Jump to content

PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Doctor Zaius said:

Handing Jacob Murphy a 6 year contract and 30 year old Dwight Gayle a 3 year contract doesnt scream 'we're about to be sold' like. 


No it screams of not letting them go without being able to get a fee. Both in today’s market are probably worth at least 5 - 8 million. Most on here wanted Murphy to get a contract and Gayle probably would have not have signed without a 3 year deal being offered. There was no way in hell Ashley would let players with a transfer value walk away for nothing. I think Gayle will be away either within this transfer window or the one in January. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Doctor Zaius said:

Handing Jacob Murphy a 6 year contract and 30 year old Dwight Gayle a 3 year contract doesnt scream 'we're about to be sold' like. 

 

Ah, can be quite the contrary. Adds 'value' that has to be covered by whoever's doing the buy-out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Doctor Zaius said:

Handing Jacob Murphy a 6 year contract and 30 year old Dwight Gayle a 3 year contract doesnt scream 'we're about to be sold' like. 

 

I don't think it necessarily has any takeover implications either way, but if anything I think it suggests we're being led by a regime that has completely checked out. 

 

We've talked about 'bare minimum' a lot in the context of our transfer policy and what-have-you; but literally just making sure you've got 20-25 professional footballers in the squad - whoever they are - is the true bare minimum. That's what we're going for here; that's the only reason the likes of Gayle have got contracts. Ashley just needs employees to fulfil the club's basic commitments for as long as he's the owner, win or lose. Why would he sign new players to achieve that, ahead of simply keeping the ones he's already got?

 

I'd be more worried if we were investing heavily in the squad again because it would suggest that Ashley feels that he needs to, i.e. he feels as if he's got another full season/relegation battle to navigate through. 

 

Investing absolutely nothing suggests he's at maximum levels of not-giving-a-fuck which, ironically, and for a change, is actually something to give you optimism. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

I don't think it necessarily has any takeover implications either way, but if anything I think it suggests we're being led by a regime that has completely checked out. 

 

We've talked about 'bare minimum' a lot in the context of our transfer policy and what-have-you; but literally just making sure you've got 20-25 professional footballers in the squad - whoever they are - is the true bare minimum. That's what we're going for here; that's the only reason the likes of Gayle have got contracts. Ashley just needs employees to fulfil the club's basic commitments for as long as he's the owner, win or lose. Why would he sign new players to achieve that, ahead of simply keeping the ones he's already got?

 

I'd be more worried if we were investing heavily in the squad again because it would suggest that Ashley feels that he needs to, i.e. he feels as if he's got another full season/relegation battle to navigate through. 

 

Investing absolutely nothing suggests he's at maximum levels of not-giving-a-fuck which, ironically, and for a change, is actually something to give you optimism. 

Could he not just put players from the youth team in instead of giving Gayle and co new contracts?

 

I'm probably missing a basic point here.

 

 

Edited by ToonArmy1892

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well in reality it's hardly him making decisions (despite me writing in the previous post as if he's at the table in every contract renewal/scouting mission). The only thing he's behind is providing the budget; the size of which will reflect his attitude and everything I'm saying above. I.e. it'll be tiny this summer cos why should he bother making anything substantial available when he's gonna be out the door in a few weeks?

 

Then it's up to Charnley, Bruce and whichever other incompetent morons they have to make decisions around that tiny budget. Ergo contract extensions, not new players cos there isn't enough money been made available to bring in new talent. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, ToonArmy1892 said:

Deffo, worrying stuff.

 


I disagree, one of the things they’ve done to make the club an attractive investment prospect is how they’ve been able to make money while being absolutely shite with no real ambition. Just suddenly letting players go who are worth something would be a terrible idea.

 

We've occasionally taken a punt on an unproven player. Gayle fell into that bracket, he thrives in the championship but just doesn’t seem to be able to translate that at PL level, he’s not fast enough, not strong enough despite being a good finisher. He’s worth something though.. 5-10 million while under contract?

 

Murphy is different. He’s got pace, he’s got skill and he can deliver great crosses and he can score. When he first came he was a bit lightweight, but he’s taking it very seriously now, you can see he’s much physically stronger now than he was, I think he’ll do well this year. He’s one of the best athletes at the club.

 

Even with a takeover he has a future here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

Well in reality it's hardly him making decisions (despite me writing in the previous post as if he's at the table in every contract renewal/scouting mission). The only thing he's behind is providing the budget; the size of which will reflect his attitude and everything I'm saying above. I.e. it'll be tiny this summer cos why should he bother making anything substantial available when he's gonna be out the door in a few weeks?

 

Then it's up to Charnley, Bruce and whichever other incompetent morons they have to make decisions around that tiny budget. Ergo contract extensions, not new players cos there isn't enough money been made available to bring in new talent. 

If he has fully checked out he would put some kid on a grand a week in the squad and just let Gayle leave wouldn't he?

 

I might be talking shite here, don't know exactly what the rules are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Dr Jinx said:


I disagree, one of the things they’ve done to make the club an attractive investment prospect is how they’ve been able to make money while being absolutely shite with no real ambition. Just suddenly letting players go who are worth something would be a terrible idea.

 

We've occasionally taken a punt on an unproven player. Gayle fell into that bracket, he thrives in the championship but just doesn’t seem to be able to translate that at PL level, he’s not fast enough, not strong enough despite being a good finisher. He’s worth something though.. 5-10 million while under contract?

 

Murphy is different. He’s got pace, he’s got skill and he can deliver great crosses and he can score. When he first came he was a bit lightweight, but he’s taking it very seriously now, you can see he’s much physically stronger now than he was, I think he’ll do well this year. He’s one of the best athletes at the club.

 

Even with a takeover he has a future here.

Why would Ashley care about what any player is worth if he's about to sell?

 

I'm confused.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, ToonArmy1892 said:

If he has fully checked out he would put some kid on a grand a week in the squad and just let Gayle leave wouldn't he?

 

I might be talking shite here, don't know exactly what the rules are.

 

He wouldn't, would he. Ashley isn't deciding which players get contracts and which ones don't; he doesn't get involved at that level. 

 

We identify him as having 'fully checked out' by analysing the budget he allows for squad management. Big budget = he's investing and therefore presumably staying. Small budget = he's not investing cos he's leaving. And Gayle et al's contract extensions suggests 'small budget' to me. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

 

He wouldn't, would he. Ashley isn't deciding which players get contracts and which ones don't; he doesn't get involved at that level. 

 

We identify him as having 'fully checked out' by analysing the budget he allows for squad management. Big budget = he's investing and therefore presumably staying. Small budget = he's not investing cos he's leaving. And Gayle et al's contract extensions suggests 'small budget' to me. 

Really? How do you know that?

 

Are you saying it's the clubs money anyway?

 

I'm not trying to be awkward, i'm just honestly confused. [emoji38]

 

 

Edited by ToonArmy1892

Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you just arguing for the sake of it? I don't know it to a certainty, but I would be very surprised if he's on the blower to Charnley saying "make sure Fede gets another year please," particularly considering - as per the wider point I'm trying to argue - his interest in the club is clearly at an all time low. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 minutes ago, Yorkie said:

Are you just arguing for the sake of it? I don't know it to a certainty, but I would be very surprised if he's on the blower to Charnley saying "make sure Fede gets another year please," particularly considering - as per the wider point I'm trying to argue - his interest in the club is clearly at an all time low. 

I'm not arguing, being very thick possibly, but i don't get why if he's deffo selling and price for club already agreed he is giving new contracts to players on a decent wedge when he could save money by promoting youth players on peanuts to the 25 man squad instead.

 

 

Edited by ToonArmy1892

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Ben said:

My Spider senses are telling me this might be about to go through you know.

 

You know, I think I'd arguably more pissed off if the PL folded at this stage and it went with a whimper along the lines of "we've reached an agreement over the terms of the O&D issue and the new test will begin in earnest" or whatever.  I really want this to damage the PL or at least those in charge of it as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
49 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Do we even know for certain PIF will be back even if that happens?

 

100% 

 

Staveley specifically said so in her two interviews this week.

 

 

Edited by Wandy

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Optimistic Nut said:

Do we even know for certain PIF will be back even if that happens?

PIFs involvement has been mentioned this week by Stavelely?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Rich changed the title to OFFICIAL: PIF, PCP, & RB COMPLETE TAKEOVER OF NEWCASTLE UNITED FOOTBALL CLUB
  • Rich changed the title to PIF, PCP, and RB Sports & Media

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...