NUFC Transfer Rumours

[r0cafella]

45 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

But couldn’t you sponsor us for, say, 15% less than Liverpool? 
 

I get the problems with the rules but I also think we need to push every avenue to the max. 

 

 

 

Sure they could but then Liverpool get another sponsor and the same rate they wanted originally and the gap continues to increase. 

 

The point being that with such rules in place with prohibit owner investment via direct means and essentially cap related sponsors at some arbitrary made up number the gap never gets closed. 

 

Manchester United are a prime example, logic would dictate they would have less generous sponsors as they've sucked for awhile and don't exactly shine PR wise yet they earn the most

 

If a competitive playing field is desired (it isn't) the rules we have in place only foster protectionism. 

[Mahoneys Tache]

2 hours ago, JEToon said:

The harsh reality is we are going to be linked with players like Tavernier, likely sign players like that, this is the issue we are going to face and the league wants us to face, we are going to need to both find and sign cheap effective proven players for the league, young talent who will improve and absolute nailed on quality.

 

It’s a bit wild to bemoan our policy of overspending and then be irked by us being linked to players we perceive to be undervalued and a fee of 10 million for him would be the kind of undervalued market we likely will look at even if nothing ever comes of his name being linked

That full back we peddled to Leicester who went on to win the league with them springs to mind. Simpson was it? 

[AyeDubbleYoo]

16 minutes ago, r0cafella said:

Sure they could but then Liverpool get another sponsor and the same rate they wanted originally and the gap continues to increase. 

 

The point being that with such rules in place with prohibit owner investment via direct means and essentially cap related sponsors at some arbitrary made up number the gap never gets closed. 

 

Manchester United are a prime example, logic would dictate they would have less generous sponsors as they've sucked for awhile and don't exactly shine PR wise yet they earn the most

 

If a competitive playing field is desired (it isn't) the rules we have in place only foster protectionism. 

 

Yeah, I get that and it's unfair. But if you could get 'almost' what the teams above get then you could (in theory) out manage them. 

[TRon]

23 minutes ago, AyeDubbleYoo said:

 

Yeah, I get that and it's unfair. But if you could get 'almost' what the teams above get then you could (in theory) out manage them. 

 

But then they could afford to poach your management structure if they really wanted to. It's an unsustainable model for being Number 1.

[The College Dropout]

14 hours ago, Kanj said:

I’m not living in cloud cuckoo land. The commercial income thing doesn’t have to be all related party though. So that’s a knock I always have had with current corporate team. and like I’ve said before and you ignored, we’re really not in a sellers market anymore given the cost of debt and capital. It’s why all these fees have died off unless you’re a sovereign, o wait. 

Sorry pal - that was rude of me.  You didn’t deserve that.  My bad.  
 

I’m just frustrated by the whole thing. 
 

There’s no reason a non related party would pay us equivalent to a top 6 team. Unless our owners do some shenanigans - which they don’t seem willing to do.  

14 hours ago, r0cafella said:

Im not keen on TCD Language here it's inflammatory without cause. That being said I do agree with the nature of his point. 

 

The reason why related party deals are so important to us is it's our only realistic way of closing the gap to the likes of spurs. Unfortunately whilst we were being tortured by Ashley the rest of the league were investing in marketing and creating a global fan base, this factor makes them a lot more appealing commercial partners than we are. 

 

As I've often repeated, why would I sponsor us when I can sponsor Liverpool for the same cost. Sponsoring Liverpool gives my brand ALOT more eyeballs. 

 

This is precisely why the PL and the so called members fought so hard to pass APT rules because they know all of this. 

Aye we can’t close the gap unless our owners pump in money.  Our owners seem only willing to do this with minimal workarounds. 
 

If we can’t close the gap meaningfully in revenues in the short term. We need to have better coaching, better transfer deals.  That means top 6 quality for not top 6 wages and fees. You can’t do that if you want to sign several players for £50m+ with massive reputations. We’ll need riskier transfers.  Younger players. Lower wages. 

4 hours ago, TRon said:

 

Yes, that's what I said basically, I think that's why there will be some friction with Mitchell and Howe, it's inevitable when the owners are setting expectations of Europe and want to increase PSR headroom at the same time. Howe believes he needs good quality PL ready players to deliver, but that model doesn't leave any margin for failure. Don't qualify for Europe and you are basically forced to sell players as happened this summer.

The Europe thing is overstated - at least in the short term.  Qualifying for the conference league doesn’t materially impact PSR for the next season or 2.  
 

The PSR - related parties thing is crazy.  Because if we get European football 3 years out of 5 - can we justify the same deals as Spurs who do the same thing? Because… no Spurs will still have a bigger brand. 

[SUPERTOON]

 

[The College Dropout]

8 minutes ago, TRon said:

 

But then they could afford to poach your management structure if they really wanted to. It's an unsustainable model for being Number 1.

This is it. But the USP has to be our actual leadership which it is for City. 
 

To give him his credit Levy has been wonderful for Spurs. He’s the reason they are where they are. They’ve swapped managers, DOFs and kept building. They are also capped by his own ambition (money). 

[Dr.Spaceman]

51 minutes ago, Mahoneys Tache said:

That full back we peddled to Leicester who went on to win the league with them springs to mind. Simpson was it? 

 

We let him go on a free to QPR in the Championship, not Leicester in the PL fwiw.

[TRon]

38 minutes ago, The College Dropout said:

This is it. But the USP has to be our actual leadership which it is for City. 
 

To give him his credit Levy has been wonderful for Spurs. He’s the reason they are where they are. They’ve swapped managers, DOFs and kept building. They are also capped by his own ambition (money). 

 

Except City's leadership was backed by being able to spend more than everyone else on their squad which we can't replicate. Would be interesting to see successful how City's USP would have been without the money.

[gjohnson]

City have built everything on things that arent allowed now, but they're only a guilty verdict on their every charge will possibly shift them. Liverpool and Man U have cemented their places due to varying success over 30 years meaning that it would take a generation of massive underachieving for them to drop out, Chelsea built themselves on Romans wealth and are now maintaining it somehow by exploiting every loophole and trick going, Spurs got their through (grudgingly admitting) Levys business ability. Arsenal have tried to do things properly and shown that an off season is still possible, but can hang around on the back of big success 20 years ago.

 

It's a good debate that if we'd maintained the 94-97 performances that we would be one of the cartel now. Who would have thought when City where dossing around in what's now League One they'd be one of if not the most successful teams ever

 

 

Edited 53 minutes ago by gjohnson