Newcastle United Discussion

[Storts]

6 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

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.

This is nonsense. Don’t you dare include us in this. We get ridiculed but we’ve done everything well in terms of growing the club organically. We built a new stadium at a huge cost to increase revenue and thus increase our spending power. Our growth financially has been over two decades and we are an example for any of the clubs mentioned previously of how to do things properly. Arsenal are the same. 
 

We’ve been massively fucked over because of Chelsea initially and then City coming in with their unlimited funds and struggling to compete with our sensible financial and growth model. The state run model should not exist and FFP is doing its job properly not allowing them to instantly buy their way to the top because they have unlimited resources, and from a very dodgy source at that.

 

[Danny]

4 minutes ago, Storts said:

This is nonsense. Don’t you dare include us in this. We get ridiculed but we’ve done everything well in terms of growing the club organically. We built a new stadium at a huge cost to increase revenue and thus increase our spending power. Our growth financially has been over two decades and we are an example for any of the clubs mentioned previously of how to do things properly. Arsenal are the same. 
 

We’ve been massively fucked over because of Chelsea initially and then City coming in with their unlimited funds and struggling to compete with our sensible financial and growth model. The state run model should not exist and FFP is doing its job properly not allowing them to instantly buy their way to the top because they have unlimited resources, and from a very dodgy source at that.

 

Agree with this whole heartedly but also

[LFCMike]

3 hours ago, Storts said:

This is nonsense. Don’t you dare include us in this. We get ridiculed but we’ve done everything well in terms of growing the club organically. We built a new stadium at a huge cost to increase revenue and thus increase our spending power. Our growth financially has been over two decades and we are an example for any of the clubs mentioned previously of how to do things properly. Arsenal are the same. 
 

We’ve been massively fucked over because of Chelsea initially and then City coming in with their unlimited funds and struggling to compete with our sensible financial and growth model. The state run model should not exist and FFP is doing its job properly not allowing them to instantly buy their way to the top because they have unlimited resources, and from a very dodgy source at that.

 

The Blues mention the 'big 6' clubs so they can make it about Liverpool. That's all.

Are any of the other 14 backing Everton over their charge? I'd be surprised.

[RandoEFC+]

11 hours ago, LFCMike said:

Are any of the other 14 backing Everton over their charge? I'd be surprised.

Oh yeah because the likes of Luton and Forest are going to come out and campaign for Everton to be given their 10 points back aren't they?  The Palace chairman said on Talksport that our punishment seemed "heavy handed for what we've done".

They're not going to back us but as you can see on literally the last few posts of this thread, fans of Palace, Newcastle and Villa are asking the same question as me. Surprise surprise, if you support Liverpool or Spurs then you're very sympathetic towards FFP because you're never going to be affected by it because your clubs have been allowed to invest the money needed to become sustainable enough to spend hundreds of millions improving your squads every year, and these rules make it harder to do that.

11 hours ago, LFCMike said:

The Blues mention the 'big 6' clubs so they can make it about Liverpool. That's all.

He says, trying to turn the argument all about Everton. Pathetic. 

[RandoEFC+]

15 hours ago, Storts said:

This is nonsense. Don’t you dare include us in this. We get ridiculed but we’ve done everything well in terms of growing the club organically. We built a new stadium at a huge cost to increase revenue and thus increase our spending power. Our growth financially has been over two decades and we are an example for any of the clubs mentioned previously of how to do things properly. Arsenal are the same. 
 

We’ve been massively fucked over because of Chelsea initially and then City coming in with their unlimited funds and struggling to compete with our sensible financial and growth model. The state run model should not exist and FFP is doing its job properly not allowing them to instantly buy their way to the top because they have unlimited resources, and from a very dodgy source at that.

 

I don't disagree with any of this really but FFP is acting as a budget cap where the Manchester clubs and Chelsea have a seemingly endless budget and three other clubs, Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal, have a much higher budget than the rest of the league just because they're already more successful. It prevents clubs from growing organically to ever catch up. So I'll rescind the "big six" comment to an extent because I'm not including you with those three clubs but I do think the FFP rules make it even harder for anybody like Villa, Newcastle, Everton etc to go from a big mid table club to a sustained top 6/7 team than it already was when Spurs did it.

Newcastle is a funny case because if your problem is the identity of their owners then you shouldn't be looking at FFP, you should be looking at the fit and proper owners test. The Saudis or state owned clubs in general aren't desirable. If you want that model blocking from Premier League football, then that's the test that these investors need to be blocked from passing.

If you put the identity of their owners to one side and focus purely on Newcastle's footballing operation, and trust me I don't want to go out to bat for this lot, but you can't really fault it. They've done everything right. Recruited well, not wasted money, improved the players that they already had and qualified for the Champions League at the first attempt. If you look up their wage bill it's reportedly the 9th highest in the league. They already have one of the biggest stadiums in the country. It's not like they've done a Chelsea or a Man City and just thrown a bottomless pit of money at their squad to be able to compete. They've had access to funds and they've used them well, so yes, for me I'm surprised that they're at risk of the FFP chopping block.

We all feel the same I think about Newcastle's ownership and we shouldn't forget about Man City's either. But for me, that's about the fit and proper owners test and I'd be all for it if the Premier League banned state ownership. If we're talking about the FFP rules though, they don't distinguish between the identity of club owners so you have to imagine that if Ant and Dec had bought Newcastle and done what they've done instead of the Saudis, would we be more sympathetic about them having to sell a key player or two? 

I think it's harsh. They've spent a fair amount of money but the players they've invested in have kept or increased their value and their wage bill is well under control. I hate the pricks but it's a sustainable model so far and a far cry from the outright financial doping that we saw from Man City back in the day. 

I can see why you'd be pissed off if you're a Spurs fan or an Arsenal fan but clubs need to be allowed to spend money to improve or the pecking order will literally never change. There has to be some avenue for clubs outside the established six to dream of getting up there and sadly, you'll never see a Brighton or a Brentford get that far despite being deemed as the best run clubs from the other 14. Leicester were on the fringes and even won the league but a couple of poor transfer windows set their slide in motion and now they're not even in the top flight. It was Southampton before them who were making a killing of their youth products and being able to pluck the likes of Mane and Van Dijk through good scouting before selling them for decent profit. You have to be perfect just to stay within touching distance. It's impossible to sustain that business model long enough to get in.

The only way to become an elite club now is to attract investment. FFP forces you to spend the money well now at least and Newcastle have done that in a way that the original City and Chelsea never did. You have to allow clubs from outside the establishment to spend money to a reasonable extent when they get their hands on it. Otherwise you're saying that the current top six should just be the top six forever and then it just isn't a sport.

[OrangeKhrush]

2 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

I don't disagree with any of this really but FFP is acting as a budget cap where the Manchester clubs and Chelsea have a seemingly endless budget and three other clubs, Liverpool, Spurs and Arsenal, have a much higher budget than the rest of the league just because they're already more successful. It prevents clubs from growing organically to ever catch up. So I'll rescind the "big six" comment to an extent because I'm not including you with those three clubs but I do think the FFP rules make it even harder for anybody like Villa, Newcastle, Everton etc to go from a big mid table club to a sustained top 6/7 team than it already was when Spurs did it.

Newcastle is a funny case because if your problem is the identity of their owners then you shouldn't be looking at FFP, you should be looking at the fit and proper owners test. The Saudis or state owned clubs in general aren't desirable. If you want that model blocking from Premier League football, then that's the test that these investors need to be blocked from passing.

If you put the identity of their owners to one side and focus purely on Newcastle's footballing operation, and trust me I don't want to go out to bat for this lot, but you can't really fault it. They've done everything right. Recruited well, not wasted money, improved the players that they already had and qualified for the Champions League at the first attempt. If you look up their wage bill it's reportedly the 9th highest in the league. They already have one of the biggest stadiums in the country. It's not like they've done a Chelsea or a Man City and just thrown a bottomless pit of money at their squad to be able to compete. They've had access to funds and they've used them well, so yes, for me I'm surprised that they're at risk of the FFP chopping block.

We all feel the same I think about Newcastle's ownership and we shouldn't forget about Man City's either. But for me, that's about the fit and proper owners test and I'd be all for it if the Premier League banned state ownership. If we're talking about the FFP rules though, they don't distinguish between the identity of club owners so you have to imagine that if Ant and Dec had bought Newcastle and done what they've done instead of the Saudis, would we be more sympathetic about them having to sell a key player or two? 

I think it's harsh. They've spent a fair amount of money but the players they've invested in have kept or increased their value and their wage bill is well under control. I hate the pricks but it's a sustainable model so far and a far cry from the outright financial doping that we saw from Man City back in the day. 

I can see why you'd be pissed off if you're a Spurs fan or an Arsenal fan but clubs need to be allowed to spend money to improve or the pecking order will literally never change. There has to be some avenue for clubs outside the established six to dream of getting up there and sadly, you'll never see a Brighton or a Brentford get that far despite being deemed as the best run clubs from the other 14. Leicester were on the fringes and even won the league but a couple of poor transfer windows set their slide in motion and now they're not even in the top flight. It was Southampton before them who were making a killing of their youth products and being able to pluck the likes of Mane and Van Dijk through good scouting before selling them for decent profit. You have to be perfect just to stay within touching distance. It's impossible to sustain that business model long enough to get in.

The only way to become an elite club now is to attract investment. FFP forces you to spend the money well now at least and Newcastle have done that in a way that the original City and Chelsea never did. You have to allow clubs from outside the establishment to spend money to a reasonable extent when they get their hands on it. Otherwise you're saying that the current top six should just be the top six forever and then it just isn't a sport.

I agree with most other than the piss shots at the ownership who have grown club revenue by over 100% in the short period, improved the training, woman's and youth facilities while complying with the rules.   

Our woman's team was neglected under Ashley, now they are putting up rugby scores weekly.  if you want a crime against humanity find that sad sack of shit called Mike Ashley who only wanted minor profits instead of growing his asset.

Fit and proper is whether you have the stuff to run a business, not a political statement.  Saudi Arabia also interfere very little in the running of the club which is essentially handled by Ashworth and Eales who last I checked were English.

My issue with FFP is it stops aspirational clubs stepping up, Everton like all clubs wanted to be in that top bracket and got strong handed.  If any club could be bought by a sugar daddy with aspiration free of artificial restraints it will add more investment in football, but FFP is designed to protect the status quo

[Danny]

It’s funny because everyone used to complain about the top 4 and how Chelsea came in and just splashed the cash up the table. And now the answer is return to those days and just create a new top 5 that will be decided by who has a billion quid spare, all in the name of “fair competition”.

Genuinely can’t believe we’re having a conversation where people think Newcastle are being hard done by, absolutely crazy.

[OrangeKhrush]

11 minutes ago, Danny said:

It’s funny because everyone used to complain about the top 4 and how Chelsea came in and just splashed the cash up the table. And now the answer is return to those days and just create a new top 5 that will be decided by who has a billion quid spare, all in the name of “fair competition”.

Genuinely can’t believe we’re having a conversation where people think Newcastle are being hard done by, absolutely crazy.

And how has a billion helped Chelsea, clearly money alone is not the problem it is unfit and improper owners like the Glazers and Boehly

[RandoEFC+]

14 minutes ago, Danny said:

It’s funny because everyone used to complain about the top 4 and how Chelsea came in and just splashed the cash up the table. And now the answer is return to those days and just create a new top 5 that will be decided by who has a billion quid spare, all in the name of “fair competition”.

Genuinely can’t believe we’re having a conversation where people think Newcastle are being hard done by, absolutely crazy.

There's a sensible middle ground though isn't there. It doesn't need to be one or the other. 

None of us like Newcastle. None of us like the way that they, Chelsea and Man City have improved their standing in the game. I'm not going to defend them anymore than I partially have above.

My problem with FFP is that there are 14 clubs in the league who have to earn the right to spend money, and 3 more (Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool) who have a significant advantage over the rest but can't take the piss to the same extent that the last three clubs apparently can. All I want to see is a Premier League where it's actually possible to disrupt the established order by running your club well. Your club are a great example of one that's taken advantage of the actual meritocracy that exists in the rest of the English football pyramid. Multiple promotions and now established in the top flight. But why does it have to stop there? Brentford will never be able to establish themselves anywhere near Man Utd, for instance. I think a Brentford should be able to overtake a Man Utd within a time frame of say 5 years if Brentford continue to manage their affairs well and Man Utd continue to almost sabotage themselves, because it's a sport and it should be a meritocracy. Currently, Man Utd can continue to just spend and spend because of their brand and because of their financial advantages born out of them being well run a couple of decades ago.

I'll also hold my hands up and say that if Everton didn't enjoy the same advantages (to an extent) over Luton, Brentford, Bournemouth, etc because of our long term position in the game, that the "big six" enjoy over the "other 14", then we probably wouldn't have avoided relegation over the past two seasons, and we couldn't have had any complaints because the club has been run like an absolute shambles, to prove I'm trying to be impartial here and not just attacking the "big six" because I'm bitter and jealous.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend to be an expert but what I'd like to see is a set of financial rules where your permitted level of spending is based less on your overall income and wealth and more on the money you make from your footballing operation (player trading and prize money). That way, if Man Utd and Chelsea spend loads of money on poor players who decrease in value, they actually have to pay the price by not being able to spend even more improving their squad. Meanwhile, a team like Brighton who have made an unbelievable profit on player trading because of good scouting and coaching over several years, can be the ones who eventually start spending £60-80m on players who can allow them to compete for Champions League spots and eventually even titles if they keep doing well. And the current top teams get to stay where they are so long as they manage their affairs at least as well as the clubs below them.

In an ideal world we'd just have a flat budget cap across the Premier League and then we'd really see who the best run clubs are and who "deserves" success.

[Reluctant Striker]

41 minutes ago, Danny said:

It’s funny because everyone used to complain about the top 4 and how Chelsea came in and just splashed the cash up the table. And now the answer is return to those days and just create a new top 5 that will be decided by who has a billion quid spare, all in the name of “fair competition”.

Genuinely can’t believe we’re having a conversation where people think Newcastle are being hard done by, absolutely crazy.

I always had conflicting feelings on Chelsea & Man City. On one hand, yes, Villa had an owner that could not get close to keeping them anywhere near. But, I did also appreciate the something different quality of the Lampard - Terry - Mourinho Chelsea. And the Aguero (ooooooooo) of Man City. I resented the weakness of my club, lots more than other clubs good fortune.

So my complaint was never about Chelsea & Man City somehow being invalid to be doing what they were doing. In perhaps a way that some clubs who remained around them perhaps did.

But the more we hear of FFP,  the more it feels it does a better job of keeping perhaps a Brentford or a Palace or a Brighton or Bournemouth or whoever, from being totally blown away by a Saudi funded Newcastle, or a Villa, with ambitious Egyptian & American owners. But for me, it should do an equally good job of allowing Newcastle & Villa to look at staying ahead of others. This could be the 2nd consecutive season Villa finish ahead of both Chelsea & Spurs. Perhaps the 1st Champions League qualification or 1st trophy win since 1996. But, FFP could still decide it would be unfair to sign 3 x £30m+ players without selling someone to balance the fair play books. That just starts to feel like a 12 year is making up Monopoly rules based on what they need to win.

[Danny]

2 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

There's a sensible middle ground though isn't there. It doesn't need to be one or the other. 

None of us like Newcastle. None of us like the way that they, Chelsea and Man City have improved their standing in the game. I'm not going to defend them anymore than I partially have above.

My problem with FFP is that there are 14 clubs in the league who have to earn the right to spend money, and 3 more (Arsenal, Spurs and Liverpool) who have a significant advantage over the rest but can't take the piss to the same extent that the last three clubs apparently can. All I want to see is a Premier League where it's actually possible to disrupt the established order by running your club well. Your club are a great example of one that's taken advantage of the actual meritocracy that exists in the rest of the English football pyramid. Multiple promotions and now established in the top flight. But why does it have to stop there? Brentford will never be able to establish themselves anywhere near Man Utd, for instance. I think a Brentford should be able to overtake a Man Utd within a time frame of say 5 years if Brentford continue to manage their affairs well and Man Utd continue to almost sabotage themselves, because it's a sport and it should be a meritocracy. Currently, Man Utd can continue to just spend and spend because of their brand and because of their financial advantages born out of them being well run a couple of decades ago.

I'll also hold my hands up and say that if Everton didn't enjoy the same advantages (to an extent) over Luton, Brentford, Bournemouth, etc because of our long term position in the game, that the "big six" enjoy over the "other 14", then we probably wouldn't have avoided relegation over the past two seasons, and we couldn't have had any complaints because the club has been run like an absolute shambles, to prove I'm trying to be impartial here and not just attacking the "big six" because I'm bitter and jealous.

I'm not going to sit here and pretend to be an expert but what I'd like to see is a set of financial rules where your permitted level of spending is based less on your overall income and wealth and more on the money you make from your footballing operation (player trading and prize money). That way, if Man Utd and Chelsea spend loads of money on poor players who decrease in value, they actually have to pay the price by not being able to spend even more improving their squad. Meanwhile, a team like Brighton who have made an unbelievable profit on player trading because of good scouting and coaching over several years, can be the ones who eventually start spending £60-80m on players who can allow them to compete for Champions League spots and eventually even titles if they keep doing well. And the current top teams get to stay where they are so long as they manage their affairs at least as well as the clubs below them.

In an ideal world we'd just have a flat budget cap across the Premier League and then we'd really see who the best run clubs are and who "deserves" success.

What is the sensible middle ground? Because so far it's just remove FFP and let Newcastle and whoever else can get a nation state behind them spend to win the title. Which is exactly what we had 15 years ago.

Personally I think European football as a whole needs a massive rethink, English football especially. Clubs like Chelsea shouldn't be able to find amortization loopholes that can allow them to blow a billion in a year, City shouldn't be financially doped to the level they are....but the answer isn't to remove the restrictions that prevent more teams from doing that. Because not only will it further increase the financial disparity in the league, we'll get more Portsmouth's and Leeds United's.

Aston Villa should be a big fat warning onto themselves, they know what happened last time under Lerner and now they're desperate to go again under new ownership.

[RandoEFC+]

57 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

I agree with most other than the piss shots at the ownership who have grown club revenue by over 100% in the short period, improved the training, woman's and youth facilities while complying with the rules.   

Our woman's team was neglected under Ashley, now they are putting up rugby scores weekly.  if you want a crime against humanity find that sad sack of shit called Mike Ashley who only wanted minor profits instead of growing his asset.

Fit and proper is whether you have the stuff to run a business, not a political statement.  Saudi Arabia also interfere very little in the running of the club which is essentially handled by Ashworth and Eales who last I checked were English.

My issue with FFP is it stops aspirational clubs stepping up, Everton like all clubs wanted to be in that top bracket and got strong handed.  If any club could be bought by a sugar daddy with aspiration free of artificial restraints it will add more investment in football, but FFP is designed to protect the status quo

The point about fit and proper owners is that if, like me and most people on here, you don't agree with state owned clubs, regardless of whether they're from the Middle East dictatorships with questionable human rights records or a "clean" country, that's where you need to direct your ire. By the time you're talking about FFP and how much money teams should be allowed to spend, the identity of the owners is irrelevant.

I don't agree on Everton by the way, which might surprise you. We made poor investments and as a result, we'd spent an amount of money on transfer fees, but even moreso on wages, where we should have at least competed for 6th-ish and we didn't achieve that. To then have to sell Richarlison and put up with a couple of windows of scratching around for free transfers, loans and other stop gaps was our reasonable just desserts. Where I have a problem on our part is that we got hit with a 10 point penalty anyway after spending 3-4 transfer windows balancing the books and spending no money, and there was no mitigation for the fact that we're also building a stadium by ourselves and got smacked by the unpredictable loss of £200m of funding that we lost because of the sanctions on Alisher Usmanov (not that I agree with us getting into bed with people with his background either, mind).

My argument here is that clubs should be able to invest in themselves. If Everton had continued spending over the past two years instead of making sensible adjustments to our dealings, then that's when you hit us with a sanction. If Newcastle spend £500m on their squad and half of the players turn out to be duds, then they shouldn't be allowed to just try again a year later. I think it's fair actually if Newcastle have to wait before they can invest more in their squad but if they're in a position where they need to sell to be compliant then I think that's harsh as I've explained above. It's also not the end of the world though if they have to sell Isak or someone, because they'll still progress if they continue to perform well in the transfer market.

For me, it's Man Utd and Chelsea that are the problems now. We'll see how things pan out for them but the glaring issue for me is that if Newcastle and other teams have to regulate their spending at this point in time then we better not see Chelsea and Man Utd being allowed to continue throwing 60-80m at players who flop and just being allowed to try again seemingly indefinitely.

13 minutes ago, Danny said:

What is the sensible middle ground? Because so far it's just remove FFP and let Newcastle and whoever else can get a nation state behind them spend to win the title. Which is exactly what we had 15 years ago.

Personally I think European football as a whole needs a massive rethink, English football especially. Clubs like Chelsea shouldn't be able to find amortization loopholes that can allow them to blow a billion in a year, City shouldn't be financially doped to the level they are....but the answer isn't to remove the restrictions that prevent more teams from doing that. Because not only will it further increase the financial disparity in the league, we'll get more Portsmouth's and Leeds United's.

Aston Villa should be a big fat warning onto themselves, they know what happened last time under Lerner and now they're desperate to go again under new ownership.

Like I say, I'm not saying we should go back to the lawlessness that created Chelsea and Man City. None of us want to see Leeds and Portsmouth happen again either. I just want the accountability to apply to everyone. Newcastle have spent their money well, if they need to take a break for a transfer window or two and get by on what they have then fine, no problem with me so long as the same rules apply to Chelsea and Man Utd.

[MUFC]

Financial fair play.

[Whiskey]

Fanatical foot play.

[OrangeKhrush]

19 hours ago, RandoEFC said:

The point about fit and proper owners is that if, like me and most people on here, you don't agree with state owned clubs, regardless of whether they're from the Middle East dictatorships with questionable human rights records or a "clean" country, that's where you need to direct your ire. By the time you're talking about FFP and how much money teams should be allowed to spend, the identity of the owners is irrelevant.

I don't agree on Everton by the way, which might surprise you. We made poor investments and as a result, we'd spent an amount of money on transfer fees, but even moreso on wages, where we should have at least competed for 6th-ish and we didn't achieve that. To then have to sell Richarlison and put up with a couple of windows of scratching around for free transfers, loans and other stop gaps was our reasonable just desserts. Where I have a problem on our part is that we got hit with a 10 point penalty anyway after spending 3-4 transfer windows balancing the books and spending no money, and there was no mitigation for the fact that we're also building a stadium by ourselves and got smacked by the unpredictable loss of £200m of funding that we lost because of the sanctions on Alisher Usmanov (not that I agree with us getting into bed with people with his background either, mind).

My argument here is that clubs should be able to invest in themselves. If Everton had continued spending over the past two years instead of making sensible adjustments to our dealings, then that's when you hit us with a sanction. If Newcastle spend £500m on their squad and half of the players turn out to be duds, then they shouldn't be allowed to just try again a year later. I think it's fair actually if Newcastle have to wait before they can invest more in their squad but if they're in a position where they need to sell to be compliant then I think that's harsh as I've explained above. It's also not the end of the world though if they have to sell Isak or someone, because they'll still progress if they continue to perform well in the transfer market.

For me, it's Man Utd and Chelsea that are the problems now. We'll see how things pan out for them but the glaring issue for me is that if Newcastle and other teams have to regulate their spending at this point in time then we better not see Chelsea and Man Utd being allowed to continue throwing 60-80m at players who flop and just being allowed to try again seemingly indefinitely.

Like I say, I'm not saying we should go back to the lawlessness that created Chelsea and Man City. None of us want to see Leeds and Portsmouth happen again either. I just want the accountability to apply to everyone. Newcastle have spent their money well, if they need to take a break for a transfer window or two and get by on what they have then fine, no problem with me so long as the same rules apply to Chelsea and Man Utd.

I say FFP and PSR are good but they are utilised unfairly with the intent to keep clubs rising up while the established clubs get to make endless mistakes and keep going.

The paradox of the premise of FFP is that the big six have built success, how did they build success? They spent money, so therefore clubs aspiring to compete there will need to spend to grow 

Danny throwing his pram over nothing, nobody is saying endless unregulated spending, but there should be allowable provisions that will let prospective owners to invest a bit more than baked in limitations between haves and have nots to grow their investment, does this include a once off fixed amount say 300m over and above current FFP I don't know but until they let clubs invest to grow you will have clubs like ourselves, West ham, villa and Everton needing to lose good players to try sustain squad growth because the gap between spurs last in the big six and the next best turn over being ourselves and Leicester at 250m is daunting.

I am happy that we are complying with rules and yes we will post north of 330m next seasons audit which is around 200m growth over 2 years relative to that cockney bastard.

[OrangeKhrush]

Chelsea reported amortisation at 289m which is nearly the allowable losses under FFP, but fear not FFP is changing end of season to allow for losses up another 100m or so to ensure the big boys are safe while they kicked Everton in the dick over it.

The premier League is corrupt and they need to save Chelsea as they forced a good owner out and replaced him a clown who is not fit and proper.

[RandoEFC+]

11 minutes ago, OrangeKhrush said:

Chelsea reported amortisation at 289m which is nearly the allowable losses under FFP, but fear not FFP is changing end of season to allow for losses up another 100m or so to ensure the big boys are safe while they kicked Everton in the dick over it.

The premier League is corrupt and they need to save Chelsea as they forced a good owner out and replaced him a clown who is not fit and proper.

I saw something about this with Martin Samuel's piece in The Times being discussed by Richard Keys and Andy Gray.

If the Premier League are going to charge Everton and Forest this season, potentially relegate them, and then change the rules this summer so that Chelsea and any others get away with their billion pound outlay, then I'm afraid that's scandalous. There was even talk that Man City's 115 charges would be heard in regards to the new rules which I struggle to believe but if they're allowed to make their case against more lenient rules because they "agreed" to their court date and breached the rules in so many ways that their case became too complicated to resolve before the rule change, then corrupt won't even cover it.

None of us know that's how things will pan out so it's all ifs, buts and maybes for now. I don't even know whether the rules are actually changing or whether it's just one line from an article that's going mad on Twitter, so for now, I'll reserve judgement.

[Stan]

 

 

 

[Dave]

If only there was an owners and directors test.

[RandoEFC+]

Is it true that the British government essentially intervened to help the Saudis get through the fit and proper test?

[Stan]

8 minutes ago, RandoEFC said:

Is it true that the British government essentially intervened to help the Saudis get through the fit and proper test?

Yes. 

[Dave]

 

 

[OrangeKhrush]

Going to need @Happy Blue to tell me more

[Dave]

"He has drawn comparisons to City’s prolific senior striker Erling Haaland for their visual resemblance and has recorded impressive goal and assist statistics for their age-group teams." 

 

So no pressure.

[Bluebird Hewitt]

17 minutes ago, The Palace Fan said:

"He has drawn comparisons to City’s prolific senior striker Erling Haaland for their visual resemblance and has recorded impressive goal and assist statistics for their age-group teams." 

 

So no pressure.

In fairness, better to have that than what FM once said about one of my youth players being 'the next Joe Willock'.