Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, The College Dropout said:

It won't have been "natural". It's the same driving force as City & Chelsea that is capped by FFP.

 

We'll use some of the same mechanisms they both now use to maintain their advantage - esp. build one of the best academy's in world football, sign the best youngsters in world football, sell them at massive profits. That wouldn't have been natural.

 

You fancy Newcastle to do the business the morra big man?

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Charlies said:

Harbottle park in NE6, or the  old ground site nearby. You heard it here first :lol: 

Benson road. Grace street. Scarborough road. Cleadon  street. Cullercoats street. Canterbury street. 
 

Building a stadium on harbottle field isn’t going to cut it being so close to possibly the most deprived area of the city.

 

The owners want corporate visitors to not see deprivation. Want them to see a lush environment with high towers and thriving business.

 

It simply won’t happen. 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Infatuation Junkie said:

Benson road. Grace street. Scarborough road. Cleadon  street. Cullercoats street. Canterbury street. 
 

Building a stadium on harbottle field isn’t going to cut it being so close to possibly the most deprived area of the city.

 

The owners want corporate visitors to not see deprivation. Want them to see a lush environment with high towers and thriving business.

 

It simply won’t happen. 

 

 


You’re presuming that the owners aren’t intending to do similar to the Man City owners to that deprived area of the city. Was the fact that Newcastle is ripe for redevelopment not part of the appeal?

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

It won't have been "natural". It's the same driving force as City & Chelsea that is capped by FFP.

 

We'll use some of the same mechanisms they both now use to maintain their advantage - esp. build one of the best academy's in world football, sign the best youngsters in world football, sell them at massive profits. That wouldn't have been natural.

It'd more organic than near bankrupt one day then signing worldies a day later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, madras said:

Dunno like, I remember Liverpool in the 70s and early 80s 

Then the 90’s it was Man U then City and Chelsea………it’s always been about money and all relative to the decades the money was spent in. The only constant was the  4-6 teams at the top. Now we’re in the hands of extremely wealthy owners they don’t like it……..fucking tough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, madras said:

It'd more organic than near bankrupt one day then signing worldies a day later.

I get what you mean but it's not "organic" IMO. Brighton is organic, Villa is more-so organic than us. We will have leveraged an oil-rich state for success no matter how we look at it.

 

Chelsea was such an interesting one. Aye they were almost bankrupt but finishing in the CL (organically) saved them. They had a pretty successful 10-year period prior to that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I get what you mean but it's not "organic" IMO. Brighton is organic, Villa is more-so organic than us. We will have leveraged an oil-rich state for success no matter how we look at it.

 

Chelsea was such an interesting one. Aye they were almost bankrupt but finishing in the CL (organically) saved them. They had a pretty successful 10-year period prior to that.

Nothing organic about success in football, the capital came in at large quantities for all big clubs just at different times. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

I get what you mean but it's not "organic" IMO. Brighton is organic, Villa is more-so organic than us. We will have leveraged an oil-rich state for success no matter how we look at it.

 

Chelsea was such an interesting one. Aye they were almost bankrupt but finishing in the CL (organically) saved them. They had a pretty successful 10-year period prior to that.

Chelseas American CEO (Buck ?) Said they were days from going bust until Abramovic came in, Villa's owners put money in, Ashley did as well..... what's organic ?

 

The Lake District is more natural than the centre of London but still massively man made.

 

 

Edited by madras

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, madras said:

Chelseas American CEO (Buck ?) Said they were days from going bust until Abramovic came in, Villa's owners put money in, Ashley did as well..... what's organic ?

 

The Lake District is more natural than the centre of London but still massively man made.

 

 

 

They would've gone bust had they not beaten Liverpool on the last day of the season to get into the CL. Qualifying for the CL kept them from going bankrupt this is well documented. Abramovic turned up weeks later but the Liverpool match was the first big moment.

 

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/article/beating-liverpool-in-2003

 

Wealthy owners in football have a long history as we both know. While Villa owners are investing money, it's not the same as us. 

 

Teams owned by oil-rich countries - is something else entirely. In Europe, there are only 3. Us, City & PSG. No matter how we slice it, we are closer to those 2, than Aston Villa or Brighton.

 

While we have their backing. Villa are not in the same stratosphere of potential as us. Our main shirt sponsor is essentially owned by our Owners, as are another few sponsors. Villa's owners can't do that. 

 

We'll have bought our way to success very sheer force. Any parameter to stop us or slow us down, we'll find other ways. The stadium and academy alone will give us better revenues in 7 years.

 

At a high-level - yes all teams buy their way to success. Agreed. That doesn't make our success organic because we can't spend like PSG.

 

 

Edited by The College Dropout

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

I get what you mean but it's not "organic" IMO. Brighton is organic, Villa is more-so organic than us. We will have leveraged an oil-rich state for success no matter how we look at it.

 

Chelsea was such an interesting one. Aye they were almost bankrupt but finishing in the CL (organically) saved them. They had a pretty successful 10-year period prior to that.

Villa has had huge sums poured in.  Tony Bloom has put over half a billion quid into Brighton.  Without Bloom’s massive capital injections, Brighton would likely be where they normally are - the third tier.  Villa’s owners pumped in a third of a billion in non-repayable share issues.  Imagine if Leeds or Sheff Wed had a similar investment.

 

There’s nothing ‘organic’ about either of them.  Brighton is far, far less organic than NUFC - there is far more argument that huge investment has them well above their ‘natural’ status. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Newcastle MUST grow, unimpeded by FFP, otherwise it's a waste of time for them. The Saudi's will have to get creative with sales/ loans to Newcastle from the Saudi Pro League.

 

 

Edited by BrianSwan

Link to post
Share on other sites

The irony is that the PL becoming such a global brand,backed by Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool as the poster boys, is what attracted the oil money and state funds to the league and upsetting their applecart.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

The irony is that the PL becoming such a global brand,backed by Man U, Arsenal and Liverpool as the poster boys, is what attracted the oil money and state funds to the league and upsetting their applecart.

I also think Abramovic was great for the PL brand. That "big 4" was great for the PL. Wenger, Ferguson, Mourinho, Benitez. For the previous decade, it was Man U + 1 and English clubs were largely off it in the European Cup / Champions League.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mahrez, Laporte and Milinković-Savić from the Saudi Pro League and Newcastle become a top 4 team again.

 

All other multi club models have benefited from each other, why wouldn't Newcastle?

 

 

 

Edited by BrianSwan

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The College Dropout said:

They would've gone bust had they not beaten Liverpool on the last day of the season to get into the CL. Qualifying for the CL kept them from going bankrupt this is well documented. Abramovic turned up weeks later but the Liverpool match was the first big moment.

 

https://www.chelseafc.com/en/news/article/beating-liverpool-in-2003

 

Wealthy owners in football have a long history as we both know. While Villa owners are investing money, it's not the same as us. 

 

Teams owned by oil-rich countries - is something else entirely. In Europe, there are only 3. Us, City & PSG. No matter how we slice it, we are closer to those 2, than Aston Villa or Brighton.

 

While we have their backing. Villa are not in the same stratosphere of potential as us. Our main shirt sponsor is essentially owned by our Owners, as are another few sponsors. Villa's owners can't do that. 

 

We'll have bought our way to success very sheer force. Any parameter to stop us or slow us down, we'll find other ways. The stadium and academy alone will give us better revenues in 7 years.

 

At a high-level - yes all teams buy their way to success. Agreed. That doesn't make our success organic because we can't spend like PSG.

 

 

 

Chelsea..... it was a lot closer than made out https://www.theguardian.com/football/2005/oct/17/newsstory.sport9

 

Villa is the same as us, they can only put in so much before FFP and the Sela deal was FMV. Given the profile of the club and Champions league most would reckon we could've got similar value from someone not at all connected with Saudi, as our other deals have been.

 

Potential is purely that at the moment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, BrianSwan said:

Mahrez, Laporte and Milinković-Savić from the Saudi Pro League and Newcastle become a top 4 team again.

 

All other multi club models have benefited from each other, why wouldn't Newcastle?

 

 

 

 

Because the KSA govt bought those players to benefit their own league?  Why would they just give them to us?

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, The College Dropout said:

I also think Abramovic was great for the PL brand. That "big 4" was great for the PL. Wenger, Ferguson, Mourinho, Benitez. For the previous decade, it was Man U + 1 and English clubs were largely off it in the European Cup / Champions League.

 

Yeah. I think once City got involved and potentially us, it's upset them a lot. They were still guaranteed to challenge and be in the CL more often than not. The new money ruined that for them. Sod them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Because the KSA govt bought those players to benefit their own league?  Why would they just give them to us?

Cause they can buy more.

 

Infinite money glitch. Newcastle on the other hand are hamstrung by rules and regulations in their particular league.

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Because the KSA govt bought those players to benefit their own league?  Why would they just give them to us?

 

It seems like some still think that the Saudis are going to put NUFC ahead of their own national interests....that's just not going to happen. But on the plus side, NUFC doing well is now also a matter of pride for them, so the two aren't mutually exclusive.

Link to post
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:


You’re presuming that the owners aren’t intending to do similar to the Man City owners to that deprived area of the city. Was the fact that Newcastle is ripe for redevelopment not part of the appeal?


They did have a bit of an advantage in that the club was essentially gifted a new stadium in an area built for it. It’s not like they were moving into Maine Road.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, leffe186 said:


They did have a bit of an advantage in that the club was essentially gifted a new stadium in an area built for it. It’s not like they were moving into Maine Road.

 

 

Well yes but have Abu Dhabi not completely redeveloped much of east Manchester? 

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...