The Official Newcastle United Thread
Discussion
Mannginger said:
Sounds like Calvert-Lewin is back on the menu. Wonder if this means we have a buyer for Wilson already
Whose this Minteh chap? Just seen him score a banger for Feyenoord on Twitter. We (Everton) are interested it seems...Is he worth the money? (25m+)
Looks like a double deal with DCL going the other way. And PSR jobbed off for both clubs
johnboy1975 said:
Whose this Minteh chap? Just seen him score a banger for Feyenoord on Twitter. We (Everton) are interested it seems...
Is he worth the money? (25m+)
Looks like a double deal with DCL going the other way. And PSR jobbed off for both clubs
He could be a good player and his stats in Eredivisie look good but it's unknown if he's any good for PL. Not sure why we want DCL he's never fit Is he worth the money? (25m+)
Looks like a double deal with DCL going the other way. And PSR jobbed off for both clubs
ellroy said:
Probably so, ridiculous state of affairs that probably helps all three clubs financially without changing anything really.
The whole ffp stuff needs sacking off total joke.
If it's that ridiculous (and tbh I agree that it is)...how did it take so long to work out? Considering it's always been know you amortize over contract length then a 30m player effectively costs you 6m for PSR (admittedly every year for the next 5 years)The whole ffp stuff needs sacking off total joke.
Seems to me no one should have failed on those terms.
Problems arise when your amortized up to your eyeballs and face paying 50-100m or even more per season for players you already own. I thought Chelsea were approaching this ceiling, but they still seem to be in buying mode. Although flogging those hotels back to themselves probably helped
If people want to look for people exploiting loopholes, I suggest they look no further than Stamford Bridge (8 year contracts anyone)johnboy1975 said:
If it's that ridiculous (and tbh I agree that it is)...how did it take so long to work out? Considering it's always been know you amortize over contract length then a 30m player effectively costs you 6m for PSR (admittedly every year for the next 5 years)
Seems to me no one should have failed on those terms.
Problems arise when your amortized up to your eyeballs and face paying 50-100m or even more per season for players you already own. I thought Chelsea were approaching this ceiling, but they still seem to be in buying mode. Although flogging those hotels back to themselves probably helped If people want to look for people exploiting loopholes, I suggest they look no further than Stamford Bridge (8 year contracts anyone)
Don’t blame the player, blame the game.Seems to me no one should have failed on those terms.
Problems arise when your amortized up to your eyeballs and face paying 50-100m or even more per season for players you already own. I thought Chelsea were approaching this ceiling, but they still seem to be in buying mode. Although flogging those hotels back to themselves probably helped
If people want to look for people exploiting loopholes, I suggest they look no further than Stamford Bridge (8 year contracts anyone)Chelsea exploited a loophole but the player still had to accept a long contract (so harder for run down and cash in). Besides that loophole had already been closed and anything over 5 years will be adjusted back to 5.
I would hope FFP would adjust for the Chelsea hotel deal as a related party transaction.
Anyway PSR will replace FFP so it’s all about player costs as % of revenue (and hopefully revenue excludes related parties and inflated sponsorship deals)
k.Who knows?
This shows clearly how utterly dumb the rules are. We are more solvent than half the clubs, are making more money than ever and still have to sell? Yet manure £1.5 bn in debt? All ok lads you crack on.
Ridiculous.
Should sue the FA for restraint of trade/ protectionism, take the 4 points, keep the players and see them in court.
This shows clearly how utterly dumb the rules are. We are more solvent than half the clubs, are making more money than ever and still have to sell? Yet manure £1.5 bn in debt? All ok lads you crack on.
Ridiculous.
Should sue the FA for restraint of trade/ protectionism, take the 4 points, keep the players and see them in court.
Ratcliffe laying bare the belief that the "big 6" dictate what happens in the PL.
https://x.com/Magpie24_7/status/180699429405138164...
https://x.com/Magpie24_7/status/180699429405138164...
ellroy said:
Who knows?
This shows clearly how utterly dumb the rules are. We are more solvent than half the clubs, are making more money than ever and still have to sell? Yet manure £1.5 bn in debt? All ok lads you crack on.
Ridiculous.
Should sue the FA for restraint of trade/ protectionism, take the 4 points, keep the players and see them in court.
I'm not sure what the difference is, really, between being £1.5bn in debt to your owner or £1.5bn in debt to the market.This shows clearly how utterly dumb the rules are. We are more solvent than half the clubs, are making more money than ever and still have to sell? Yet manure £1.5 bn in debt? All ok lads you crack on.
Ridiculous.
Should sue the FA for restraint of trade/ protectionism, take the 4 points, keep the players and see them in court.
Neither is what I'd class as sustainable.
fathomfive said:
I'm not sure what the difference is, really, between being £1.5bn in debt to your owner or £1.5bn in debt to the market.
Neither is what I'd class as sustainable.
To add a bit of professional perspective, with market issued debt the constraints/terms are set in stone as it’s tradable debt with many market/regulatory obligations as a result. Neither is what I'd class as sustainable.
Unsecured, directors loan type arrangements are more flexible but largely less onerous in obligation/requirements. Charge a ‘market’ rate, roll it up, open ended repayment etc
Broadly I’d agree though.
Gassing Station | Football | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff