris were rumoured to be interested in us) and was taken aback by how many Spurs fans disagreed with him (and me) and would be happy to be owned by a country.

 

Just look at The Prophet and TRon. All fanbases have people who either care or don’t care about it, to varying degrees. And I suspect all fanbases have a lot of people who want unrestricted spending but don’t want to say so out loud. 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 11:56 by leffe186

[Curva Sud Milano]

1 hour ago, KaKa said:

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?

 

Leao's record with us: one decent year, one excellent year, the last three seasons disastrous, and by disastrous I mean we were playing with 10 men.

Don't be fooled by the seemingly good numbers; he's a completely inconsistent player and a footballing "stupid" player. If the situation wasn't bad enough his attitude on the pitch is lazy and he NEVER bothers to recover a ball he's lost.

My dream would be to sell him to Inter.

As a striker he's even worse than on the left flank.

Stay away from him or you'll be battling for relegation.

[Froggy]

19 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Not sure what rules there can be, but Coventry should be able to spend the same as Man City, Chelsea & Man Utd if they have the funds. 

 

And you would hand on heart hold this same view if you were still owned by Ashley and Sunderland were owned by PIF?

[Curva Sud Milano]

43 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

 

Can't speak for other clubs, but given Newcastle have the richest owners in the world, they could easily fund growth by investing money in the same way Manchester City, Chelsea and PSG did. With a few years of success, there would be no negative balance. 

 

Clubs without rich investors are the ones who should need to balance their books, and if they can't they go out of business like with any other venture. That is the nature of the free market. 

 

My impression, hopefully wrong, is that they don't care much about making you a top team but are more interested in extra-football business in the UK.

[Joe1984]

6 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

And you would hand on heart hold this same view if you were still owned by Ashley and Sunderland were owned by PIF?

What I still don't understand is how Man U can be over a billion pounds in debt and still spend shitloads?

 

How is that profitable or sustainable?

 

Makes a mockery of the rules does it not?

 

And to be clear to you Froggy, I'd say the exact sane for any other club, including us. 

[KaKa]

10 minutes ago, Curva Sud Milano said:

 

Leao's record with us: one decent year, one excellent year, the last three seasons disastrous, and by disastrous I mean we were playing with 10 men.

Don't be fooled by the seemingly good numbers; he's a completely inconsistent player and a footballing "stupid" player. If the situation wasn't bad enough his attitude on the pitch is lazy and he NEVER bothers to recover a ball he's lost.

My dream would be to sell him to Inter.

As a striker he's even worse than on the left flank.

Stay away from him or you'll be battling for relegation.

 

Cheers 

 

Going to be interesting to see where he ends up and what becomes of him. Very much an enigma.

[bobbydazzla]

1 hour 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?

Ashley took the piss out of the financial side of NUFC by literally giving away some our most valuable commercial assets to his own company. He was allowed to manipulate a related party transaction deal and because it held  NUFC back the PL did fuck all. 

 

We then get new owners who have the financial clout to re-balance that situation and the PL introduce rules to stop them doing things that they haven’t even tried to do. And PL rush through these new rules before the ink is even dry on the contract to buy NUFC.

 

Cogito ergo sum; related party transactions are fine if they hold you back, but banned if they move you forward. 

 

It’s like buying a house that’s a fixer upper and the other residents of the street are allowed to decide how much you’re able to spend on renovating it.

 

All because a small group of them have the nicest houses in the street and don’t want anyone else to have a house as nice as theirs.
 

And the others in the street outside of that small group are just happy to be able to live in the street and don’t want to cause any unrest. 

 

 

 

 

Edited yesterday at 12:43 by bobbydazzla

[The Larch]

3 minutes ago, Joe1984 said:

What I still don't understand is how Man U can be over a billion pounds in debt and still spend shitloads?

 

How is that profitable or sustainable?

 

Makes a mockery of the rules does it not?

 

And to be clear to you Froggy, I'd say the exact sane for any other club, including us. 

If you buy a house for a billion quid with a mortgage, but its worth two billion quid and the rent you get from it pays the mortgage - then the billion quid of debt isn't really a bad thing.

[Pixelphish]

Ah good, this again.

[Optimistic Nut]

15 minutes ago, Froggy said:

 

And you would hand on heart hold this same view if you were still owned by Ashley and Sunderland were owned by PIF?

 

Why not? We were owned by him for 14 years while they spent above their means anyway. 

[geordie_b]

2 minutes ago, The Larch said:

If you buy a house for a billion quid with a mortgage, but its worth two billion quid and the rent you get from it pays the mortgage - then the billion quid of debt isn't really a bad thing.

 

But in the MUFC example, the house is in a billion quid of debt, not me

[The Larch]

2 minutes ago, bobbydazzla said:

Ashley ran the club into the ground and took the piss out of the financial side of NUFC by literally giving away some our most valuable commercial assets for nothing, to his own company. He was allowed to manipulate a related party transaction deal but because it held us back the PL did fuck all. 

 

We then get new owners who have the financial clout to re-balance that situation and the PL introduce rules to stop them doing things that they haven’t even tried to do. And PL rush through three new rules before the ink is even dry on the contract to buy NUFC.

 

Cogito ergo sum - the value of the related party transactions are fine if they hold you back but must be banned if they move you forward. 

 

It’s like buying a house that’s a fixer upper and the other residents of the street are allowed to decide how much you’re able to spend on renovating it back to a level that is comparable to their houses.

 

All because a small group of them have the nicest houses in the street and don’t want anyone else to have a nicer house than theirs. And the others outside of that small group are just happy to be able to live in the street and don’t want to cause any unrest. 

 

 

Or like entering a new formula one team with a trillion pound backer, but only being allowed to start off in a clapped out old metro until you earn enough money prize money to buy a proper car.

[Froggy]

4 minutes ago, Pixelphish said:

Ah good, this again.

 

It's one of the most important subjects in modern football to be fair.

 

The way the conversation has gone in the last page or two is quite positive.