Jump to content
Newcastle-Online

PIF and RB Sports & Media

Yorkie

by Yorkie
in Football

 Share

Recommended Posts

Dr.Spaceman

Dr.Spaceman

Posted
Posted

Newcastle's search for a new chief executive continues, and Confidential understands one man in the frame is Vinai Venkatesham.

The 43-year-old worked with current chief commercial officer Peter Silverstone at Arsenal for seven years and they formed a close relationship.

 

The Gunners signed a £300million, five-year deal with kit supplier adidas during their time in north London, before Silverstone left in 2022, and Venkatesham stood down earlier this year, citing his desire to pursue a new challenge.

 

When Venkatesham first announced he would be leaving, Silverstone posted a message on his LinkedIn page that read: 'Congratulations on an incredible career at Arsenal. Obviously I was extremely fortunate to spend seven years working alongside you and am extremely grateful for the opportunity you gave me, the incredible work we did together and areas where you helped me develop.

 

'Some great (and amusing) memories too. I know you'll continue to work like a maniac for the next year but I do hope you take some time to reflect and enjoy the last lap. See you soon.'

It was confirmed in September that Newcastle chief executive Darren Eales would be standing down from his position after being diagnosed with a chronic form of blood cancer. He will continue to work until a successor is appointed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Joelinton7

Joelinton7

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Elliottman said:

Just watched the main event and saw them. That’s a mad 4some, Trump, Musk, Yassir and Kid Rock. Is there a glitch in the World at the moment?! 

Aye, the US president, owner of Twitter/luncatic who sends rockets to space, Kid Rock and the chairman of Newcastle United. Someone definitely killed a fish or windmilled a butterfly somewhere. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheBrownBottle

TheBrownBottle

Posted
Posted
On 17/11/2024 at 21:21, PauloGeordio said:

image.thumb.png.30e89b61f07c86567815a56ca4f84510.png

 

Newcastle chairman Yasir Al-Rumayyan enjoying front-row seats at #UFC309 alongside Donald Trump and Elon Musk. We is big! [emoji38]

Yasir peddling Miggy to The Orange one!

 

 

 

PIF funded Musk’s Twitter takeover.

 

Can’t say it makes me any less comfortable than I was before - Trump is an authoritarian at minimum, and a fascist at worst, and Musk’s cunt bone fides are an open book.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Stifler

Stifler

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, GeordieT said:

 

For the record, issuing new shares is!’t allowed from a PSR perspective. You are allowed to do it, but it doesn’t count towards your income. So if this is for January, then it would mean that we are allowed to spend another £35m that the club doesn’t currently have.

It could be used for anything else non-football related.

Link to post
Share on other sites
500bhp

500bhp

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Stifler said:

For the record, issuing new shares is!’t allowed from a PSR perspective. You are allowed to do it, but it doesn’t count towards your income. So if this is for January, then it would mean that we are allowed to spend another £35m that the club doesn’t currently have.

It could be used for anything else non-football related.

It'll be for liqudity/cashflow purposes. It has no impact at all on PSR headroom or calculations. You can issue new share capital whenever you want, PSR does not prohibit this. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich

Rich

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Stifler said:

For the record, issuing new shares is!’t allowed from a PSR perspective. You are allowed to do it, but it doesn’t count towards your income. So if this is for January, then it would mean that we are allowed to spend another £35m that the club doesn’t currently have.

It could be used for anything else non-football related.


Is it not just the standard allowable annual injection of cash from owners? It’s £105M over a three year period IIRC, so £35M a year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich

Rich

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Unbelievable said:

Don't think so. The 105m/3 year rolling is allowable losses.


I thought owners are allowed to provide that same level of secure funding over three years, by way of equity injection, etc.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich

Rich

Posted
Posted

Just had a quick look, and it’s £90M of owner-injected funding allowed over three years:

 

‘Premier League clubs can...

 

Make 'allowable' losses of up to £5m/season (averaged over three seasons)

 

Increase that figure to £35m/year with owner investment (averaged over three seasons)’

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
r0cafella

r0cafella

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Rich said:

Just had a quick look, and it’s £90M of owner-injected funding allowed over three years:

 

‘Premier League clubs can...

 

Make 'allowable' losses of up to £5m/season (averaged over three seasons)

 

Increase that figure to £35m/year with owner investment (averaged over three seasons)’

 

 

This is why squad cost terrifies me btw. Especially if the owner investment component is removed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
TheBrownBottle

TheBrownBottle

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, Rich said:

Just had a quick look, and it’s £90M of owner-injected funding allowed over three years:

 

‘Premier League clubs can...

 

Make 'allowable' losses of up to £5m/season (averaged over three seasons)

 

Increase that figure to £35m/year with owner investment (averaged over three seasons)’

 

 

They’re accounting losses - it doesn’t necessarily mean that the club is only running up a £35m deficit in a season.  The injection is likely to cover salaries etc. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Jackie Broon

Jackie Broon

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, TheBrownBottle said:

They’re accounting losses - it doesn’t necessarily mean that the club is only running up a £35m deficit in a season.  The injection is likely to cover salaries etc. 

 

It's a big gap though, £430m vs. £105m covering allowable of losses in the three years since the takeover. Maybe part of it was clearing the loan that transferred from Ashley? But that's still a big difference. It would be interesting to understand how the difference is accounted for because I doubt our infrastructure, women's team and youth spending is anywhere near that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Keegans Export

Keegans Export

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

It's a big gap though, £430m vs. £105m covering allowable of losses in the three years since the takeover. Maybe part of it was clearing the loan that transferred from Ashley? But that's still a big difference. It would be interesting to understand how the difference is accounted for because I doubt our infrastructure, women's team and youth spending is anywhere near that.

Presumably at least part of it will be our favourite word - amortisation.

 

eg. Isak cost £63m, I'm not sure how much of that was paid up-front but assuming all/most of it then we'd need £63m cash but only £12.6m would be on the years accounts. There's £50m straight away. Gordon I'm fairly sure was £45m cash because Everton needed the money so that's £45m versus £10-15m on the accounts.

 

 

Edited by Keegans Export

Link to post
Share on other sites
NSG

NSG

Posted
Posted
On 20/11/2024 at 08:58, Rich said:

Just had a quick look, and it’s £90M of owner-injected funding allowed over three years:

 

‘Premier League clubs can...

 

Make 'allowable' losses of up to £5m/season (averaged over three seasons)

 

Increase that figure to £35m/year with owner investment (averaged over three seasons)’

 

 


Cash =/= Accounting loss

 

They can put in as much cash as they like, but only £90m over 3 years can go down as a loss on the P&L

 

They can still invest in capital projects (ie stadium expansion) and women’s team etc as much as they like.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Rich

Rich

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, NSG said:


Cash =/= Accounting loss

 

They can put in as much cash as they like, but only £90m over 3 years can go down as a loss on the P&L

 

They can still invest in capital projects (ie stadium expansion) and women’s team etc as much as they like.


Aye, understand all that, I was speaking purely about what’s allowable from an accounting perspective under PSR. Should’ve been clearer.

 

People had said issuing shares isn’t allowed under PSR and that this is totally unrelated to PSR, when we need to be issuing £90M’s worth every three years purely for PSR reasons at the moment.

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...