Transferometer: January 2022 Edition

[LV]

1 minute ago, madras said:

I'd guess it just sits in the club accounts, like most debt, to be settled up at some as yet undetermined time.

Sure. But the actual money must have come from the Saudis right? The actual money that got transferred to the selling clubs 

[madras]

1 minute ago, LV said:

Sure. But the actual money must have come from the Saudis right? The actual money that got transferred to the selling clubs 

What actual money ? It's a digital transfer that just moves from one account ro another. Our account will show outgoings and on the accounts. I'd doubt any transfer has been done from PIF. It'll just be debt until they find another way transferring credit in ie sponsorship.

[Phoenix711]

I don't know about Newcastle but it's common practice for owners to inject funds into the club just like you would a business.

 

FFP allows £5m/season loss for three consecutive financial years. This means we can lose £15m over three years on the balance sheet. BUT, the owners can inject £30m/season on top of that - that is where the £105m loss over three seasons comes from. That £30m is straight from the owners pockets. The owners can also inject unlimited funds to non playing causes e.g. infrastructure.

 

In all likelihood, the owners transferred a sizeable sum into the accounts of Newcastle but for accounting reasons we can only claim £30m/season directly from them to use on transfers - the rest needs to come from other areas such as merchandise sales, sponsorships, gate receipts etc.

 

As for the money put in by the owners, they either write it off as losses (usually tax reasons) or convert it to more shares in the club.

 

Edit: Here's an article showing how Man City's owners put a huge chunk of cash into the club 10 years ago.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/aug/26/manchester-city-sheikh-mansour

 

Can't find the article, but a few years ago, Man City's owners didn't have to inject £30m/year into the club anymore because they were self reliant. PIF and co would have to do something similar. 

 

 

Edited February 3, 2022 by Phoenix711

[madras]

4 minutes ago, Phoenix711 said:

I don't know about Newcastle but it's common practice for owners to inject funds into the club just like you would a business.

 

FFP allows £5m/season loss for three consecutive financial years. This means we can lose £15m over three years on the balance sheet. BUT, the owners can inject £30m/season on top of that - that is where the £105m loss over three seasons comes from. That £30m is straight from the owners pockets. The owners can also inject unlimited funds to non playing causes e.g. infrastructure.

 

In all likelihood, the owners transferred a sizeable sum into the accounts of Newcastle but for accounting reasons we can only claim £30m/season directly from them to use on transfers - the rest needs to come from other areas such as merchandise sales, sponsorships, gate receipts etc.

 

As for the money put in by the owners, they either write it off as losses (usually tax reasons) or convert it to more shares in the club.

 

Edit: Here's an article showing how Man City's owners put a huge chunk of cash into the club 10 years ago.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2010/aug/26/manchester-city-sheikh-mansour

 

Can't find the article, but a few years ago, Man City's owners didn't have to inject £30m/year into the club anymore because they were self reliant. PIF and co would have to do something similar. 

 

 

 

I thought we had enough FFP space that we could rack up considerable debt without that ?

[kingxlnc]

In a way, maybe it's a good thing we missed out on the likes of Botman and Ekitike given their ages (21 and 19), with the position we're in, everyone signed is either a model professional and/or leader material, battle hardened to keep the team up. I think having this group injects some life, some winning spirit and most important some stronger mentality in what was a fragile group previously. 

 

Secondly, we've scored a decent amount of goals this season, relatively speaking (it's not been like previous seasons under Benitez, for example where we kept it tight but couldn't score many). The defence was haemorrhaging goals so it was right to focus on the back line which is much stronger now and with Bruno we have someone who can facilitate the fast counter attack with his range of passing and transitions. 

 

We have a bit of everything, Wood for the long ball target man approach, Wilson and WIllock for running onto the through balls and finishing, ASM for the magic, Almiron for the pace and tenacity, Joe to break it all up and Shelvey to distribute from a distance without needing to defend. It's a fairly balanced side now, so it was intelligent spending, as opposed to Saudi's flexing their muscles and trying to show UAE and Qatar the new kid on the block. That ego driven approach would have been the worst thing - so glad Howe had enough influence to get in what he needs between now and end of the season. 

[Phoenix711]

1 minute ago, madras said:

I thought we had enough FFP space that we could rack up considerable debt without that ?

 

Right now if we used only what Ashley left us (£90m profit over three years) and what the EPL allows (£15m loss over three years), we can lose £105m over three years assuming no change to out income/ outcome. Remember, that's losing £105m for everything i.e. wages, agent fees, signing on fees, bonuses etc. It's not just transfer funds.

 

The £105m can be stretched with clever accounting like amortisation (transfer fee spread over life of contract), paying transfer fees in instalments etc, but if we spent only what the club physically has, it's only £90m - slightly less for transfers because we need to account for wages etc.

 

To spend any more, someone needs to provide the cash and this is what the owners will do (hopefully). The only thing tying their hands is their is a limit to how much they can put in over the three years (£30m/season) called FFP and thus we need to find ways to add revenues. Man City "cheated" this by getting over inflated sponsorships e.g. imagine Etihad airlines sponsoring Sunderland for £500m while Liverpool only have a £200m sponsorship - they are clearly not paying market value and that is why they tightened the rules. 

 

We could easily spend £500m+ over three years if we are successful (get European football) so we can get more sponsorships but ultimately someone needs to pay that money - all of it will be debt that the owners wipe off or convert to shares. FFP will simply state we didn't lose more than £35m for any given year but in reality the owners will have haemorrhaged a lot more.

 

Why would they do this? To make Newcastle and subsequently them, a media darling. They may also look to inject money into the city to make money from property like Man City have done in Manchester.

[Phoenix711]

17 minutes ago, kingxlnc said:

In a way, maybe it's a good thing we missed out on the likes of Botman and Ekitike given their ages (21 and 19), with the position we're in, everyone signed is either a model professional and/or leader material, battle hardened to keep the team up. I think having this group injects some life, some winning spirit and most important some stronger mentality in what was a fragile group previously. 

 

Secondly, we've scored a decent amount of goals this season, relatively speaking (it's not been like previous seasons under Benitez, for example where we kept it tight but couldn't score many). The defence was haemorrhaging goals so it was right to focus on the back line which is much stronger now and with Bruno we have someone who can facilitate the fast counter attack with his range of passing and transitions. 

 

We have a bit of everything, Wood for the long ball target man approach, Wilson and WIllock for running onto the through balls and finishing, ASM for the magic, Almiron for the pace and tenacity, Joe to break it all up and Shelvey to distribute from a distance without needing to defend. It's a fairly balanced side now, so it was intelligent spending, as opposed to Saudi's flexing their muscles and trying to show UAE and Qatar the new kid on the block. That ego driven approach would have been the worst thing - so glad Howe had enough influence to get in what he needs between now and end of the season. 

 

Not sure about this, we've scored the 4th lowest goals this season, two of the three are relegation candidates (Norwich, Burnley) and the other has the second best defence (Wolves). We've drawn a blank 4 times and never won a game which we scored 2 or more in. Under Howe, I believe only against Brentford have we managed 2 or more goals. Our last two goals (vs Watford and Leeds) relied on ASM magic and a keeping error. It's not like we're creating chances left, right and centre. It's actually the opposite, Wood has little delivery and we don't create enough.

 

Yes we've let quite a few goals in but 24/43 were against the top 7 teams. You can also argue we draw blanks against the top teams too.

 

Not saying it's doom and gloom but it would have been nice to have a bit of extra firepower. Hopefully with the new arrivals we'll create more and if Wilson gets back and stays fit I think we have enough ?.

[madras]

It's not clever accounting but basic and stretches all that out doesn't it ?The owners can transfer 30mill in as and when needed for accounting and that 3 year is rolling so next year's will be different again given projected new sponsorships/partnerships won't it ?

 

You appear to know your stuff, I know the idea behind fair market value for sponsorships and partnerships but is there a limit to how many a club can have, ie the league say a fair market value for us to have a partnership is 10mill.......can we have 40 of them ? Tyre partner, shock absorber partner, solar panel partner, sex toy partner ?

[Phoenix711]

7 minutes ago, madras said:

It's not clever accounting but basic and stretches all that out doesn't it ?The owners can transfer 30mill in as and when needed for accounting and that 3 year is rolling so next year's will be different again given projected new sponsorships/partnerships won't it ?

 

You appear to know your stuff, I know the idea behind fair market value for sponsorships and partnerships but is there a limit to how many a club can have, ie the league say a fair market value for us to have a partnership is 10mill.......can we have 40 of them ? Tyre partner, shock absorber partner, solar panel partner, sex toy partner ?

 

First, who would want to sponsor us? It's not like we'll have Google jumping to be on our kit. And even if they did, they'd probably only pay around what we already get. This is where the Saudi's will use their contacts to get above market deals but they can only stretch it so far - the new sponsors are doing favours to the Saudis, not because we're worth it (right now).

 

As for sponsorships, every extra one devalues the first. Many sponsors ask for exclusivity e.g. Nike will not allow Adidas as well etc. I don't know if there's a limit but from observational evidence we can see the sweet spot is around 3-4 sponsors. We make around £28m/year from commercial deals while Man Utd make £280m/year so we can realistically get to half Man Utd's value without them complaining. Only if/when we get CL football and are title contenders can we start to get to Man Utd's numbers.

 

I believe it was Everton's owner (might be wrong) got a friend of his to invest £30m for first refusal for the right to rename Goodison Park. That's right, just for first refusal, not actually renaming! Obviously they weren't going to rename Goodison Park and it was a sneaky way to inject a bit more money in. And by clever accounting, I don't mean cook the books, just adding nonsensical things like this to allow for more funds - it's all totally legal.

 

Anyways, most of the money, directly or indirectly, comes from the new owners (specifically PIF), and they have a huge amount of it which is why other clubs want to restrict it as much as possible.

 

 

[madras]

2 hours ago, Phoenix711 said:

 

First, who would want to sponsor us? It's not like we'll have Google jumping to be on our kit. And even if they did, they'd probably only pay around what we already get. This is where the Saudi's will use their contacts to get above market deals but they can only stretch it so far - the new sponsors are doing favours to the Saudis, not because we're worth it (right now).

 

As for sponsorships, every extra one devalues the first. Many sponsors ask for exclusivity e.g. Nike will not allow Adidas as well etc. I don't know if there's a limit but from observational evidence we can see the sweet spot is around 3-4 sponsors. We make around £28m/year from commercial deals while Man Utd make £280m/year so we can realistically get to half Man Utd's value without them complaining. Only if/when we get CL football and are title contenders can we start to get to Man Utd's numbers.

 

I believe it was Everton's owner (might be wrong) got a friend of his to invest £30m for first refusal for the right to rename Goodison Park. That's right, just for first refusal, not actually renaming! Obviously they weren't going to rename Goodison Park and it was a sneaky way to inject a bit more money in. And by clever accounting, I don't mean cook the books, just adding nonsensical things like this to allow for more funds - it's all totally legal.

 

Anyways, most of the money, directly or indirectly, comes from the new owners (specifically PIF), and they have a huge amount of it which is why other clubs want to restrict it as much as possible.

 

 

I think we'd have loads chomping at the bit if we stop up, but whatvI was getting at was ways round FFP which you included with the Everon example. I was just thinking Man Utd had Saudi partners for about a decade, A Thai tyre partner.....could be infinity if you wanted to force it.

[Phoenix711]

4 hours ago, madras said:

I think we'd have loads chomping at the bit if we stop up, but whatvI was getting at was ways round FFP which you included with the Everon example. I was just thinking Man Utd had Saudi partners for about a decade, A Thai tyre partner.....could be infinity if you wanted to force it.

 

I'm not sure, but there was a deal struck by 18 of the other 19 EPL clubs when we got the new owners, which blocked any sponsorship above £1m. It was lifted after 1 month under the proviso we would not get any sponsors beyond market rate. Who dictates market rate? No idea, but I recon we can get an extra £100m a yr from sponsorship. If we get CL, could be more. If owners are serious, we could easily spend a few hundred mil before FFP becomes an issue but just need to avoid wasting money like Everton who had £0 to spend this summer after squandering £500m (net £280m). That's why Alli was a Free - they'll pay money from next window (20m if he plays 20 games, 20m in performance related).

 

Just hope we spend wisely.

[Phoenix711]

On 03/02/2022 at 13:34, LV said:

Sure. But the actual money must have come from the Saudis right? The actual money that got transferred to the selling clubs 

 

On 03/02/2022 at 14:13, madras said:

I thought we had enough FFP space that we could rack up considerable debt without that ?

 

Just thought you both might be interested in this article:

https://www.shieldsgazette.com/sport/football/newcastle-united/newcastle-uniteds-owners-make-ps40m-move-following-transfer-deadline-3555562

 

The owners are injecting cash for equity. They can injected unlimited amounts but for FFP only a certain amount can be used/ shown on the books.