PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media

[TheBrownBottle]

9 hours ago, Nobody said:

Guessing it would be a minefield deciding who can afford what.

FFP is absolutely shite like, but at the same time Im happy there are regulations stopping another PSG, because a) Fuck PSG and everything that loathesum club has done since their takeover and b) I massively doubt these last 18 months would have been anywhere near as good if we went out and splashed out on Mbappe and the likes while in the relegation zone in our first transfer window.

Doing it (somewhat) organically has been so great for us, having Dan Burn scoring in a semi final probably doesn't happen without FFP Tbf. However, now it's getting annoying how much it's crippling us. Like not being allowed to replace Tonali in January because of something he did before coming here feels wrong for us. 

 

I’m aware that views aren’t uniform re Tonali, with a sympathy spectrum across the support.  But either way, he’s been a disastrous transfer at present.

 

He might end up here for a decade and winning so much that we end up with the Tyne Bridge being renamed in his honour, but that still doesn’t mean that in the present moment that buy hasn’t crippled us due to FFP

 

 

Edited January 12 by TheBrownBottle

[TRon]

4 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I’m aware that views aren’t uniform re Tonali, with a sympathy spectrum across the support.  But either way, he’s been a disastrous transfer at present.

 

He might end up here for a decade and winning so much that we end up with the Tyne Bridge being renamed in his honour, but that still doesn’t mean that in the present moment that buy hasn’t crippled us due to FFP

 

 

 

 

Not every transfer is going to be perfect, we will make mistakes like every other club. We got caught out by the undisclosed gambling scandal around Tonali, whether that was lack of due diligence or just bad timing is not really clear. But he could still turn out to be a good investment, at worst because of his age we would probably get our money back if he doesn't work out.

 

The real problem is we didn't have enough cover in midfield once he was banned, and even if we sign a replacement this month, it's already cost us the CL and the Carabao Cup. The season has been badly impacted by our restrictions on spending money. Long term that might work out more profitable, but other teams with years of spending behind them are just pulling further ahead.

[SUPERTOON]

2 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Not every transfer is going to be perfect, we will make mistakes like every other club. We got caught out by the undisclosed gambling scandal around Tonali, whether that was lack of due diligence or just bad timing is not really clear. But he could still turn out to be a good investment, at worst because of his age we would probably get our money back if he doesn't work out.

 

The real problem is we didn't have enough cover in midfield once he was banned, and even if we sign a replacement this month, it's already cost us the CL and the Carabao Cup. The season has been badly impacted by our restrictions on spending money. Long term that might work out more profitable, but other teams with years of spending behind them are just pulling further ahead.

Disagree on us getting our money back on him. If he flops we have no chance of getting 50 odd million for him.

[macphisto]

9 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I’m aware that views aren’t uniform re Tonali, with a sympathy spectrum across the support.  But either way, he’s been a disastrous transfer at present.

 

He might end up here for a decade and winning so much that we end up with the Tyne Bridge being renamed in his honour, but that still doesn’t mean that in the present moment that buy hasn’t crippled us due to FFP

 

 

 

Am I right in thinking that the three times we've qualified for the Champions League have been followed by these three major midfield signings:

Viana

Bowyer 

Tonali 

 

How utterly depressing if I'm right. 

 

Indeed in general, for whatever reason, post-Champions League qualification summer transfers have been dismal. 

[TheBrownBottle]

3 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

Not every transfer is going to be perfect, we will make mistakes like every other club. We got caught out by the undisclosed gambling scandal around Tonali, whether that was lack of due diligence or just bad timing is not really clear. But he could still turn out to be a good investment, at worst because of his age we would probably get our money back if he doesn't work out.

 

The real problem is we didn't have enough cover in midfield once he was banned, and even if we sign a replacement this month, it's already cost us the CL and the Carabao Cup. The season has been badly impacted by our restrictions on spending money. Long term that might work out more profitable, but other teams with years of spending behind them are just pulling further ahead.

Honestly, I wasn’t even looking to bring up the ‘who is to blame’ element.  Sometimes transfers just don’t work (and it’s early days re Tonali)

 

But in the present, we can’t afford slip ups - FFP limits the mistakes that can be made by clubs outside the usual six

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, SUPERTOON said:

Disagree on us getting our money back on him. If he flops we have no chance of getting 50 odd million for him.

This type of transfer - if it goes wrong you would be happy to break even from a FFP perspective.

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, macphisto said:

Am I right in thinking that the three times we've qualified for the Champions League have been followed by these three major midfield signings:

Viana

Bowyer 

Tonali 

 

How utterly depressing if I'm right. 

 

Indeed in general, for whatever reason, post-Champions League qualification summer transfers have been dismal. 

We qualified in 97 too.  That wasn’t a great transfer window (though Given was a bargain)

[SUPERTOON]

2 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

This type of transfer - if it goes wrong you would be happy to break even from a FFP perspective.

I’d imagine if it did go wrong it would end with a series of loans back to Italy.

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, SUPERTOON said:

I’d imagine if it did go wrong it would end with a series of loans back to Italy.

Yeah, that would be my suspicion.  No Italian club has that sort of money.  Tonali was a record for an Italian player.

 

If it doesn’t work, I’d put money on Juve / Inter / Milan / Napoli etc taking him on loan a couple of time before we end up with a massive loss

[TRon]

5 minutes ago, SUPERTOON said:

Disagree on us getting our money back on him. If he flops we have no chance of getting 50 odd million for him.

 

If any player flops you would struggle to get your money back for them, that's the same for any club. At this point we don't even know if he will flop or go on to be a future superstar. The real blot on our copybook was buying a player who has since been found to be indulging in illegal betting rings.

[TheBrownBottle]

Just now, TRon said:

 

If any player flops you would struggle to get your money back for them, that's the same for any club. At this point we don't even know if he will flop or go on to be a future superstar. The real blot on our copybook was buying a player who has since been found to be indulging in illegal betting rings.

This is it, and I used Tonali as an example in the present, but it was about flop transfers.  FFP just completely knackers the ability of a Newcastle / Villa / West Ham / Everton etc to have a bad big-money buy.  

[TheBrownBottle]

I’ve always thought that what is being attempted is what Ashley attempted, just on steroids and done competently.

 

You buy players at the right age with significant potential and future value.  You develop them and make a massive profit, which then recycles etc etc.

 

The ‘Arsenal model’ is what Ashley said he wanted.  These days it’s the ‘Brighton model’.  Spurs have been exceptional at it.  Buy your Isaks, Botmans, Brunos, get a few years out of them, have some success, sell for big profit, repeat. 

 

Nothing wrong with it as a strategy for growth - it makes sense given our position and current ceiling.  To do it you need the right personnel - and generally the club have brought in those viewed as the best operators for that model (Howe, Ashworth etc).  There’s a reason that the PIF didn’t go for a ‘name’ manager.

[brummie]

There is an article in the Athletic today about us and FFP, and the problems we've faced dealing with it.

 

On reading it, although in this case it is coming from journalists rather than a director (as your discussion did), the gist of it is really not that different from what your guy said this week about having to sell, the only really difference being that we are maybe a season or two away from that being a possibility. We could, however, end up having to sell a Luiz, or a Kamara for FFP purposes alone, the same as you might have to sell an Isak or a Guimaraes.

 

Some other things it said which really show how counter-productive FFP is - we have paused plans to rebuild one end of the ground, partly because we didn't want to risk playing in the champions league with a three sided ground in terms of the support and image, but mostly because losing the revenue from that stand whilst rebuilding would have impacted really badly on FFP, which would then be loaded onto the actual costs of the build (that money spent doesn't come into FFP calculations, but it still has to come from somewhere).

 

How insane is it that clubs get into that position? You can't do something to improve your ability to compete long term because it ruins the short term?

 

Yet at the same time, Chelsea can go on spending billions unimpeded.

[TRon]

44 minutes ago, TheBrownBottle said:

I’ve always thought that what is being attempted is what Ashley attempted, just on steroids and done competently.

 

You buy players at the right age with significant potential and future value.  You develop them and make a massive profit, which then recycles etc etc.

 

The ‘Arsenal model’ is what Ashley said he wanted.  These days it’s the ‘Brighton model’.  Spurs have been exceptional at it.  Buy your Isaks, Botmans, Brunos, get a few years out of them, have some success, sell for big profit, repeat. 

 

Nothing wrong with it as a strategy for growth - it makes sense given our position and current ceiling.  To do it you need the right personnel - and generally the club have brought in those viewed as the best operators for that model (Howe, Ashworth etc).  There’s a reason that the PIF didn’t go for a ‘name’ manager.

 

It's actually the right way to grow a club, I agree with it 100%...if everyone was on a level playing field. But thanks to the way FFP has been structured, and PL rules keep getting amended, it's obviously worked out great for the clubs who have already done their spending years ago and have monopolised the CL positions as a result.

[Keegans Export]

13 minutes ago, brummie said:

There is an article in the Athletic today about us and FFP, and the problems we've faced dealing with it.

 

On reading it, although in this case it is coming from journalists rather than a director (as your discussion did), the gist of it is really not that different from what your guy said this week about having to sell, the only really difference being that we are maybe a season or two away from that being a possibility. We could, however, end up having to sell a Luiz, or a Kamara for FFP purposes alone, the same as you might have to sell an Isak or a Guimaraes.

 

Some other things it said which really show how counter-productive FFP is - we have paused plans to rebuild one end of the ground, partly because we didn't want to risk playing in the champions league with a three sided ground in terms of the support and image, but mostly because losing the revenue from that stand whilst rebuilding would have impacted really badly on FFP, which would then be loaded onto the actual costs of the build (that money spent doesn't come into FFP calculations, but it still has to come from somewhere).

 

How insane is it that clubs get into that position? You can't do something to improve your ability to compete long term because it ruins the short term?

 

Yet at the same time, Chelsea can go on spending billions unimpeded.

It's a ludicrous system.

 

You've put in the work scouting a player like Luiz, you've put your money on the table and he's been a success. Now you're in a position where you have to sell him to Man City, Man Utd etc. otherwise you can't afford to compete with...Man City, Man Utd etc? Same with us and Isak. We took the punt, we paid the money, we should be able to reap the rewards for as long as his contract allows. But no, the only way we can afford to improve our squad substantially is to sell him, most likely to one of the clubs we're trying to overtake.

[brummie]

27 minutes ago, Keegans Export said:

It's a ludicrous system.

 

You've put in the work scouting a player like Luiz, you've put your money on the table and he's been a success. Now you're in a position where you have to sell him to Man City, Man Utd etc. otherwise you can't afford to compete with...Man City, Man Utd etc? Same with us and Isak. We took the punt, we paid the money, we should be able to reap the rewards for as long as his contract allows. But no, the only way we can afford to improve our squad substantially is to sell him, most likely to one of the clubs we're trying to overtake.

 

 

And what does all the above do? It just perpetuates the gap which clubs are trying to break in the first place, by selling them your best players because you have no choice.

[r0cafella]

3 minutes ago, brummie said:

 

 

And what does all the above do? It just perpetuates the gap which clubs are trying to break in the first place, by selling them your best players because you have no choice.

Absolutely, you sell your best players, and thus you can no longer compete and drop back, your revenue drops and the cycle continues. All whilst the so called big 6 grew prior to these ridiculous restrictions. 

[The College Dropout]

It’s going to get to a point that few clubs can spend and the transfer market really slows down. 
 

It took City buying that lad from Wolves to keep Wolves on the right side of FFP. 

 

In the PL - City are the only team that can stimulate the market. The others can’t or are unwilling. Saudi are slowing down.  That leaves about 6 clubs from Europe. 

[FloydianMag]

All this growing the club organically is absolute horse shit………which I suppose is far more useful in growing the club organically than having extremely wealthy owners. Fuck FFP and FMV.

[Ghandis Flip-Flop]

2 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said:

We qualified in 97 too.  That wasn’t a great transfer window (though Given was a bargain)

 

We signed Speed that summer, no?

[TwoForJoy]

3 minutes ago, Ghandis Flip-Flop said:

 

We signed Speed that summer, no?

I think he was later. John Barnes arrived that summer.

[Ronson333]

 

[r0cafella]

1 minute ago, Ronson333 said:

 

Because the team this clown pretends to support and the chums willed it to be this way. No wonder he put the sarcastic lol. 

[Bellis80]

I can’t believe if the club is really worried about ffp they’d have spent the money how they did in the summer. Very unlikely to make a profit on any of those players they signed.

[Dokko]

Canny disappointed we've just experienced one of the worst injury crisis we've ever seen, players health and wellbeing are on the line, yet we're halfway through Jan and we've brought no one in to help them through it. Even the manager looks fucked.

 

If we've tied ourselves up in ffp knots, then this summer window and the signings made were ludicrous. We needed a squad that was ready now.