Jump to content

Recommended Posts

https://www.premierleague.com/publications

 

PL handbook is out for 22/23, lovely to see Yasir, Amanda, Jamie and Majed (Mehrdad must just be a super fan) listed as directors for us (page 32)

 

Interestingly, only the home kit uploaded so far. CEO as "to be advised" and Derek Wright still listed as senior physio as well. I wonder when the cut off was for publication?

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jack27 said:

https://www.premierleague.com/publications

 

PL handbook is out for 22/23, lovely to see Yasir, Amanda, Jamie and Majed (Mehrdad must just be a super fan) listed as directors for us (page 32)

 

Interestingly, only the home kit uploaded so far. CEO as "to be advised" and Derek Wright still listed as senior physio as well. I wonder when the cut off was for publication?

Mehrdad is part owner but not on the board 

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, gdm said:

Mehrdad is part owner but not on the board 

Makes sense, think I read PCP will get two board seats once the loan used for their shares is paid back to Reubens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Jack27 said:

Makes sense, think I read PCP will get two board seats once the loan used for their shares is paid back to Reubens.

 

Mehrdad & Amanda seem to both be as active on the work front for NUFC and handle various tasks together or separately. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

On 16/07/2022 at 20:57, Pata said:


Yeah, it’s not impossible and would be a huge lift to the status of the club. It will just be incredibly hard. Big six squad values are 2-3 times that of ours and they are likely to spend just as much as we are spending. They also have sellable assets that we sadly lack for the foreseeable future. Then there’s the next tier of well ran clubs that are spending too that we would have to overcome.

 

 

 


Yeah, the sellable assets are a big gap to bridge. I was surprised to see Chelsea’s squad value go up so much, but when you check the details you see that they have 32 players listed :lol:. It includes all their army of loanees who are now back at the club. Spurs’ value (and presumably some of the others too) is bolstered by guys like Reguilon and Ndombele who are obviously not going to play a part this season.

 

It’s probably going to take a couple of years, but you’ve got a lot of money that’s going to come in and the sponsorship deals have already started. More importantly in the short term you have an excellent manager, a squad that has already performed vastly better and the full backing of the fans which will likely lead to an improved home record.

 

This year is a wild card because of the World Cup. I genuinely believe that anything can happen, although it should be Man City, Liverpool and the rest. The following year will be key, particularly with (as seems likely) five CL places up for grabs. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

This suggests we really aren’t being bankrolled by the Saudis in any way. Pretty disappointing. I’d love to know what exactly the funding agreement is between PIF and the minority owners.

 

 

Edited by Bompeter

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Bompeter said:

This suggests we really aren’t being bankrolled by the Saudis in any way. Pretty disappointing. 


:lol: no one takes you seriously. Just give up 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ponsaelius said:

Do find it a bit alarming that they wouldn't just put their own cash in like other club owners do. Unless there is FFP benefits I am missing.


There’s no FFP element here. It doesn’t distinguish between finance raised externally or finance raised via the owners. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be nothing to do with PIF perhaps? Say we want to spend another £100 million on transfers but don’t have the money, PIF may put their 80% in but maybe PCP and/or Rueben don’t have that cash so are taking a loan for their 10% shares?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, The Prophet said:

I wonder if it's a way of injecting cash without falling foul of FFP and "related party transactions"?


Related party transactions relate to revenue or expenditure earned/levied by related parties, not the injection of capital.

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
×
×
  • Create New...