Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

PIF and RB Sports & Media - Darren Eales to step down from CEO after being diagnosed with blood cancer.

Yorkie

by Yorkie
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Pata

Pata

Posted
Posted

The money they can pump to a single football club (even without FFP) is absolute peanuts compared to everything else they do. The cost of a WC bid or creating their own super league out of nothing by signing the best players around the world is so much more expensive. My point is them buying us and not investing the relatively small sums even a new stadium and/or training complex takes would be really weird considering investing on the players is so heavily restricted by FFP. It shouldn't take much to make us worth 3-4 billion and they have a massive profit on the books.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Myleftboot

Myleftboot

Posted
Posted
51 minutes ago, Pata said:

The money they can pump to a single football club (even without FFP) is absolute peanuts compared to everything else they do. The cost of a WC bid or creating their own super league out of nothing by signing the best players around the world is so much more expensive. My point is them buying us and not investing the relatively small sums even a new stadium and/or training complex takes would be really weird considering investing on the players is so heavily restricted by FFP. It shouldn't take much to make us worth 3-4 billion and they have a massive profit on the books.

Specially when they’ve given Jon Rahm a £400 million signing on fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites
macphisto

macphisto

Posted
Posted
9 hours ago, Fezzle said:

I'd be utterly shocked if we could double it in four years given that's effectively £400m a season ?

Don't think I read it here (I think I read it in the Athletic where it was more explicit) but this is  Eales' quote: "If you look at our pace, roughly doubling the revenue every two years gives you an indication of how we’re looking, which is a phenomenal rate of growth."

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheBrownBottle

TheBrownBottle

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, macphisto said:

Don't think I read it here (I think I read it in the Athletic where it was more explicit) but this is  Eales' quote: "If you look at our pace, roughly doubling the revenue every two years gives you an indication of how we’re looking, which is a phenomenal rate of growth."

Looks like our CEO can’t do numbers, then.

 

We haven’t doubled turnover in the first two years - but if we had, and then doubled it again in the following two, we’d have an income of c.£850m p.a.   For context, Man City has the world’s highest turnover at just over £700m p.a.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
aa5773

aa5773

Posted
Posted
16 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Ive been thinking for sometime now and still haven’t come up with a clear answer so let’s put this out there and see where everyone thinks. 
 

Am I the only one who isn’t exactly clear where we stand? I know the public professions have been we are going to be the biggest club in the world but I’m not 100% convinced by them tbh (PS this isn’t a criticism of the owners who have undoubtedly transformed the club). 
 

The reason for my thoughts are because we’ve left of a boatload of money on the table. We don’t have a training ground sponsor, we don’t have a training kit sponsor, we could do some stadium name rights ( Everton had a sponsor for a stadium which isn’t even built :lol: ). 
 

we were looking for a plot of land for a new training complex two years ago) no updates. 
 

took us two years to start a feasibility study for stadium expansion. 
 

The Saudi pro league. 

Our multi club ambitions also seem to be in the long grass which is a strategic error imo. 

 

I mean the above factors are arguably in contrast to the stated public aims. 
 

And again, to repeat this isn’t a criticism of the owners, I just wanted to throw these things out there and see what others think. 

 

 

 

At the end of the day, there are vast differences between PIF and ADUG or even Abramovich. PIF's main aim is profit, to expand their revenue for the good of the people of Saudi Arabia, all 40 million of them. While ADUG's main aim is the same as PIF's, the UAE only has 1 million people to cater to. Roman Abramovich is a private businessman; whatever he did, he did it for himself.

 

So yeah, PIF (even without FFP) can't do the same thing that Roman or ADUG did. PIF will put profit and the good of the Saudi Arabian people first and foremost.

 

The notion that 'PIF has this amount of money, so Newcastle United is the richest club in the world' is a bit misleading. Firstly, PIF doesn't have that amount of money; it's mainly an investment (money on paper), not hard cash. Secondly, even if it's hard cash, it's not owned by PIF or HRH CP Muhammad bin Salman; it's owned by the people of Saudi Arabia. So PIF will only use the money if it will bring profit and/or growth to PIF's portfolio.

Link to post
Share on other sites
High Five o

High Five o

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, aa5773 said:

At the end of the day, there are vast differences between PIF and ADUG or even Abramovich. PIF's main aim is profit, to expand their revenue for the good of the people of Saudi Arabia, all 40 million of them. While ADUG's main aim is the same as PIF's, the UAE only has 1 million people to cater to. Roman Abramovich is a private businessman; whatever he did, he did it for himself.

 

So yeah, PIF (even without FFP) can't do the same thing that Roman or ADUG did. PIF will put profit and the good of the Saudi Arabian people first and foremost.

 

The notion that 'PIF has this amount of money, so Newcastle United is the richest club in the world' is a bit misleading. Firstly, PIF doesn't have that amount of money; it's mainly an investment (money on paper), not hard cash. Secondly, even if it's hard cash, it's not owned by PIF or HRH CP Muhammad bin Salman; it's owned by the people of Saudi Arabia. So PIF will only use the money if it will bring profit and/or growth to PIF's portfolio.


LIV golf and the Saudi League. Just two examples that contradicts your point.


 

Link to post
Share on other sites
High Five o

High Five o

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, aa5773 said:

LIV golf makes hugh profit for PIF, unlike Newcastle United.
 

Roshn SPL is for the good of Saudi Arabian, entertainment wise. Eg, keep your population entertained etc...

LIV are yet to make any profit.

 

Both are vanity projects, not commercially lucrative.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

Guest

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, aa5773 said:

At the end of the day, there are vast differences between PIF and ADUG or even Abramovich. PIF's main aim is profit, to expand their revenue for the good of the people of Saudi Arabia, all 40 million of them. While ADUG's main aim is the same as PIF's, the UAE only has 1 million people to cater to. Roman Abramovich is a private businessman; whatever he did, he did it for himself.

 

So yeah, PIF (even without FFP) can't do the same thing that Roman or ADUG did. PIF will put profit and the good of the Saudi Arabian people first and foremost.

 

The notion that 'PIF has this amount of money, so Newcastle United is the richest club in the world' is a bit misleading. Firstly, PIF doesn't have that amount of money; it's mainly an investment (money on paper), not hard cash. Secondly, even if it's hard cash, it's not owned by PIF or HRH CP Muhammad bin Salman; it's owned by the people of Saudi Arabia. So PIF will only use the money if it will bring profit and/or growth to PIF's portfolio.

 

I think all of this is fair, but the bit in bold. I imagine someone representing PIF would have watched and signed off the documentary that went out at the start of the season? 

 

Shearer a few times as narrator clearly refers to us as "the richest football club in the world".

 

If we weren't, or if PIF didn't want that acknowledged, I really doubt he'd have been able to get away with saying this on the programme?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The College Dropout

The College Dropout

Posted
Posted
12 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I agree mate, this is why FFP isn’t operating in the way that it should.  FFP should protect football clubs generally; it shouldn’t be protecting the status quo

Yeah, good points.  Don’t get me wrong, I think they’re serious re growing the club etc.  If Abu Dhabi sold Man City tomorrow they’d make a profit; Abramovich would have had a profit if his assets weren’t seized.  But both those clubs were invested in in ways which aren’t possible today - so PIF can say ‘we’ll be no. 1’, but I’m not at all convinced it’s possible in the current landscape no matter how steady the growth. 

A profit in buying/selling. Overall both would have made a massive loss iirc. The money they've spent on transfers and infrastructure

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheBrownBottle

TheBrownBottle

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

A profit in buying/selling. Overall both would have made a massive loss iirc. The money they've spent on transfers and infrastructure

No - Chelsea went for more than Abramovich had invested including the purchase price.  Man City are valued at c.£4bn - far more than Abu Dhabi has poured in. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheBrownBottle

TheBrownBottle

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Including the years of losses? And cost of infrastructure?

Yes.  Stamford Bridge already existed and we paid for Man City’s ground.  Man City’s training facilities cost c.£200m.

 

Clubs have incomes, which does fund a lot of the costs, regardless of the wealth of the ownership.  NUFC has spent £400m on transfers under the current ownership, but that doesn’t mean the owners have put £400m into the club. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheBrownBottle

TheBrownBottle

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Including the years of losses? And cost of infrastructure?

If you’re curious re Abramovich, Chelsea posted total losses of £900m over 18 years under him.  Allowing for the purchase of the club and inflation during that period, you’re looking at somewhere in the region of £1.5bn.

 

Boehly paid £4.25bn for Chelsea.  Without the sanctions, Abramovich would have pocketed all of that profit.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
The College Dropout

The College Dropout

Posted
Posted (edited)
9 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yes.  Stamford Bridge already existed and we paid for Man City’s ground.  Man City’s training facilities cost c.£200m.

 

Clubs have incomes, which does fund a lot of the costs, regardless of the wealth of the ownership.  NUFC has spent £400m on transfers under the current ownership, but that doesn’t mean the owners have put £400m into the club. 

Aye but Chelsea was running at an operational loss for 20 years - most years. Abramovic had a 1.5bn loan given to Chelsea.

 

Spending £2bn to make £500m over 20 years isn't a great investment.

 

Edit: Haven't looked at the numbers in detail

 

 

Edited by The College Dropout

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheBrownBottle

TheBrownBottle

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

Aye but Chelsea was running at an operational loss for 20 years - most years. Abramovic had a 1.5bn loan given to Chelsea.

 

Spending £2bn to make £500m over 20 years isn't a great investment.

 

Edit: Haven't looked at the numbers in detail

 

 

 

£900m total loss over 18 years, again allowing for inflation say £1.5bn.  Club was sold for £4.25bn.  Total profit = well over £2bn.

 

Doesn’t sound too bad to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheBrownBottle

TheBrownBottle

Posted
Posted
Just now, Groundhog63 said:

Chelsea, much like half of London was a Russian money laundering exercise. Abramovitch is just a very well recompensed middle man. They bought the tories. That's why we have 2 in the HoLs

Yep.  State assets stolen and laundered through scum like Abramovich.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheBrownBottle

TheBrownBottle

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Aye but Chelsea was running at an operational loss for 20 years - most years. Abramovic had a 1.5bn loan given to Chelsea.

 

Spending £2bn to make £500m over 20 years isn't a great investment.

 

Edit: Haven't looked at the numbers in detail

 

 

 

Mansour has also comfortably doubled his investment in Man City:

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/zakgarnerpurkis/2021/05/29/sheikh-mansours-biggest-win-manchester-citys-46-billion-increase-in-value/amp/

 

This is what PIF will be aware of - and club valuations are continuing to increase.  NUFC require far more infrastructure investment than Man City and Chelsea, though of course PIF can’t spunk money on transfers anymore.   If PIF spent, say, £700m on a state of the art new super stadium, and used its considerable reach to pull in sponsorships, and threw another £1bn at the club - say a total cost of £2.5bn, then the gamble would be that a successful NUFC in 5-10 years is worth several times that figure. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Menace

Menace

Posted
Posted
40 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

£900m total loss over 18 years, again allowing for inflation say £1.5bn.  Club was sold for £4.25bn.  Total profit = well over £2bn.

 

Doesn’t sound too bad to me. 

 

Would be - shame that the money he got from selling the club he hasn't seen a penny of.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...