Administrator Stan 18,386 Posted November 21, 2023 Administrator Share Posted November 21, 2023 1 hour ago, RandoEFC said: Also doesn't inspire trust in a government that are supposed to be setting up said regulator that they themselves have already intervened in the affairs of PL club ownership for political reasons. I am not surprised in the slightest that this government carried out shady dealings and were attracted by money like a fly on shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush 298 Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 man United definitely voted for, they will be loaning Todibo and Thuram from nice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Honey Honey 3,767 Posted November 21, 2023 Share Posted November 21, 2023 3 hours ago, Cicero said: Newcastle, Sheff Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Everton, Wolves, Forest. And Burnley apparently. It's interesting when teams who benefit from loans to affiliated clubs in the other direction vote that it is unfair for the league. Basically it's alright to fuck Belgian leagues but not ours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush 298 Posted November 22, 2023 Share Posted November 22, 2023 i was watching a vlog on more interesting legal avenues we have in the Tonali saga. We obviously don't want to hold the player responsible as it would cause unhappiness and we intend him to be part of the project. one unexplored option is holding the Italian football federation liable for knowing about ongoing charges and they failed to stop the transfer. The Italian football federation let A.C. Milan know of impending investigations and charges last year. the legal recourse would be contractual damages for that 10 month period but also damages incurred to find a alternative. if successful we can theoretically dump Ruben Neves half season loan and 350k per week on A.C. Milan and/or Italian Football Federation. that would be around 25-30 million easy income. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo 8,190 Posted November 22, 2023 Share Posted November 22, 2023 20 hours ago, Cicero said: Newcastle, Sheff Utd, Man City, Chelsea, Everton, Wolves, Forest. Saudi public fund owned, owned by a Saudi Prince, Owned by Abu Dhabi, do Chelsea own any other clubs… idk, but cunts so not surprising, Everton’s new owners own a shitload of teams, Wolves? Weird but they’re Tory cunts so it’s on brand, and corrupt Greek mafioso who owns Olympiakos. I think other than Chelsea and Wolves, it’s just clubs voting to protect their interests - unless Chelsea and Wolves owners own other teams? It’s nothing really new though, and look at the Red Bull clubs as well. Should it be allowed? Probably not but it’s been allowed and I’m not surprised clubs that can use it to their advantage don’t want it prohibited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cicero 5,267 Posted November 22, 2023 Share Posted November 22, 2023 6 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said: Saudi public fund owned, owned by a Saudi Prince, Owned by Abu Dhabi, do Chelsea own any other clubs… idk, but cunts so not surprising, Everton’s new owners own a shitload of teams, Wolves? Weird but they’re Tory cunts so it’s on brand, and corrupt Greek mafioso who owns Olympiakos. I think other than Chelsea and Wolves, it’s just clubs voting to protect their interests - unless Chelsea and Wolves owners own other teams? It’s nothing really new though, and look at the Red Bull clubs as well. Should it be allowed? Probably not but it’s been allowed and I’m not surprised clubs that can use it to their advantage don’t want it prohibited. I'm not even sure why Chelsea voted against it considering BlueCo owns a stake at Strasbourg, and correct me if i'm wrong, the rule only states it will prevent Premier League clubs from taking loan players on from associated clubs. The whole purpose of getting a stake at Strasbourg was using it as a destination to develop the players under the same principals and vision as the parent club. Doubt Chelsea will ever be in a position where they need to loan players in from Strasbourg. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush 298 Posted November 22, 2023 Share Posted November 22, 2023 So Melenkovic Savic and Benzema on loan then Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo 8,190 Posted November 22, 2023 Share Posted November 22, 2023 1 hour ago, Cicero said: I'm not even sure why Chelsea voted against it considering BlueCo owns a stake at Strasbourg, and correct me if i'm wrong, the rule only states it will prevent Premier League clubs from taking loan players on from associated clubs. The whole purpose of getting a stake at Strasbourg was using it as a destination to develop the players under the same principals and vision as the parent club. Doubt Chelsea will ever be in a position where they need to loan players in from Strasbourg. Tbh I'm just generally against group ownership of multiple teams across multiple leagues around the world. It inherently makes clubs focuses change and damages the integrity of other leagues. I'm also against club owners owning multiple teams in the same country - I think it's bizarre that the guy who owns Napoli also owns Bari and when/if Bari get promoted to the Serie A he'll be forced to sell Bari. So the owner of one of Italy's most well supported clubs has an interest in letting them grow to a certain point, but would lose control if they ever get promoted back to the top flight. I know it's not new and there's been nothing prohibiting it so far - and I think it's a bit weird that it's only now an issue that certain countries own football clubs. And even then... only really became a hot button issue once a major regional power started to throw its weight around in football. It seems to me that is more of the issue in world football than this idea of multiple clubs having the same owner. But I'd welcome something being done to stop group ownership... as well as to stop state owned football clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush 298 Posted December 17, 2023 Share Posted December 17, 2023 sometimes trying times lead to good things, Lewis Miley is certainly one of them. His reputation in academy football saw him touted as a fast riser however his game management and intelligence are well ahead of players at his age group. If we look after him he could be the a really good player. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Stan 18,386 Posted January 11 Administrator Share Posted January 11 Apparently Newcastle will be forced to sell some players after posting big losses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 2,206 Posted January 11 Share Posted January 11 36 minutes ago, Stan said: Apparently Newcastle will be forced to sell some players after posting big losses. Apparently they're still within the 3 year losses permitted Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush 298 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 21 hours ago, Stan said: Apparently Newcastle will be forced to sell some players after posting big losses. Per Maguire from the Athletic we are well under FFP but have little room to spend in January without selling. This years financials exclude Addidas and Sela worth around 100m The clubs revenue rose 39% and the losses decreased by 9%. FFP just means we have to hold out until the summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush 298 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 I do think we will sell Bruno and/or Isak in the summer, that will be 200m of pure profit to invest in talent. The only business we have done is apparently for two under 18s one is a highly rated Swede. There is a clear move to keep making the squad younger. It's scary that Leicester turned over 250m also yet the gulf between Leicester, Newcastle, Villa, West Ham, Everton and the worst top 6 club financially. Spurs turned over 490m more than Newcaslte+Leicester Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Palace Fan 3,402 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Stan 18,386 Posted January 12 Administrator Share Posted January 12 38 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said: I do think we will sell Bruno and/or Isak in the summer, that will be 200m of pure profit to invest in talent. The only business we have done is apparently for two under 18s one is a highly rated Swede. There is a clear move to keep making the squad younger. It's scary that Leicester turned over 250m also yet the gulf between Leicester, Newcastle, Villa, West Ham, Everton and the worst top 6 club financially. Spurs turned over 490m more than Newcaslte+Leicester Our relegation meant Barnes and Maddison went for relatively cheap prices. Even staying up in 17th would have meant we get significantly more for them. Mismanagement of assets killed us. Tielemans and Soyuncu should never have gone on frees, either. As for £200m pure profit for Guimaraes and Isak, really? What do you think they'll each be sold for? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Gonzo 8,190 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 Beheaddie Howe talking about how “Newcastle have no friends to loan us players” lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Danny 2,206 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said: Beheaddie Howe talking about how “Newcastle have no friends to loan us players” lol hahahahaha 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush 298 Posted January 12 Share Posted January 12 7 hours ago, Stan said: Our relegation meant Barnes and Maddison went for relatively cheap prices. Even staying up in 17th would have meant we get significantly more for them. Mismanagement of assets killed us. Tielemans and Soyuncu should never have gone on frees, either. As for £200m pure profit for Guimaraes and Isak, really? What do you think they'll each be sold for? Bruno has a 100m (115m) release clause, there is no reason to sell for less. Isak is worth 100m by modern rates, 23 goals I 49 games is expensive. Botman the third big asset is probably around 70m. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Administrator Stan 18,386 Posted January 12 Administrator Share Posted January 12 12 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said: Bruno has a 100m (115m) release clause, there is no reason to sell for less. Isak is worth 100m by modern rates, 23 goals I 49 games is expensive. Botman the third big asset is probably around 70m. Guimaraes bought for £40m. Sell for £100m is £60m profit. Isak bought for £63m. Sell for £100m is £37m profit. Botman bought for £32m. Sell for £70m is £38m profit. By my calculations that's £135m profit. Hefty, but not quite the '£200m pure profit' you stated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush 298 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 10 hours ago, Stan said: Guimaraes bought for £40m. Sell for £100m is £60m profit. Isak bought for £63m. Sell for £100m is £37m profit. Botman bought for £32m. Sell for £70m is £38m profit. By my calculations that's £135m profit. Hefty, but not quite the '£200m pure profit' you stated. That can amortized over longer terms for 6-7 players. The media reports are misleading when they say we have e to sell to be within FFP, Kieran Maguire has already stated we are safe within FFP but we wont be able to do much until the summer without selling. He also said that the champions league revenue (guaranteed 32m excluding match day revenues), Sela and Addidas will only reflect on next years year ending which along with projected growth is going to be around 350m revenue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush 298 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 It is however interesting that some of Europe's elite clubs, some the biggest teams in the world are pushing for FFP changes to allow a certain percentage of private equity put into the transfers determined on a percentage of total revenue, this is to allow continental teams to compete in markets against English sides. The clubs in question include Bayern, Dortmund, Real, Barce, Athletico, both Milans, Juventus, Napoli, Ajax, Lyon and the biggest surprise Manchester United. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OrangeKhrush 298 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 (edited) 11 hours ago, Stan said: Guimaraes bought for £40m. Sell for £100m is £60m profit. Isak bought for £63m. Sell for £100m is £37m profit. Botman bought for £32m. Sell for £70m is £38m profit. By my calculations that's £135m profit. Hefty, but not quite the '£200m pure profit' you stated. Read up on UEFA and even that calculation is incorrect. Condition based value is not recorded as book value for amortisation. Eg bruno cost 32m the 8m is conditional and if those conditions are not met they are not enforceable, botman cost 30m and isak 58m but it's even more complex as whatever has been paid per book year is also paid off value ie: selling bruno for 100m but we have already paid 20m on amortization means his book value goes up by that. Per the Athletic 100m sale will net nearly 80m in profit. Selling those three will be somewhere in the 150-170m profit range. Similarly Joelinton if we sold him for 40m we wont be net 0 because his value was paid over 5 years meaning he will be pretty much like selling a academy player pure profit, Almiron another who has been at the club for the duration of the primary deal so if he is sold to Saudi for the reported 30m that is a full 30m in the bank. If we sold Tonali for 30m then it would be a loss though. Edited January 13 by OrangeKhrush Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Palace Fan 3,402 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 There has to be a fairer way to implement FFP. FFP is extremely important for clubs with owners who spend beyond there means. But for sides like Newcastle, or even lower down the pyramid the likes of Bristol City and Stoke City who have owners who are willing to finance the football operation with no loans with interest. They shouldn't be handicapped to the likes of Chelsea because of where the club were positioned in 2013. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Subscriber RandoEFC+ 7,664 Posted January 13 Subscriber Share Posted January 13 I have no love for Newcastle or their owners but the current rules meaning they can't spend their own money despite not really putting a foot wrong in the money they've spent so far and qualifying for the Champions League at the first realistic attempt, while the likes of Man Utd and Chelsea can piss away a billion each and still be permitted to throw 60m or 80m at their targets, it's ridiculous. There is no limit to how badly run six clubs can be and they can just try again in the next transfer window. For the rest, every transfer, contract and business decision has to be viewed through the lens of the financial rules and staying on the right side of the line. It's boring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reluctant Striker 134 Posted January 13 Share Posted January 13 Yes, something in FFP just is not set up quite the right way. Everton deducted points. This story of how Newcastle may have to sell to buy. Similar story a few days later on Villa. Surely the rules should give clubs like them every chance to mix things up. If there are issues with any of these kind of clubs buying 2 or 3 going rate players, for £100m+, no way should others get to splash another £500m+ in 1 season or window. I think more & more people are seeing something is clearly broken - out dated - wrong. Hopefully something is adjusted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.