PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media

[TheBrownBottle]

2 hours ago, Infatuation Junkie said:.

 

If a club goes bankrupt. Then so be it. That’s what you get for being stupid.

 

 

 

That is the problem though, ultimately.  It’s why FFP should exist - the current format is the problem.  Football clubs are community assets; that they are rich people’s playthings is an unfortunate consequence of history.  Century-plus community assets shouldn’t be put at risk to stroke the ego of vainglorious business wankers. 

[PauloGeordio]

36 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

That is the problem though, ultimately.  It’s why FFP should exist - the current format is the problem.  Football clubs are community assets; that they are rich people’s playthings is an unfortunate consequence of history.  Century-plus community assets shouldn’t be put at risk to stroke the ego of vainglorious business wankers. 

But if they can prove solvency and a quick look at the bank balance v costs and how much unrestricted investments will benefit both the club and the community if the funds are available 

[SAK]

@TheBrownBottle

From the Amazon documentary it looks like PIF have delegated day today operations to Stavely, Ghodoussi, and Reuben but they’re involved with strategic things like sponsorship etc.

 

Don’t think not having a permanent PIF person on Tyneside is a sign of anything, with Teams and Zoom there’s no need to be physically present and it seemed like from the documentary they meet with them often.

 

The regulatory landscape is different to when Abu Dhabi took over City, they can’t do the same so it’s has to be organic and slower but that’s not a sign of not truly intending to be the best. We’re just not going to break rules to get there. Agree they won’t make waves with a legal challenge but may support others with one.

 

They’re consulting fans on future stadium plans which suggests they want to grow revenue and the only reason they would do that is to challenge, again they have to work within the regulatory framework that exists now.

 

This will be a slow and steady rebuild within the rules and not the Big Bang we secretly may have wanted.

 

[TheBrownBottle]

45 minutes ago, PauloGeordio said:

But if they can prove solvency and a quick look at the bank balance v costs and how much unrestricted investments will benefit both the club and the community if the funds are available 

I agree mate, this is why FFP isn’t operating in the way that it should.  FFP should protect football clubs generally; it shouldn’t be protecting the status quo

39 minutes ago, SAK said:

@TheBrownBottle

From the Amazon documentary it looks like PIF have delegated day today operations to Stavely, Ghodoussi, and Reuben but they’re involved with strategic things like sponsorship etc.

 

Don’t think not having a permanent PIF person on Tyneside is a sign of anything, with Teams and Zoom there’s no need to be physically present and it seemed like from the documentary they meet with them often.

 

The regulatory landscape is different to when Abu Dhabi took over City, they can’t do the same so it’s has to be organic and slower but that’s not a sign of not truly intending to be the best. We’re just not going to break rules to get there. Agree they won’t make waves with a legal challenge but may support others with one.

 

They’re consulting fans on future stadium plans which suggests they want to grow revenue and the only reason they would do that is to challenge, again they have to work within the regulatory framework that exists now.

 

This will be a slow and steady rebuild within the rules and not the Big Bang we secretly may have wanted.

 

Yeah, good points.  Don’t get me wrong, I think they’re serious re growing the club etc.  If Abu Dhabi sold Man City tomorrow they’d make a profit; Abramovich would have had a profit if his assets weren’t seized.  But both those clubs were invested in in ways which aren’t possible today - so PIF can say ‘we’ll be no. 1’, but I’m not at all convinced it’s possible in the current landscape no matter how steady the growth. 

[macphisto]

5 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Ive been thinking for sometime now and still haven’t come up with a clear answer so let’s put this out there and see where everyone thinks. 
 

Am I the only one who isn’t exactly clear where we stand? I know the public professions have been we are going to be the biggest club in the world but I’m not 100% convinced by them tbh (PS this isn’t a criticism of the owners who have undoubtedly transformed the club). 
 

The reason for my thoughts are because we’ve left of a boatload of money on the table. We don’t have a training ground sponsor, we don’t have a training kit sponsor, we could do some stadium name rights ( Everton had a sponsor for a stadium which isn’t even built  ). 
 

we were looking for a plot of land for a new training complex two years ago) no updates. 
 

took us two years to start a feasibility study for stadium expansion. 
 

The Saudi pro league. 

Our multi club ambitions also seem to be in the long grass which is a strategic error imo. 

 

I mean the above factors are arguably in contrast to the stated public aims. 
 

And again, to repeat this isn’t a criticism of the owners, I just wanted to throw these things out there and see what others think. 

 

 

 

Not sure where I saw or read this, but I'm sure Eale's remit is to double our income every two years. I get the impression that everyone sees our growth as inevitable but we have agreed to do it slowly; for example I'm sure we could have got more for ASM and been OK with 3rd party rules but decided to deliberately go low with the fee. 

[TheBrownBottle]

2 minutes ago, macphisto said:

Not sure where I saw or read this, but I'm sure Eale's remit is to double our income every two years. I get the impression that everyone sees our growth as inevitable but we have agreed to do it slowly; for example I'm sure we could have got more for ASM and been OK with 3rd party rules but decided to deliberately go low with the fee. 

It can’t be doubled every two years in fairness - that would mean in three years time we’re earning £100m+ more than Man City or Real Madrid 

[Fezzle]

2 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

It can’t be doubled every two years in fairness - that would mean in three years time we’re earning £100m+ more than Man City or Real Madrid 

I'd be utterly shocked if we could double it in four years given that's effectively £400m a season 😂

[Pata]

The money they can pump to a single football club (even without FFP) is absolute peanuts compared to everything else they do. The cost of a WC bid or creating their own super league out of nothing by signing the best players around the world is so much more expensive. My point is them buying us and not investing the relatively small sums even a new stadium and/or training complex takes would be really weird considering investing on the players is so heavily restricted by FFP. It shouldn't take much to make us worth 3-4 billion and they have a massive profit on the books.

[Myleftboot]

51 minutes ago, Pata said:

The money they can pump to a single football club (even without FFP) is absolute peanuts compared to everything else they do. The cost of a WC bid or creating their own super league out of nothing by signing the best players around the world is so much more expensive. My point is them buying us and not investing the relatively small sums even a new stadium and/or training complex takes would be really weird considering investing on the players is so heavily restricted by FFP. It shouldn't take much to make us worth 3-4 billion and they have a massive profit on the books.

Specially when they’ve given Jon Rahm a £400 million signing on fee.

[macphisto]

9 hours ago, Fezzle said:

I'd be utterly shocked if we could double it in four years given that's effectively £400m a season 😂

Don't think I read it here (I think I read it in the Athletic where it was more explicit) but this is  Eales' quote: "If you look at our pace, roughly doubling the revenue every two years gives you an indication of how we’re looking, which is a phenomenal rate of growth."

[TheBrownBottle]

5 minutes ago, macphisto said:

Don't think I read it here (I think I read it in the Athletic where it was more explicit) but this is  Eales' quote: "If you look at our pace, roughly doubling the revenue every two years gives you an indication of how we’re looking, which is a phenomenal rate of growth."

Looks like our CEO can’t do numbers, then.

 

We haven’t doubled turnover in the first two years - but if we had, and then doubled it again in the following two, we’d have an income of c.£850m p.a.   For context, Man City has the world’s highest turnover at just over £700m p.a.  

[aa5773]

16 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Ive been thinking for sometime now and still haven’t come up with a clear answer so let’s put this out there and see where everyone thinks. 
 

Am I the only one who isn’t exactly clear where we stand? I know the public professions have been we are going to be the biggest club in the world but I’m not 100% convinced by them tbh (PS this isn’t a criticism of the owners who have undoubtedly transformed the club). 
 

The reason for my thoughts are because we’ve left of a boatload of money on the table. We don’t have a training ground sponsor, we don’t have a training kit sponsor, we could do some stadium name rights ( Everton had a sponsor for a stadium which isn’t even built  ). 
 

we were looking for a plot of land for a new training complex two years ago) no updates. 
 

took us two years to start a feasibility study for stadium expansion. 
 

The Saudi pro league. 

Our multi club ambitions also seem to be in the long grass which is a strategic error imo. 

 

I mean the above factors are arguably in contrast to the stated public aims. 
 

And again, to repeat this isn’t a criticism of the owners, I just wanted to throw these things out there and see what others think. 

 

 

 

At the end of the day, there are vast differences between PIF and ADUG or even Abramovich. PIF's main aim is profit, to expand their revenue for the good of the people of Saudi Arabia, all 40 million of them. While ADUG's main aim is the same as PIF's, the UAE only has 1 million people to cater to. Roman Abramovich is a private businessman; whatever he did, he did it for himself.

 

So yeah, PIF (even without FFP) can't do the same thing that Roman or ADUG did. PIF will put profit and the good of the Saudi Arabian people first and foremost.

 

The notion that 'PIF has this amount of money, so Newcastle United is the richest club in the world' is a bit misleading. Firstly, PIF doesn't have that amount of money; it's mainly an investment (money on paper), not hard cash. Secondly, even if it's hard cash, it's not owned by PIF or HRH CP Muhammad bin Salman; it's owned by the people of Saudi Arabia. So PIF will only use the money if it will bring profit and/or growth to PIF's portfolio.

[High Five o]

1 minute ago, aa5773 said:

At the end of the day, there are vast differences between PIF and ADUG or even Abramovich. PIF's main aim is profit, to expand their revenue for the good of the people of Saudi Arabia, all 40 million of them. While ADUG's main aim is the same as PIF's, the UAE only has 1 million people to cater to. Roman Abramovich is a private businessman; whatever he did, he did it for himself.

 

So yeah, PIF (even without FFP) can't do the same thing that Roman or ADUG did. PIF will put profit and the good of the Saudi Arabian people first and foremost.

 

The notion that 'PIF has this amount of money, so Newcastle United is the richest club in the world' is a bit misleading. Firstly, PIF doesn't have that amount of money; it's mainly an investment (money on paper), not hard cash. Secondly, even if it's hard cash, it's not owned by PIF or HRH CP Muhammad bin Salman; it's owned by the people of Saudi Arabia. So PIF will only use the money if it will bring profit and/or growth to PIF's portfolio.

LIV golf and the Saudi League. Just two examples that contradicts your point.

 

[aa5773]

LIV golf makes hugh profit for PIF, unlike Newcastle United.
 

Roshn SPL is for the good of Saudi Arabian, entertainment wise. Eg, keep your population entertained etc...

[High Five o]

2 minutes ago, aa5773 said:

LIV golf makes hugh profit for PIF, unlike Newcastle United.
 

Roshn SPL is for the good of Saudi Arabian, entertainment wise. Eg, keep your population entertained etc...

LIV are yet to make any profit.

 

Both are vanity projects, not commercially lucrative.

[Optimistic Nut]

16 minutes ago, aa5773 said:

At the end of the day, there are vast differences between PIF and ADUG or even Abramovich. PIF's main aim is profit, to expand their revenue for the good of the people of Saudi Arabia, all 40 million of them. While ADUG's main aim is the same as PIF's, the UAE only has 1 million people to cater to. Roman Abramovich is a private businessman; whatever he did, he did it for himself.

 

So yeah, PIF (even without FFP) can't do the same thing that Roman or ADUG did. PIF will put profit and the good of the Saudi Arabian people first and foremost.

 

The notion that 'PIF has this amount of money, so Newcastle United is the richest club in the world' is a bit misleading. Firstly, PIF doesn't have that amount of money; it's mainly an investment (money on paper), not hard cash. Secondly, even if it's hard cash, it's not owned by PIF or HRH CP Muhammad bin Salman; it's owned by the people of Saudi Arabia. So PIF will only use the money if it will bring profit and/or growth to PIF's portfolio.

 

I think all of this is fair, but the bit in bold. I imagine someone representing PIF would have watched and signed off the documentary that went out at the start of the season? 

 

Shearer a few times as narrator clearly refers to us as "the richest football club in the world".

 

If we weren't, or if PIF didn't want that acknowledged, I really doubt he'd have been able to get away with saying this on the programme?

[El Prontonise]

15 minutes ago, aa5773 said:

LIV golf makes hugh profit for PIF,

 

Is this a joke?

 

It hasn't even got a TV deal.

 

Good to see the Saudi bots are working.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by El Prontonise

[El Prontonise]

PIF's investments in sport etc are purely for geopoltiical purposes.

 

Saudi Arabia has one profitable business and that's Aramco, other than that it's the more unproductive economy in the world.

 

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by El Prontonise

[El Prontonise]

23 minutes ago, High Five o said:

LIV are yet to make any profit.

 

Both are vanity projects, not commercially lucrative.

 

Liv are using YouTube to broadcast the golf, about as far away from profit as they come.

[The College Dropout]

12 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I agree mate, this is why FFP isn’t operating in the way that it should.  FFP should protect football clubs generally; it shouldn’t be protecting the status quo

Yeah, good points.  Don’t get me wrong, I think they’re serious re growing the club etc.  If Abu Dhabi sold Man City tomorrow they’d make a profit; Abramovich would have had a profit if his assets weren’t seized.  But both those clubs were invested in in ways which aren’t possible today - so PIF can say ‘we’ll be no. 1’, but I’m not at all convinced it’s possible in the current landscape no matter how steady the growth. 

A profit in buying/selling. Overall both would have made a massive loss iirc. The money they've spent on transfers and infrastructure

[TheBrownBottle]

8 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

A profit in buying/selling. Overall both would have made a massive loss iirc. The money they've spent on transfers and infrastructure

No - Chelsea went for more than Abramovich had invested including the purchase price.  Man City are valued at c.£4bn - far more than Abu Dhabi has poured in. 

[The College Dropout]

7 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

No - Chelsea went for more than Abramovich had invested including the purchase price.  Man City are valued at c.£4bn - far more than Abu Dhabi has poured in. 

Including the years of losses? And cost of infrastructure?

[TheBrownBottle]

7 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Including the years of losses? And cost of infrastructure?

Yes.  Stamford Bridge already existed and we paid for Man City’s ground.  Man City’s training facilities cost c.£200m.

 

Clubs have incomes, which does fund a lot of the costs, regardless of the wealth of the ownership.  NUFC has spent £400m on transfers under the current ownership, but that doesn’t mean the owners have put £400m into the club. 

[TheBrownBottle]

12 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Including the years of losses? And cost of infrastructure?

If you’re curious re Abramovich, Chelsea posted total losses of £900m over 18 years under him.  Allowing for the purchase of the club and inflation during that period, you’re looking at somewhere in the region of £1.5bn.

 

Boehly paid £4.25bn for Chelsea.  Without the sanctions, Abramovich would have pocketed all of that profit.  

[The College Dropout]

9 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

Yes.  Stamford Bridge already existed and we paid for Man City’s ground.  Man City’s training facilities cost c.£200m.

 

Clubs have incomes, which does fund a lot of the costs, regardless of the wealth of the ownership.  NUFC has spent £400m on transfers under the current ownership, but that doesn’t mean the owners have put £400m into the club. 

Aye but Chelsea was running at an operational loss for 20 years - most years. Abramovic had a 1.5bn loan given to Chelsea.

 

Spending £2bn to make £500m over 20 years isn't a great investment.

 

Edit: Haven't looked at the numbers in detail

 

 

Edited December 28, 2023 by The College Dropout