PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media

[Groundhog63]

1 hour ago, timeEd32 said:

 

 I thought the greatest development of the last 6 months or so was moving past the Chris Wood debates. 

 

We paid £25m. We got a loan fee of a couple million. We sold him for £15m. He played in 17 games in 2021/22, starting 15 of them. Each PL place was worth £2.2m that season. We were 19th on the day he signed and finished 11th, so he contributed to +£17m in merit payments (not to mention avoiding relegation).

 

We obviously paid a crazy amount, but I think we can also say it worked out just fine.

 

 

 

[LordJake]

The Inpost sponsorship is not small 

[TheBrownBottle]

6 minutes ago, Infatuation Junkie said:

Thinking about it. Liverpool sold Mane didn’t they?

 

Huge player for them at the time.

 

Its sour for us because the difference in our results from one player is night and day.

Every club has sold stars in the past - and we’re far more vulnerable to it.

 

I’ve never felt that the players being signed were likely to be with the club long-term, particularly with the FFP constraints.  If NUFC gets to where they state they want to be, in five years time I’m willing to bet that we’ll have a completely different team. 

[TheBrownBottle]

5 minutes ago, TheHoob said:

Replacing Cabaye with Colback will leave a scar on my psyche until the day I die 

 

Think that's one of the reasons we as a fan base have trouble with the idea, it doesn't seem conceivable that we'd sell an important player and replace them with someone as good/better. 

 

 

 

It was the same in ‘90s, with knackers challenging Keegan re the Cole sale.  Everything is about intent.  Ashley would simply pocket the difference - McKeag and co would spend it on a shite new stand.

[Getsgoodfromthegetgo]

For the next few years it's sell one to get at least 3..

 

[Ben]

32 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

No, because they have massive revenues, and selling players to create headroom will only really work for a club, like us, where revenues are going to increase significantly over the following 5 

So we could just get massive revenues by huge, totally legal sponsorship, until they put a 100% illegal rule to stop that 

[McDog]

8 minutes ago, Ben said:

So we could just get massive revenues by huge, totally legal sponsorship, until they put a 100% illegal rule to stop that 

 

 

I think the politics of challenging sponsorship rule changes would be far more palatable than trying to toss FFP. The latter would be trumpeted as KSA trying to mess with the structure of English football while the former would be a legit challenge in court to illegal restraint of trade.

 

 

Edited January 11 by McDog

[TheBrownBottle]

6 minutes ago, McDog said:

 

 

I think the politics of challenging sponsorship rule changes would be far more palatable than trying to toss FFP. The latter would be trumpeted as KSA trying to mess with the structure of English football while the former would be a legit challenge in court to illegal restraint of trade.

 

 

 

100%

[Jackie Broon]

8 minutes ago, Ben said:

So we could just get massive revenues by huge, totally legal sponsorship, until they put a 100% illegal rule to stop that 

 

The rules are already in place to stop that, we can't just get a huge sponsorship because the PL will be able to say it's not market value. We have to (be seen at least) to be gradually and naturally increasing the club's market value.

[Ben]

2 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

The rules are already in place to stop that, we can't just get a huge sponsorship because the PL will be able to say it's not market value. We have to (be seen at least) to be gradually and naturally increasing the club's market value.

Man Utd earn 7 times what we earn commercially, to say we can't at least match them will never stand up in a court 

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

37 minutes ago, Infatuation Junkie said:

Thinking about it. Liverpool sold Mane didn’t they?

 

Huge player for them at the time.

 

Its sour for us because the difference in our results from one player is night and day.

And Coutinho, Sterling and Suarez. Every club has had to trade players to some extent. The thing we need to get right is who we sell too IMHO. Selling Bruno to PSG or Real, would sting a hell of a lot less than to a fellow PL team

[Ben]

I wish we would just fuck them off and sell Dummett for £100 million, he's worth every penny, £1 million for every lunging tackle.

[Nobody]

39 minutes ago, TheHoob said:

Replacing Cabaye with Colback will leave a scar on my psyche until the day I die 

 

Think that's one of the reasons we as a fan base have trouble with the idea, it doesn't seem conceivable that we'd sell an important player and replace them with someone as good/better. 

 

 

 

Not like they didn't have previous with replacing Carroll with free transfer Ba (which luckily turned into our best striker since Shearer).

That Cabaye sale though, arguably one of the worst pieces of business under Ashley. At the time, PSG were spending like it was going out of fashion and Cabaye was one of the most sought-after CMs in the league and they let him go for like £20m. Should have been at least double, probably even closer to triple if we would have been a club with any sort of ambition. 

[midds]

I still find it remarkable that there are a ridiculous number of rules and regulations that are prohibiting a club from spending money it absolutely has in order to grow and make progress in order to be successful. Doesn't just apply to us but Villa, Everton and West Ham and whoever should absolutely be allowed to spend the money the owners definitely have without any danger of going bust. It's ridiculous the barriers that have been thrown up to stop anyone from challenging.

 

I get the need to protect clubs and fans from owners spending money they don't have, that's common sense and does make 100% sense. But this current system simply isn't fit for purpose. There has to be a better way of allowing competition whilst simultaneously protecting clubs from bad owners who want to exploit things. The whole thing is backward. Dressing it all up as being 'Fair' is just the spunk on top of the cherry on top of the cake. It's not 'fair', it's fucking 'rigged' 

[Jackie Broon]

39 minutes ago, Ben said:

Man Utd earn 7 times what we earn commercially, to say we can't at least match them will never stand up in a court 

 

Probably not, but we clearly aren't going to go down that route, yet.

[Ben]

13 minutes ago, midds said:

I still find it remarkable that there are a ridiculous number of rules and regulations that are prohibiting a club from spending money it absolutely has in order to grow and make progress in order to be successful. Doesn't just apply to us but Villa, Everton and West Ham and whoever should absolutely be allowed to spend the money the owners definitely have without any danger of going bust. It's ridiculous the barriers that have been thrown up to stop anyone from challenging.

 

I get the need to protect clubs and fans from owners spending money they don't have, that's common sense and does make 100% sense. But this current system simply isn't fit for purpose. There has to be a better way of allowing competition whilst simultaneously protecting clubs from bad owners who want to exploit things. The whole thing is backward. Dressing it all up as being 'Fair' is just the spunk on top of the cherry on top of the cake. It's not 'fair', it's fucking 'rigged' 

100%, even if they deposit the funds with the EPL first to prove its legit then they pass it on to us, you can't stop an owner investing in an asset.

[brummie]

12 minutes ago, midds said:

I still find it remarkable that there are a ridiculous number of rules and regulations that are prohibiting a club from spending money it absolutely has in order to grow and make progress in order to be successful. Doesn't just apply to us but Villa, Everton and West Ham and whoever should absolutely be allowed to spend the money the owners definitely have without any danger of going bust. It's ridiculous the barriers that have been thrown up to stop anyone from challenging.

 

I get the need to protect clubs and fans from owners spending money they don't have, that's common sense and does make 100% sense. But this current system simply isn't fit for purpose. There has to be a better way of allowing competition whilst simultaneously protecting clubs from bad owners who want to exploit things. The whole thing is backward. Dressing it all up as being 'Fair' is just the spunk on top of the cherry on top of the cake. It's not 'fair', it's fucking 'rigged' 

 

As someone else said, the effective result of all this is that clubs are incentivised to sell home grown players because of their added FFP value. So, for us for example, Cameron Archer, who has been with us since age 7, is incredibly promising as a player, is now playing for Sheffield United because we needed the extra bonus of a near 20m sale of a home grown player.

 

I read today, Monchi, or director of football, saying that he was happy with our business in the summer window, and that the sales of Archer, Ramsey and Philogene were really necessary to create the FFP wriggle room to be able to get in some of the players we signed.

 

Now, I understand it, that is basically playing the system as it is, and understanding the extra value that these players bring, but if you stop and think about it, is it really good that clubs have to do that? Even Chelsea might sell a player in this window or the next who has started every match but one for them because he's home grown and has the extra FFP value.

 

Aaron Ramsey, with us since a kid, both of his brothers still at the club, mooking around at Burnley because of this. The natural extension of that is that we also know that, should things get really tight, we could sell Jacob Ramsey. Probably for a lot of money (he's better than Grealish was at that age).

 

But how is that positive for football, forcing clubs to look at their "own" that way, because it is the only way they can compete with clubs at the other end of the ladder as it was pulled up?

 

The idea, the aim of FFP is noble, and yes, something has to stop endless spending and purchasing of silverware, but the Man City situation has totally fucking ruined the game for the rest of us.

[Ben]

3 minutes ago, brummie said:

 

As someone else said, the effective result of all this is that clubs are incentivised to sell home grown players because of their added FFP value. So, for us for example, Cameron Archer, who has been with us since age 7, is incredibly promising as a player, is now playing for Sheffield United because we needed the extra bonus of a near 20m sale of a home grown player.

 

I read today, Monchi, or director of football, saying that he was happy with our business in the summer window, and that the sales of Archer, Ramsey and Philogene were really necessary to create the FFP wriggle room to be able to get in some of the players we signed.

 

Now, I understand it, that is basically playing the system as it is, and understanding the extra value that these players bring, but if you stop and think about it, is it really good that clubs have to do that? Even Chelsea might sell a player in this window or the next who has started every match but one for them because he's home grown and has the extra FFP value.

 

Aaron Ramsey, with us since a kid, both of his brothers still at the club, mooking around at Burnley because of this. The natural extension of that is that we also know that, should things get really tight, we could sell Jacob Ramsey. Probably for a lot of money (he's better than Grealish was at that age).

 

But how is that positive for football, forcing clubs to look at their "own" that way, because it is the only way they can compete with clubs at the other end of the ladder as it was pulled up?

 

The idea, the aim of FFP is noble, and yes, something has to stop endless spending and purchasing of silverware, but the Man City situation has totally fucking ruined the game for the rest of us.

Chelsea have spent more and fucked up, if owners put pound notes into their clubs and dont load it with debt (like Man U and Burnley) it should be left to them to sink or swim.

[midds]

3 minutes ago, brummie said:

 

As someone else said, the effective result of all this is that clubs are incentivised to sell home grown players because of their added FFP value. So, for us for example, Cameron Archer, who has been with us since age 7, is incredibly promising as a player, is now playing for Sheffield United because we needed the extra bonus of a near 20m sale of a home grown player.

 

I read today, Monchi, or director of football, saying that he was happy with our business in the summer window, and that the sales of Archer, Ramsey and Philogene were really necessary to create the FFP wriggle room to be able to get in some of the players we signed.

 

Now, I understand it, that is basically playing the system as it is, and understanding the extra value that these players bring, but if you stop and think about it, is it really good that clubs have to do that? Even Chelsea might sell a player in this window or the next who has started every match but one for them because he's home grown and has the extra FFP value.

 

Aaron Ramsey, with us since a kid, both of his brothers still at the club, mooking around at Burnley because of this. The natural extension of that is that we also know that, should things get really tight, we could sell Jacob Ramsey. Probably for a lot of money (he's better than Grealish was at that age).

 

But how is that positive for football, forcing clubs to look at their "own" that way, because it is the only way they can compete with clubs at the other end of the ladder as it was pulled up?

 

The idea, the aim of FFP is noble, and yes, something has to stop endless spending and purchasing of silverware, but the Man City situation has totally fucking ruined the game for the rest of us.

Great post and I agree (almost) totally

 

This only thing I don't agree with is that the aim of it is to be noble. That's certainly how they've presented it and that's how it's spun but it's not protecting the poorest and most vulnerable, it's protecting the richest. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing and it's the big 6 who picked the outfit it wears. It's pretending that it's got the best interests of the fans at heart but it's actually got the wants and needs of the top 6 at the tip of the arrow. They don't give a fuck about clubs going out of business, they don't give a fuck about Bury, they give a fuck about maintaining the status quo and preventing any and all challenge to them from any other team outside of their little clique.  

[brummie]

1 minute ago, midds said:

Great post and I agree (almost) totally

 

This only thing I don't agree with is that the aim of it is to be noble. That's certainly how they've presented it and that's how it's spun but it's not protecting the poorest and most vulnerable, it's protecting the richest. It's a wolf in sheep's clothing and it's the big 6 who picked the outfit it wears. It's pretending that it's got the best interests of the fans at heart but it's actually got the wants and needs of the top 6 at the tip of the arrow. They don't give a fuck about clubs going out of business, they don't give a fuck about Bury, they give a fuck about maintaining the status quo and preventing any and all challenge to them from any other team outside of their little clique.  

 

I don't disagree with any of that.

 

By noble, what I mean is in the most general terms - the concept of having a control of how money of spent in football is a good one.

 

Just like the idea of the 'football pyramid' in financial terms is a good one, it is just crushingly disappointing in the way it is actually manifested.

[DahnSahf]

Mandy should invite some gullible cunt to a dinner party or something and casually chat about how awfully silly it is that a rich owner can't even spend his own money, and it couldn't possibly stand up in court, and will you have another Mouton Rothschild? Wear a dress with lots of tit hanging out so the message is somewhat subliminal.

Hopefully the dipstick would be on the 'phone to his lawyers on the way home.

There's a guy called Todd who'd seem the ideal candidate.

 

[Ben]

Why not just not let clubs go into debt they cant afford.

[midds]

2 minutes ago, brummie said:

 

I don't disagree with any of that.

 

By noble, what I mean is in the most general terms - the concept of having a control of how money of spent in football is a good one.

 

Just like the idea of the 'football pyramid' in financial terms is a good one, it is just crushingly disappointing in the way it is actually manifested.

Yeah, I get you man

 

I just hate the fat they've created it under the illusion of helping the weak when everyone can see it's the opposite. It's so disingenuous and obvious at the same time. It's infuriating  

[brummie]

Just now, DahnSahf said:

Mandy should invite some gullible cunt to a dinner party or something and casually chat about how awfully silly it is that a rich owner can't even spend his own money, and it couldn't possibly stand up in court, and will you have another Mouton Rothschild? Wear a dress with lots of tit hanging out so the message is somewhat subliminal.

Hopefully the dipstick would be on the 'phone to his lawyers on the way home.

There's a guy called Todd who'd seem the ideal candidate.

 

 

*slowly raises eyebrow*

[brummie]

Just now, midds said:

Yeah, I get you man

 

I just hate the fat they've created it under the illusion of helping the weak when everyone can see it's the opposite. It's so disingenuous and obvious at the same time. It's infuriating  

 

Football in these terms, it really is fucking nauseating.

 

You know that final scene in The Thick of It, where the 'thought yurt' consultant, Stewart whatever, gives his exit speech, and says he's tried to improve things, but "ultimately, this party is build on a solid base of cunt".

 

It's like that. A solid base of cunt.