Jump to content

PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media


Yorkie

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, The Bonk said:

 

@Yorkie with the resources at our disposal? Man, when I was a young teen and we were so close to winning it, that was special. To not exhaust our financial might against those who are looking to close up shop and keep the bulk of clubs out of their exclusive party is criminal. I couldn't give a toss how we win, but I want this club back to where we were 20+ years ago, which means outspending other clubs.

 

Who better to spoil the fucking party than us? :lol:  I just need to see a trophy lifted before I die. :lol: 

Leicester was special, I enjoyed that run as a neutral, but you have to be lying to yourself if you think they way they did it will ever be repeated. Hell yeah it was an example, but the odds and data will always point to resource, capital rich clubs that can field the best product on the pitch, managed by the best and run by top class executives. I totally get where you're coming from, however, Yorkers. :) 

 

 

I've delayed responding to this cos I've been trying to square it in my head. :laugh:

 

I feel pretty conflicted about it; my posts yesterday were definitely my starting position, but having read more about what's happened and loads of fantastic posts in this thread, I'm definitely wavering on that. 

 

I have little to no time for the way Chelsea and Man City instantly became successful clubs thanks only to a generous benefactor plunging their unlimited wealth into them. City are a shiny, artificial, monochrome, FIFA Ultimate Team, trophy/talent-scooping brand who bear no resemblance to the 100-year-old club that existed before Abu Dhabi came along; I'm fearful of us losing our identity too (or rather not reclaiming it, after having it sucked away by the Ashley years). 

 

I don't know how Liverpool are backed but, of the crop of actual potential title-winners, I see them very differently. When Man City first won the league, they finished 8th. They finished 8th again when Leicester won it. It's a string of phenomenal signings (and sales) and obviously the appointment of Klopp that has cemented them among the absolute elite, when - if they'd got it wrong after Rodgers - they could have fallen further behind. So I suppose what I'm saying is, we don't have to 'do it like Leicester or West Ham,' maybe 'do it like Liverpool'. I realise we're a lot further behind than them at the start of their uptick, but my overall point is again that, sometimes, good decisions can trump unlimited wealth - plus you get to keep your identity. 

 

Conversely, the way the ESL chums are so desperate to be anti-competitive makes you want to just flip the table and say 'fuck it'. And fuck them; and everyone else for accepting their position and cutting their nose off to spite their face. Let's fuck em up. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

I've delayed responding to this cos I've been trying to square it in my head. :laugh:

 

I feel pretty conflicted about it; my posts yesterday were definitely my starting position, but having read more about what's happened and loads of fantastic posts in this thread, I'm definitely wavering on that. 

 

I have little to no time for the way Chelsea and Man City instantly became successful clubs thanks only to a generous benefactor plunging their unlimited wealth into them. City are a shiny, artificial, monochrome trophy/talent-scooping brand who bear no resemblance to the 100-year-old club that existed before Abu Dhabi came along; I'm fearful of us losing our identity too (or rather not reclaiming it, after having it sucked away by the Ashley years). 

 

I don't know how Liverpool are backed but, of the crop of actual potential title-winners, I see them very differently. When Man City first won the league, they finished 8th. They finished 8th again when Leicester won it. It's a string of phenomenal signings (and sales) and obviously the appointment of Klopp that has cemented them among the absolute elite, when - if they'd got it wrong after Rodgers - they could have fallen further behind. So I suppose what I'm saying is, we don't have to 'do it like Leicester or West Ham,' maybe 'do it like Liverpool'. I realise we're a lot further behind than them at the start of their uptick, but my overall point is again that, sometimes, good decisions can trump unlimited wealth - plus you get to keep your identity. 

 

Conversely, the way the ESL chums are so desperate to be anti-competitive makes you want to just flip the table and say 'fuck it'. And fuck them; and everyone else for accepting their position and cutting their nose off to spite their face. Let's fuck em up. 

 

Well there's the thing: our identity has been buried for the best part of half a century under selfish or greedy owners. Before John Hall it was McKeag, after John Hall it was Ashley. 

 

 That we knocked back Man City's owners, and were finally bought by PIF is testament to what others think our identity is, and it's not a club struggling at the bottom of the PL. It's just a shame it's took foreign buyers to see that identity and give us it back. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

I've delayed responding to this cos I've been trying to square it in my head. :laugh:

 

I feel pretty conflicted about it; my posts yesterday were definitely my starting position, but having read more about what's happened and loads of fantastic posts in this thread, I'm definitely wavering on that. 

 

I have little to no time for the way Chelsea and Man City instantly became successful clubs thanks only to a generous benefactor plunging their unlimited wealth into them. City are a shiny, artificial, monochrome trophy/talent-scooping brand who bear no resemblance to the 100-year-old club that existed before Abu Dhabi came along; I'm fearful of us losing our identity too (or rather not reclaiming it, after having it sucked away by the Ashley years). 

 

I don't know how Liverpool are backed but, of the crop of actual potential title-winners, I see them very differently. When Man City first won the league, they finished 8th. They finished 8th again when Leicester won it. It's a string of phenomenal signings (and sales) and obviously the appointment of Klopp that has cemented them among the absolute elite, when - if they'd got it wrong after Rodgers - they could have fallen further behind. So I suppose what I'm saying is, we don't have to 'do it like Leicester or West Ham,' maybe 'do it like Liverpool'. I realise we're a lot further behind than them at the start of their uptick, but my overall point is again that, sometimes, good decisions can trump unlimited wealth - plus you get to keep your identity. 

 

Conversely, the way the ESL chums are so desperate to be anti-competitive makes you want to just flip the table and say 'fuck it'. And fuck them; and everyone else for accepting their position and cutting their nose off to spite their face. Let's fuck em up. 

Yorkie, this is great thanks for the well thought out post.

 

I try to think about it like this:

 

In life your either moving forwards or backwards prior to Ashley we were one of the biggest clubs in the country. As well know during his tenure his tenure he totally hollowed us out and left a empty shell behind. If we would have continued on our pre Ashley trajectory we would likely have revenue matching Spurs and Arsenal. Given we are constrained now by FFP even if we went nuts and spent right up to the limit the time and revenue lost under Ashley would likely see us at best at par to where we should be IMO. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

We can still go the way of Man City and keep our identity. We went under Keegan, within a few years, from nearly being relegated from the 2nd division to breaking the world transfer records for a defender and a forward. Not a single person in Newcastle a that time thought we had lost our identity or complained about the money we spent.

 

Keegan's teams weren't  built over time, they followed a model not too dissimilar to Man City and Chelsea. As I said above, we broke the world transfer records for a defender and forward during that time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

In life your either moving forwards or backwards prior to Ashley we were one of the biggest clubs in the country. As well know during his tenure his tenure he totally hollowed us out and left a empty shell behind. If we would have continued on our pre Ashley trajectory we would likely have revenue matching Spurs and Arsenal. Given we are constrained now by FFP even if we went nuts and spent right up to the limit the time and revenue lost under Ashley would likely see us at best at par to where we should be IMO. 

 

Not sure about 'matching' Spurs and Arsenal, we were well ahead of them, and by now we would/should have been a very long way ahead of them . . .

 Rich_List_-_Newcastle_United_5th_Richest

Link to post
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, macphisto said:

We can still go the way of Man City and keep our identity. We went under Keegan, within a few years, from nearly being relegated from the 2nd division to breaking the world transfer records for a defender and a forward. Not a single person in Newcastle a that time thought we had lost our identity or complained about the money we spent.

 

Keegan's teams weren't  built over time, they followed a model not too dissimilar to Man City and Chelsea. As I said above, we broke the world transfer records for a defender and forward during that time.

The money wasn’t pumped into the club by any one person though, the wealth of the club to enable it to rise in the way it did, first stemmed from the fans spending their money on anything NUFC related and sponsors and other commercial deals the club attracted due to the success of the team. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, r0cafella said:

The issue isn’t injecting money in to the company, the issue is what counts towards FFP spend. 
 

the reason the likes of Man city have to do these stupid sponsorships is because the ownership can’t just inject money and have of count towards FFP. 

 

But Ashley's loan didn't count towards FFP did it? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Thumbheed said:

 

But Ashley's loan didn't count towards FFP did it? 

No, and a loan doesn't count as income anyway.

 

So they could inject all the money in the world through loans, and it would make no difference to the ffp spending cap.

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, HTT II said:

The money wasn’t pumped into the club by any one person though, the wealth of the club to enable it to rise in the way it did, first stemmed from the fans spending their money on anything NUFC related and sponsors and other commercial deals the club attracted due to the success of the team. 

Our income didn't cover what we spent at that time, no where near. If this link for 1997 is correct then the money we were spending at the time was not matched by our income. The only difference between now and then is that our spending was fuelled by debt rather than the pockets of our owners. The point still stands that it wasn't organic growth and we grew rapidly by spending money, more than our competitors.

 

In addition to what we spent on transfers and wages, also worth noting the money Hall and Shepard were taking out too, i.e. warehouse in Gibraltar. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, macphisto said:

Our income didn't cover what we spent at that time, no where near. If this link for 1997 is correct then the money we were spending at the time was not matched by our income. The only difference between now and then is that our spending was fuelled by debt rather than the pockets of our owners. The point still stands that it wasn't organic growth and we grew rapidly by spending money, more than our competitors.

 

In addition to what we spent on transfers and wages, also worth noting the money Hall and Shepard were taking out too, i.e. warehouse in Gibraltar. 

It was matched, in a business sense. There was no external monies coming into the club from some sugar daddy or by taking on major debt. Everything was driven by the success of the team, the demand of the fans to buy whatever was in club shops, even subscribing ti magazines, buying videos of matches and anything else black and white related and then major sponsors wanted a piece of the action and of course we floated in the stock market. We were no Man City outspending everyone with someone else’s money, we did it organically and thanks in part to the business acumen of Freddie Fletch and KK’s eye for talent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

In 5 years we went from being 6m in the red to turning over 40m only second to Man Utd at the time who had the bigger gate capacity, were already a listed company, with a huge fanbase globally and major sponsorship deals and other endorsements in place. Our ability to break the world record transfer fee on Alan Shearer was because going forward, our future income would project that ability, with shirt sales, waiting lists and lucrative sponsorship deals. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this issue has brought front and centre what plenty of people have known for years but some are only just coming to terms with. Football is competitive on the pitch but off the pitch it's actively anti-competitive and surely this has been the case for decades? You only have to compare it with the NFL, with the parity they've achieved via the draft and wage cap, to see football for what it is: it's brutal capitalism presented as a sport. We've won the lottery, enjoy it. You're not getting anywhere 'growing organically' these days, though, those days are gone.

 

 

Edited by Dr Venkman

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, HTT II said:

In 5 years we went from being 6m in the red to turning over 40m only second to Man Utd at the time who had the bigger gate capacity, were already a listed company, with a huge fanbase globally and major sponsorship deals and other endorsements in place. Our ability to break the world record transfer fee on Alan Shearer was because going forward, our future income would project that ability, with shirt sales, waiting lists and lucrative sponsorship deals. 

 

Which all goes to show that our position at the top table is no falsely inflated sense of worth, traditionally we always had the ability to fund a CL club, not that many in England can claim likewise. If it weren't for Sugar Daddy investors pumping their own money into Chelsea and Man City, we would still be in a position to totally fund our own title challenges. 

 

PIF has really just redressed the balance. I would still prefer the old way where each club funded it's own success, but that was taken out of our hands by the likes of Abramovich and Mansour, whose success with their respective clubs has been hailed and celebrated. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, HTT II said:

In 5 years we went from being 6m in the red to turning over 40m only second to Man Utd at the time who had the bigger gate capacity, were already a listed company, with a huge fanbase globally and major sponsorship deals and other endorsements in place. Our ability to break the world record transfer fee on Alan Shearer was because going forward, our future income would project that ability, with shirt sales, waiting lists and lucrative sponsorship deals. 

That's not organic growth, 2nd to Man U after only 5 years, ahead of Liverpool. It was fuelled by debt, our income didn't cover a transfer like Shearer's together with our other expenditure at the time. That's why we had the years under Dalglish where we had to buy players like Rush, Pearce and Barnes. We were fairly skint due to our debt. For info, I know what you're saying about our commercial deals, for example I remember the Adidas advert with Ferdinand kicking a ball being shown around the country.

 

Anyway, my major point is that we have had dramatic growth in the past and no one cared less; everyone loved it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dr Venkman said:

I think this issue has brought front and centre what plenty of people have known for years but some are only just coming to terms with. Football is competitive on the pitch but off the pitch it's actively anti-competitive and surely this has been the case for decades? You only have to compare it with the NFL, with the parity they've achieved via the draft and wage cap, to see football for what it is: it's brutal capitalism presented as a sport.

How many Gridiron teams are not owned by Americans?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me the big 6 are trying to force PIF out.  The whole purpose of buying NUFC was to make a profit as they are an investment group.  If we are prohibited from making eye watering sponsorship deals we will never be worth more than what they paid for us and PIF might decide to cut their losses and sell their share in us!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Ankles Bennett said:

Seems to me the big 6 are trying to force PIF out.  The whole purpose of buying NUFC was to make a profit as they are an investment group.  If we are prohibited from making eye watering sponsorship deals we will never be worth more than what they paid for us and PIF might decide to cut their losses and sell their share in us!


 

I don’t think they will ever make a profit surely? 

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GWN said:


 

I don’t think they will ever make a profit surely? 

Not directly, but there will be many intangible benefits that us non-accountants will ever be able to calculate.

 

No one invests in anything to lose money, so they'll get something back even if it's not cold hard cash....better profile, more interest in their other companies etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Raconteur said:

People talk about the Big Six as if they’re etched in stone - but in the PL era we’ve had the Arsenal-Man Utd duopoly, and a Big Four.

 

I’d argue the Big Six doesn’t even work as a monolithic entity any more, with a Big Three and three other Big Clubs fighting to cling on to their revenue streams.

 

And who knows, in a few years, it might be a Big Four again that includes us?

 

8 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Don’t think about the big 6 in sporting terms. Think about them in revenue terms. 
 

As the whole takeover saga has demonstrated football is a business not a sport. 


63 of the last 72 top 6 finishes since Man City emerged on the scene have been taken by those 6 clubs. That’s a helluva domination tbh.

 

 

Edited by Optimistic Nut

Link to post
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Ankles Bennett said:

Seems to me the big 6 are trying to force PIF out.  The whole purpose of buying NUFC was to make a profit as they are an investment group.  If we are prohibited from making eye watering sponsorship deals we will never be worth more than what they paid for us and PIF might decide to cut their losses and sell their share in us!

Nah, they bought us to get there products and companies out there, what a way to do that owning a PL club. The profit any PL club could possibly make is loose change to PIF.

Link to post
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Ankles Bennett said:

Seems to me the big 6 are trying to force PIF out.  The whole purpose of buying NUFC was to make a profit as they are an investment group.  If we are prohibited from making eye watering sponsorship deals we will never be worth more than what they paid for us and PIF might decide to cut their losses and sell their share in us!

Not just about profit, but also about the ‘sportswashing’ and changing the view of Saudi in Western eyes. That’s beyond money.

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
×
×
  • Create New...