GeordieT Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 16 minutes ago, Keegans Export said: It's difficult to provide any accuracy because you're having to estimate so much. Clubs don't publish their FFP calculations so you just have to put together a best guess based on what is published, so even that "£2m profit required to meet PSR" could be out by a fair margin. Then the 23/24 period you don't even have that. Does he have our domestic match-day income going down from 165.5 to 157.8 by the way or have I misread that? He has match day increasing by £1.2m - which I suspect is undercooked. Same number of games given the League Cup run the previous year but significantly higher ticket prices in the Champions League and one suspects, better corporate uptake. The £7.7m decrease is associated with domestic league position / merit payment. Suspect commercial will be higher as well. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloGeordio Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 hour ago, The College Dropout said: We don't seem desperate to sell for this financial period though. Yeah and in for Olise with 60mil release clause. Taken on Hall and about to buy Trafford (allegedly) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
nufcnick Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 57 minutes ago, Keegans Export said: It's difficult to provide any accuracy because you're having to estimate so much. Clubs don't publish their FFP calculations so you just have to put together a best guess based on what is published, so even that "£2m profit required to meet PSR" could be out by a fair margin. Then the 23/24 period you don't even have that. Does he have our domestic match-day income going down from 165.5 to 157.8 by the way or have I misread that? That’s prize money, match day revenue he had as £39.1m which still looks pretty low Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The College Dropout Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 14 minutes ago, PauloGeordio said: Yeah and in for Olise with 60mil release clause. Taken on Hall and about to buy Trafford (allegedly) If we needed money to be compliant we would've fire-saled Bruno or a combination of Miggy+Trippier+Wilson Still time I guess. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PauloGeordio Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 4 minutes ago, The College Dropout said: If we needed money to be compliant we would've fire-saled Bruno or a combination of Miggy+Trippier+Wilson Still time I guess. Can’t see it mind re Bruno (Hopefully) (the others possibly) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
80 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 This doesn't feel like a plausible prediction. Unless the board has an epic poker face. I could believe a gap - which is one reason I won't feel totally comfortable about Bruno's situation until July - but not that much. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mag3.14 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) For match day, he's made an assumption of a 3.3% increase on previous FY - that was a rough estimate of ST % increase, would think even though we had the same number of games the revenue from those extra CL games would be higher - we also introduced more corporate areas at significant increased prices so I'd expect the figure hes quoted to be low in comparison to the actual figure. Also FFP/PSR allowables (whatever the hell they are now - infrastructure, woman's team etc etc) are not listed so again, the figure we "need to sell to be complient" could be much lower Edited June 17 by Mag3.14 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 9 minutes ago, Mag3.14 said: For match day, he's made an assumption of a 3.3% increase on previous FY - that was a rough estimate of ST % increase, would think even though we had the same number of games the revenue from those extra CL games would be higher - we also introduced more corporate areas at significant increased prices so I'd expect the figure hes quoted to be low in comparison to the actual figure. Also FFP/PSR allowables (whatever the hell they are now - infrastructure, woman's team etc etc) are not listed so again, the figure we "need to sell to be complient" could be much lower He accounts for those earlier in the analysis, though he estimates our academy investment in the lowest of three tiers (no idea if it's remotely accurate, but it's another lever we have). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Optimistic Nut Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) I'm pretty confident in the club's ability to stick to FFP, or to make a judgement on what punishment is worth taking without weakening us. Edited June 17 by Optimistic Nut Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 I don't have time right now to go through it in detail, but I'm very confident that his revenue estimates are considerably low and his cost estimates are high. Our revenue, including player sales that happened last summer, is going to be at least £330m. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terrymac1966 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 So uninformed twaddle by a Billy big balls ....got it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 2 hours ago, timeEd32 said: I don't have time right now to go through it in detail, but I'm very confident that his revenue estimates are considerably low and his cost estimates are high. Our revenue, including player sales that happened last summer, is going to be at least £330m. £300m in revenue excluding sales was where most of us had last season tbf. Looks about right to me. I suspect that the matchday revenue will be slightly higher than SR has allowed but a couple of million is what we’d be talking about. Wages and amortisation also looks in line with what some of us had projected on here previously. He doesn’t include player sales in the income, but does allow for it in the FFP calculation at the bottom. ASM and Wood’s sales are in there. 3 hours ago, Mag3.14 said: Also FFP/PSR allowables (whatever the hell they are now - infrastructure, woman's team etc etc) are not listed so again, the figure we "need to sell to be complient" could be much lower He hasn’t included them as they wouldn’t be relevant - they’d be zeroed out in the FFP calculations. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Have we not got like £63 million in gold bullion buried under the center circle that we could find, the History channel might even make a program about it. The Curse of Sloping St James. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAK Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 5 hours ago, GeordieT said: Very detailed and concerning analysis of PSR today in Swiss Rambles blog, even assuming for a £50m increase in our revenue from £250m to £300m, he is forecasting a £63m operating loss, compared to the required £2m profit to hit PSR, so £65m needs to be generated from player sales. However, that £65m includes the sale of ASM. So perhaps as much as £40m gap. Plenty of assumptions in play of course. Didn’t this same guy say we could spend £600m before we had any FFP concerns around the time of the takeover? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBrownBottle Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 9 minutes ago, SAK said: Didn’t this same guy say we could spend £600m before we had any FFP concerns around the time of the takeover? No, he explained that the £200m of headroom over the previous three years of the Ashley regime worked out as potentially £600m of spending based on the three year cycle; but the issue is that the FFP three year cycle is rolling, so that figure represents what could have been spent and wasn’t. So the idea was that we could have spent £600m in 2021/22 and not have breached FFP at that time due to £200m headroom (£600m being amortised), but that spend would have meant likely being crippled in future seasons. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 How would this fly with FMV etc. Sela cup, winners get 100million. Its not sponsorship, its winnings and others could win it also ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shearergol Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 minute ago, madras said: How would this fly with FMV etc. Sela cup, winners get 100million. Its not sponsorship, its winnings and others could win it also ? We’d 100% lose on penalties Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
madras Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 1 minute ago, Shearergol said: We’d 100% lose on penalties To Simonside under 9s. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 2 hours ago, TheBrownBottle said: £300m in revenue excluding sales was where most of us had last season tbf. Looks about right to me. I suspect that the matchday revenue will be slightly higher than SR has allowed but a couple of million is what we’d be talking about. Wages and amortisation also looks in line with what some of us had projected on here previously. He doesn’t include player sales in the income, but does allow for it in the FFP calculation at the bottom. ASM and Wood’s sales are in there. True, missed that part. I think he's at least £15m off on the revenue side. I think we'll be north of £315m not counting sales. Very likely we're going to increase our allowed deductions also. I could accept we might need to bring in £15m or so and my assumption would be we already have something lined up for Miggy (or other) if that is indeed necessary. Definitely not £40m+. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobsonsWonderland Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 (edited) Still amazes me why clubs spend thousands on accountants when some bloke online can rustle up a spreadsheet with all the secret details about contracts and outgoings. Nevermind knowing all the dodgy fixes and tax fiddles proper accountants can pull out the bag. We will be ok Edited June 17 by RobsonsWonderland Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
midds Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Aye, I think I'll leave the financial side of things up to the people actually running the place tbh. The Swiss Ramble does a lot of brilliant work and he's a good read but he's basing everything off predictions - which is fair enough as he hasn't got the numbers yet. The people running the place know it to the penny and the fact that no-one has been sold (yet) AND we're widely reported to be in a position to potentially drop circa £75m on Trafford and Olise doesn't really stack up either. That's without mentioning the 'emergency' Training kit sponsor I'm sure they've still got up their sleeve if it gets really tight. I think we'll have to wait until July before we spend but I'm not remotely concerned as of yet Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
timeEd32 Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Had this exchange with Swiss Ramble... Me: Quote Great stuff, Kieran. A few things on Newcastle: 1) In the 2022/23 accounts the club said they'd be adding £37m in revenue from the Champions League. My assumption has been, since you and everyone else estimated around £30m from UEFA, that this number includes the three home games. The math on that seems to check out with those three bringing in £6-7m based on the higher ticket prices. Ticket prices were also raised almost across the board for league games, so I expect match day income to rise more than the £1.2m here. Maybe another £3-4m? 2) I'd expect commercial income to grow by more than £27m. It's hard to get numbers for these things, but 2023 Summer Series, postseason Australia tour (apparently worth £2-3m), Saudi friendlies, England friendly, and new partnerships including Saudia, InPost, Fenwick, Sportsbet, Quidd, and JD Sports (just announced so maybe not a lot in 23/24). They also just sold out of the first batch or two of the new Adidas home shirt. Some of these offset by one-off things in 2022/23 like Sam Fender concerts and Saudi tour during WC, but could be a decent bump. 3) Deductions likely to increase both because it might be needed and there was added investment in both the academy and women's team (promoted last season + invested to get promoted again; women's team turned professional this season). All told, I think there's at least another £15m in revenue that can be added and at least a couple million in deductions. That would still leave a pretty sizable gap based on this math, but if there's a panic to sell anyone the whole club is doing a very good job at hiding it. I'm guessing the revenue number is going to come in quite a bit higher than anticipated. Maybe a sale of Almiron or Wilson will be required, but nothing more drastic than that. Kieran: Quote It's entirely possible that Newcastle's figures will be better than my fairly high-level assumptions. Equally, the costs might be a bit higher, so it could be a wash. Unless anyone has access to the club's management accounts, we're all making "educated estimates". As you say, it's important, because it would represent the difference between having to sell a Guimaraes or Isak (which I guess none of the Toon army would want) or an Almiron or Wilson (which the fans could probably live with). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yorkie Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 Great effort as always @timeEd32 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
et tu brute Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 I'll be very surprised if we are over the total allowed. I also think we will see a few sponsorship deals being announced in July. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andyc35i Posted June 17 Share Posted June 17 31 minutes ago, et tu brute said: I'll be very surprised if we are over the total allowed. I also think we will see a few sponsorship deals being announced in July. I’m also of the mindset that who gives a shit. We’ve tried our best to comply, but if we can’t then so be it. The rules shouldn’t be there to force you to sell your best players when you can afford to keep them. Take the points deduction if it comes and then argue on appeal that we’re trying hard to align with the rules, but it’s not possible for a business to grow without losses taking place Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now