PIF and RB Sports & Media

[timeEd32]

5 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

By organic growth I simply mean maximising revenues and league finishes without FFP hacks. 
 

Spurs qualified for 4 straight CLs. If we do that we’ll challenge for the title because our owners ambition and what that would mean for revenues.
 

Spurs wage budget to revenue is one of the lowest in the league.  They are not trying to win the league or trophies. 
 

But are we going to £70m signings our way to sustained Europe? While our revenue is £100m short of Spurs? Spurs wouldn’t even sign a £70m CB. 

 

 

 

 

* £250-300m.

[Mikky]

1 minute ago, timeEd32 said:

 

* £250-300m.

The stadium is a big issue - doesn’t provide the necessary income we need - a modern stadium I reckon gets you at least £100-£150m a year in extra revenue which is huge 

 

Boxing, Concerts, NFL, WWE, Rugby, Friendlies etc etc 

[macphisto]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

By organic growth I simply mean maximising revenues and league finishes without FFP hacks. 
 

Spurs qualified for 4 straight CLs. If we do that we’ll challenge for the title because our owners ambition and what that would mean for revenues.
 

Spurs wage budget to revenue is one of the lowest in the league.  They are not trying to win the league or trophies. 
 

But are we going to £70m signings our way to sustained Europe? While our revenue is £100m short of Spurs? 

OK, so my original point still stands that no team has competed at the top through organic growth because in the example of Spurs they weren't even trying to compete for trophies or leagues. 

 

I'm not trying to be a dick, but look back at the history of the PL league and any teams trying to seriously overhaul the status quo:

Blackburn

Leeds (briefly under Ridsdale) 

Newcastle 

Chelsea

Man City

 

They all chucked money in at the beginning to get going, you can't get away from it. An initial big investment is the only way to get anywhere if you truly want to challenge at the top of the table. 

[The College Dropout]

8 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

Totally get the possible disconnect you're talking about and I know Eales has again said Europe is the goal, but we don't know that everyone isn't a bit more realistic in private. I'd also like to think that if PIF does expect consistent top 6 that someone other than Eddie would be blamed based on how the summer went.

 

If none of that is true then Eddie basically made a rod for his own back by finishing 4th.

I don’t think the club would communicate goals higher than what they are discussing privately.  The opposite is more likely.  It ramps pressure in the media and with fans when they apparently don’t believe it.  
 

The other messaging is also consistent with needing immediate success. ‘Improve the first team’ and the difficulty finding that profile.  If the profile of player we need is proven Schar/Botman level or better - yeh it’s going to be difficult. 
 

 

Even if they blame someone else - the core strategy of needing immediate over performance would remain.  Any DOF would need to sign ready made players. Any CEO would need to prioritise short-term success. 

[TheBrownBottle]

1 hour ago, Dr Jinx said:

It was never a vanity project. Saudis 2030 thing doesn’t include Newcastle as a feature.. it’s about their own league.

 

I think they’ll have a value in mind of hitting before they sell. 3bn maybe. We’re halfway there.

 

*que the Bon Jovi puns 

Bon Jovi should have sang ‘we’re a third of the way there’ if he wanted to be accurate 

 

Also, growing to a £3bn club would mean winning a lot of trophies - don’t see how we get there finishing 6th/7th a few times

[The College Dropout]

6 minutes ago, macphisto said:

OK, so my original point still stands that no team has competed at the top through organic growth because in the example of Spurs they weren't even trying to compete for trophies or leagues. 

 

I'm not trying to be a dick, but look back at the history of the PL league and any teams trying to seriously overhaul the status quo:

Blackburn

Leeds (briefly under Ridsdale) 

Newcastle 

Chelsea

Man City

 

They all chucked money in at the beginning to get going, you can't get away from it. An initial big investment is the only way to get anywhere if you truly want to challenge at the top of the table. 

I don’t understand your point.  
 

We can’t do a Chelsea, Blackburn or City because of FFP.   We can only get closer to spending vast sums if we bend the FFP rules (multi club, creative accounting, a gazillion small sponsors). PIF dont seem willing to do this.  
 

The other option is more organic growth that allows us to raise revenues and commercial deals in line with FMV. We spend what we can as the rules want us too. 
 

We’ve spent our initial big investment. 

[macphisto]

11 minutes ago, timeEd32 said:

 

After the time period TCD is referencing Spurs played in a LC final, finished 3rd, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and then made a CL final and another LC final. They could have won multiple trophies. They are actually a very good example of how you can do just about everything right and still fall short. There will always be an element of the right players with the right manager at the right time. But they've set themselves up to be in the mix every year.

No there's not, look at the list of winners for the League and Cups, it's pretty much been the same four/five teams for a long time now. 

 

Regarding Spurs, so the best team we can come up with as an example of organic growth is Spurs who came close but never won anything. You could argue they are now reverting back to their traditional position of just above mid-table but never threatening the very top of the table. 

 

[macphisto]

1 minute ago, The College Dropout said:

I don’t understand your point.  
 

We can’t do a Chelsea, Blackburn or City because of FFP.   We can only get closer to spending vast sums if we bend the FFP rules (multi club, creative accounting, a gazillion small sponsors). PIF dont seem willing to do this.  
 

The other option is more organic growth that allows us to raise revenues and commercial deals in line with FMV. We spend what we can as the rules want us too. 
 

We’ve spent our initial big investment. 

What I'm saying is that organic growth to achieve the stated aims of our owners is not possible. 

 

PIF will need to either pump money into the club or abandon what they said they were going to do. We are no where near spending what we can as third-party deals are allowed, we're just choosing not to use them. One thing about bending FFP rules, was Odysseas Vlachodimos not an example of what we can do when we really want to? I know that's player trading but I'm sure if we applied the same spirit to commercial deals that we'd be a lot better off. 

 

If PIF do not invest significant sums then the other option to me is not organic growth but rather hovering in mid-table/possibly threatening a Champions League place if the stars align every now and again. I can accept this scenario, as that's the way the PL works, but PIF should be a little more clear in what they say and not raise people's expectations. 

[Wolfcastle]

Organic growth that any club has experienced has come through sustained success which is no longer permitted for outsiders because it requires expenditure to achieve sustained success.

[The College Dropout]

6 minutes ago, macphisto said:

What I'm saying is that organic growth to achieve the stated aims of our owners is not possible. 

 

PIF will need to either pump money into the club or abandon what they said they were going to do. We are no where near spending what we can as third-party deals are allowed, we're just choosing not to use them. One thing about bending FFP rules, was Odysseas Vlachodimos not an example of what we can do when we really want to? I know that's player trading but I'm sure if we applied the same spirit to commercial deals that we'd be a lot better off. 

 

If PIF do not invest significant sums then the other option to me is not organic growth but rather hovering in mid-table/possibly threatening a Champions League place if the stars align every now and again. I can accept this scenario, as that's the way the PL works, but PIF should be a little more clear in what they say and not raise people's expectations. 

Ok so you think PIF need to bend the rules and spend? Maximise every revenue stream possible? Which - they don’t seem to be willing to do. 
 

The Forest keeper was a last minute tactic to be FFP compliant. Which is why we got the worst deal of all the FFP transfers. It wasn’t part of a strategic approach for FFP circumvention like it clearly is for Villa and Chelsea who have done it multiple times with young players they can re-trade. 
 

Broadly I kind of agree with you. Except I think a Dortmund, RB, Souped up Brighton model can work while we make the academy one of the best in the country.  But that’s a 3-10 year plan. In that time we should have a new stadium too. 

If we don’t do that aye we either need to spend vast sums somehow (through FFP hacks). Or we do the last thing you suggested which is a suped up West Ham.  If that’s the approach aye it needs to be communicated too.  That’s my least favoured approach.  

[Kanj]

Far slower progress (than I'd like) on commercial revenues because the red tape put in place post takeover. There is no way to speed up PL review / comment. 

[TRon]

20 minutes ago, macphisto said:

What I'm saying is that organic growth to achieve the stated aims of our owners is not possible. 

 

PIF will need to either pump money into the club or abandon what they said they were going to do. We are no where near spending what we can as third-party deals are allowed, we're just choosing not to use them. One thing about bending FFP rules, was Odysseas Vlachodimos not an example of what we can do when we really want to? I know that's player trading but I'm sure if we applied the same spirit to commercial deals that we'd be a lot better off. 

 

If PIF do not invest significant sums then the other option to me is not organic growth but rather hovering in mid-table/possibly threatening a Champions League place if the stars align every now and again. I can accept this scenario, as that's the way the PL works, but PIF should be a little more clear in what they say and not raise people's expectations. 

 

Didn't the PL move the goalposts since PIF first made those grand statements about being no 1? My impression was that PIF would have wanted to pump in a lot more investment, but we seem to have had a lot of adjustments to the rules of FFP and PSR to make it very risky to do so. You could argue they could invest in the ground, infrastructure etc, but the first impression of any club is what they are winning. I can imagine if there's no quick road to allow investment into the playing squad, then PIF might rather concentrate on other sports ventures where there are less obstacles in the way.

[Kanj]

There is no doubt the purchase PIF/RB/PCP underwrote to acquire NUFC and the overall 3-5 year plan took a massive hit when the rules were changed for commercial revenues and all of the guard rails for FFP/PSR evolving year-on. 

[FloydianMag]

22 minutes ago, Wolfcastle said:

Organic growth that any club has experienced has come through sustained success which is no longer permitted for outsiders because it requires expenditure to achieve sustained success.

Organic growth!! The fertiliser for any growth organic or whatever is money via owner investment!!

[bobbydazzla]

PIF are universally hated by most PL clubs and the Premier League itself. Apart from our comrades at Man City

 

If PIF had bought us and then immediately started kicking off about FFP, Related Party Sponsorship and broke / bent the snidey PL rules etc etc then the financial noose the PL have round our neck would have been be tightened even further toot suite

 

Can imagine PIF are happier taking it slowly, letting the likes of Man City get into battles with the PL and if it looks like City are winning their case, we join in and boot the PL in the face with a spinning bird kick when they're already battered, bruised and on their way to the canvas

 

That's what I tell myself anyway

 

 

 

 

Edited September 3 by bobbydazzla

[The College Dropout]

Last point - there’s this idea that PIF are doing absolutely everything possible to generate revenue but are being blocked by the slick foils of the PL and the big money 5.  And I just don’t believe it. 
 

They’ve put up bigger barriers. But the barriers aren’t impregnable if PIF were determined and motivated to circumvent them asap with a bit of nous. But they don’t seem determined to do that atm.  

[Turnbull2000]

If PIF aren't willing to be creative with the rules and increase our revenue substantially, we'll remain around 6-9th permanently. If any one year we happen to make 4th, key players will likely be sold to clubs that regularly qualify.

[The Prophet]

Perhaps they currently feel there's enough headroom to grow into, without challenging the rules?

[timeEd32]

16 minutes ago, macphisto said:

No there's not, look at the list of winners for the League and Cups, it's pretty much been the same four/five teams for a long time now. 

 

Regarding Spurs, so the best team we can come up with as an example of organic growth is Spurs who came close but never won anything. You could argue they are now reverting back to their traditional position of just above mid-table but never threatening the very top of the table. 

 

 

Yes, and for those four or five teams it has largely come down to right manager/players/time. Those clubs you mentioned are largely irrelevant to the point because they got to the top when the gap from 1 to 10/20/50 was much, much smaller and when there were far less financial rules. It'd be impossible now to go from the 2nd division to breaking the world transfer record three years later like Newcastle did. What Levy and Spurs realized is they needed to grow to the point of being part of that group financially and they did so knowing they had the benefit of London behind them. It started with player development/sales and has since morphed into the new stadium and commercial revenue growth. There's no guarantee of winning anything for those six, but it's possible every season. Everyone else is looking to outperform their revenue or hoping for a miracle.

 

 

[JigsawGoesToPieces]

9 hours ago, Norseman said:

 

 

Miggy after one can of Red Bull

 

 

[et tu brute]

Guesses galore again I see. Why don't people wait until the owners come out (looks like it is going to be imminent). The rules will change also, as more and more clubs (including some of the Sky top 6) are affected 

[The College Dropout]

48 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Guesses galore again I see. Why don't people wait until the owners come out (looks like it is going to be imminent). The rules will change also, as more and more clubs (including some of the Sky top 6) are affected 

UEFA rules will remain a massive issue. 
 

[et tu brute]

28 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

UEFA rules will remain a massive issue. 
 

Premier rules change will allow for a lot more investment, sponsorship and overall more revenue coming into club. That will then help cater for UEFA rules. I can see a challenge to them in the not too distant future also. 

[Turnbull2000]

Imminent based on absolutely nothing whatsoever. Much like our stadium upgrade and massive new sponsorships have been imminent.

[FloydianMag]

11 minutes ago, et tu brute said:

Premier rules change will allow for a lot more investment, sponsorship and overall more revenue coming into club. That will then help cater for UEFA rules. I can see a challenge to them in the not too distant future also. 

Agreed, and in the CJEU.