Financial Fair Play / Profit & Sustainability

[The College Dropout]

7 minutes ago, Turnbull2000 said:

 

A new ground in 2030 may help, but we'd pretty much end up in the Villa situation if we wanted a squad capable of domestic and Europe competition every season, would we not?

Exactly.

 

The only way for any other team to consistently get top 6-like revenue.... is to consistently finish in the top 6. Therefore, having an extended period of losses and/or overperformance.

 

That's true of us and Villa. We can accelerate revenues through dodgy sponsorships up to a point but that's still reliant on overperformance on the pitch.

 

This is why I adovocate pushing hard in the transfer market this season to compound last years CL success. CL is £50m per year in cash and indirectly worth loads in sponsorships. Main thing is qualifying for that back-to-back and only missing seasons by exception. The revenues will follow.

[Sibierski]

14 minutes ago, Turnbull2000 said:

 

A new ground in 2030 may help, but we'd pretty much end up in the Villa situation if we wanted a squad capable of domestic and Europe competition every season, would we not?

 

We are getting a squad for this, but like to think approaching it in a better way.

 

Villa route is working for them in short term, but will always say their approach under Monchi will end in tears because only Emery is holding it together. The turnover of players and amount signed isn't financially efficient. All well and good signing someone for £45m and selling them for £45m the following summer to enable some more spending, but the signing on fees/agent costs are just wasted money then.

[Jackie Broon]

23 minutes ago, Turnbull2000 said:

 

A new ground in 2030 may help, but we'd pretty much end up in the Villa situation if we wanted a squad capable of domestic and Europe competition every season, would we not?

 

Maybe, but we're obviously going about it more cautiously and I think we have potential to grow more consistently than Villa. Although we might not feel they are using that advantage enough, we have the wealth and influence of a state behind us and so have more ability to keep increasing commercial revenue over time. The whole purpose of the changes to APT and FMV that the PL brought in, and were found to be unlawful, was that they were concerned that the current rules are inflationary, that they would allow APT deals to be increased over time. 

 

Also, the connections that our owners have mean that we have the potential to get better deals from some non-associated parties, for example our deal with Adidas is reportedly double what Villa get.

 

 

Edited 6 hours ago by Jackie Broon

[tarie4]

 

10 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

Maybe, but we're obviously going about it more cautiously and I think we have potential to grow more consistently than Villa. Although we might not feel they are using that advantage enough, we have the wealth and influence of a state behind us and so have more ability to keep increasing commercial revenue over time. The whole purpose of the changes to APT and FMV that the PL brought in, and were found to be unlawful, was that they were concerned that the current rules are inflationary, that they would allow APT deals to be increased over time. 

 

Also, the connections that our owners have mean that we have the potential to get better deals from some non-associated parties, for example our deal with Adidas is reportedly double what Villa get.

 

 

 

I agree, Wor Mandy did tell us in her first interview that PIF are patient investors, and they've got a plan to be the best in 5 to 10 years. We're in year 4, we've finished in the Champions League spots twice, won a trophy, and if Man City hadn't messed up that final, we'd have been in the Conference League, meaning three years in a row in Europe. Our revenue keeps going up, and it'll probably go up even more this year and next.

 

I don't get where the impatience is coming from.

 

We were told these guys are patient investors.

We're being careful and doing things the right way, and we're still doing really well on the pitch.

 

[The College Dropout]

Trying to break into the top 4/6 isn't a game of patient investing imo

 

 

This is a fast-paced ruthless game. Growth for us is dependent on immediate results.  The advantage others have is compounded.

 

On a basic business level - that doesn't reward "patient investing".

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by The College Dropout

[Sibierski]

There's breaking and sustaining it. If you end up in there, but then have to sell a star asset the following summer because you are up shit creek financially, was the fast-paced nature worth it?

[Jackie Broon]

Just now, The College Dropout said:

Trying to break into the top 4/6 isn't a game of patient investing imo

 

 

This is a fast-paced ruthless game.

 

I'd disagree based on the objective evidence of Man City's APT case, the biggest 'loophole' we have available is the inflationary nature of the APT rules, which the PL tried and failed to close.

 

We can't do what Chelsea are doing because we don't have the assets, and it isn't sustainable anyway.

[The College Dropout]

1 minute ago, Sibierski said:

There's breaking and sustaining it. If you end up in there, but then have to sell a star asset the following summer because you are up shit creek financially, was the fast-paced nature worth it?

If you've requalified - yes.

 

That's basically what we've done - but with a years break in the middle.

 

Invested aggressively to give us a team capable of qualiyfing for the CL without having CL football in the same season. We built a squad capable of that 2-3 years ago and not added anything substantially to it in 2 years.

 

We've not patiently built anything.

 

[The College Dropout]

2 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

I'd disagree based on the objective evidence of Man City's APT case, the biggest 'loophole' we have available is the inflationary nature of the APT rules, which the PL tried and failed to close.

 

We can't do what Chelsea are doing because we don't have the assets, and it isn't sustainable anyway.

We've got lots of assets. And within the rules, we can buy assets outside of FFP but selling them counts towards FFP. We can buy land and sell it under FFP/PSR as pure profit.

 

We can sell SJP to ourselves. We can buy the land for the new site, then sell it to ourselves.

 

 

[r0cafella]

9 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

We've got lots of assets. And within the rules, we can buy assets outside of FFP but selling them counts towards FFP. We can buy land and sell it under FFP/PSR as pure profit.

 

We can sell SJP to ourselves. We can buy the land for the new site, then sell it to ourselves.

 

 

Given the amount of money left on the table with sponsorships this is obviously a pipe dream

[Jackie Broon]

14 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

We've got lots of assets. And within the rules, we can buy assets outside of FFP but selling them counts towards FFP. We can buy land and sell it under FFP/PSR as pure profit.

 

We can sell SJP to ourselves. We can buy the land for the new site, then sell it to ourselves.

 

 

 

We don't own the land St. James' Park is on, it is leased from the council and likely has covenants on that would restrict other uses and/or sale.

 

 

[tarie4]

23 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

If you've requalified - yes.

 

If not?

[tarie4]

2 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

We don't own the land St. James' Park is on, it is leased from the council and likely has covenants on that would restrict other uses and/or sale.

 

 

Yeah, we don't know much, so it's easy to act like it's simple.

[tarie4]

23 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

We've got lots of assets. And within the rules, we can buy assets outside of FFP but selling them counts towards FFP. We can buy land and sell it under FFP/PSR as pure profit.

 

We can sell SJP to ourselves. We can buy the land for the new site, then sell it to ourselves.

 

 

Newcastle United Football Club does not own St. James' Park. The stadium is owned by Newcastle City Council. While the club has a lease to play there, the land and stadium are owned by the council.

 

Be patient mate. There is clearly a lot you dont know, even if you think you do. 

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by tarie4

[FloydianMag]

18 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

Newcastle United Football Club does not own St. James' Park. The stadium is owned by Newcastle City Council. While the club has a lease to play there, the land and stadium are owned by the council.

 

Be patient mate. There is clearly a lot you dont know, even if you think you do. 

 

 

 

So the stadium rebuild that took place in the 90’s was paid for by the council?

[Jackie Broon]

12 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

So the stadium rebuild that took place in the 90’s was paid for by the council?

 

No, it's like owning a leasehold house, but unlike leasehold house there are likely to be restrictions on the club's ability to sell and/or for the land to be used for anything else.

[Checko]

We lease the ground from the council. See for example:

 

"So what are the risks? Alongside planning difficulties Newcastle’s lease on the ground expires in 2097 which is a long way away but also will need to be extended – perhaps beyond the 99-year lease that was agreed last time the ground was expanded in 1998. i understands the city council are amenable to that, but haven’t been approached yet." - https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/newcastle-eight-questions-decide-leave-st-james-park-3307648

[The College Dropout]

54 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

If not?

Then you sell some of the saleable assets from the deep squad you have. 
 

Again - this is exactly what we did last summer. 
 

Which is also the case when you don’t qualify for the CL but have CL quality players in the squad not in the competition.  

51 minutes ago, tarie4 said:

Newcastle United Football Club does not own St. James' Park. The stadium is owned by Newcastle City Council. While the club has a lease to play there, the land and stadium are owned by the council.

 

Be patient mate. There is clearly a lot you dont know, even if you think you do. 

 

 

 

You’re being pedantic.  Are you saying we have zero assets to sell… to ourselves? We can also buy assets with the express intention of selling them to ourselves - that is allowed in the rules.  Are you suggesting that is impossible?

 

Barcelona sold its own future revenue properly. Not even to itself. 

 

 

Edited 4 hours ago by The College Dropout

[FloydianMag]

3 minutes ago, Checko said:

We lease the ground from the council. See for example:

 

"So what are the risks? Alongside planning difficulties Newcastle’s lease on the ground expires in 2097 which is a long way away but also will need to be extended – perhaps beyond the 99-year lease that was agreed last time the ground was expanded in 1998. i understands the city council are amenable to that, but haven’t been approached yet." - https://inews.co.uk/sport/football/newcastle-eight-questions-decide-leave-st-james-park-3307648

I know we lease the ground, however the stadium is owned by the club, after all didn’t they pay for all the rebuilding etc.

[FloydianMag]

15 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

No, it's like owning a leasehold house, but unlike leasehold house there are likely to be restrictions on the club's ability to sell and/or for the land to be used for anything else.

Then surely SJP, the physical infrastructure can be sold to ourselves and used for the same purpose it is now?

[Jackie Broon]

29 minutes ago, FloydianMag said:

Then surely SJP, the physical infrastructure can be sold to ourselves and used for the same purpose it is now?

 

It depends on the covenants of the lease.

[tarie4]

35 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

Then you sell some of the saleable assets from the deep squad you have. 
 

Again - this is exactly what we did last summer. 
 

Which is also the case when you don’t qualify for the CL but have CL quality players in the squad not in the competition.  

You’re being pedantic.  Are you saying we have zero assets to sell… to ourselves? We can also buy assets with the express intention of selling them to ourselves - that is allowed in the rules.  Are you suggesting that is impossible?

 

Barcelona sold its own future revenue properly. Not even to itself. 

 

 

 

Nah, I'm not saying that, I'm just pointing out it's not as easy as you think. If you've thought about it, I'm sure the people in charge have, and they've made a decision not to go down those roads. I trust them more than you, and I'm sure they're doing the right thing, even if it's annoying for us fans.

 

I'll remind you what Wor Mandy said. PIF are patient investors.

[tarie4]

2 minutes ago, Jackie Broon said:

 

It depends on the covenants of the lease.

Which we dont know.

[James]

I’m surprised at this stage a player hasn’t taken the PL to court over FFP. Their career and future earnings are being directly impacted. Probably countless examples in the PL but I can just cite various at NUFC:

 

Isak - he is one of the worlds best strikers and his club would be willing to and can afford a new contract, but FFP says no, forcing him to lose earnings or uproot his life to move elsewhere.

 

Bruno - Clubs have not been able to activate his £100m clause due to FFP.

 

Targett - Lost his place at NUFC due to injury. Would move to further his career and future earnings but due to FFP no club will take on his salary.

 

Miley - Unable to secure a loan move to aid his development as club can’t source alternative player due to FFP.

 

Add to that there are probably Championship players that PL clubs are no longer taking a punt on due to FFP. I don’t think anyone would have signed Jacob Murphy if FFP was a thing back then.