Jump to content
IGNORED

A Saudi Arabian takeover of Newcastle United is close to being agreed.


Jerseybean
 Share

Recommended Posts

Just now, BTRFTG said:

They are but that's akin arguing who's the best looking bloke in the burns unit.....

Believe that Real Madrid- somehow and so they say- actually made a small profit last season. If they and the same goes for Barcelona decide to forego on the pitch pushes especially the latter for debt restructuring and repayment it'll help them in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Believe that Real Madrid- somehow and so they say- actually made a small profit last season. If they and the same goes for Barcelona decide to forego on the pitch pushes especially the latter for debt restructuring and repayment it'll help them in the long run.

Fair play to them as they've worked hard at reducing costs and have turned a cumulative 'profit' (sic) of €1.2m over the past two years but they report using the Gordon Brown accounting method ("I'll resign if PSBR >40% of GDP" , it hit 114% save he didn't count PFIs & Public Sector Pension liabilities.)

Amazingly they made €800k despite estimating an in-year loss of over €300m income. Something in the State of Denmark doesn't add up.

They've loans on just about everything, including nearly €600m over 30 years to refurbish the stadium. I suspect asset values, particularly with players, may well take a hit over the next few years.

Point I was making is whilst revenue is an interesting measure its only half the equation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have never been to Newcastle but I was always under the impression that they are a massive club. For me they are without doubt in the top 10 biggest in England and arguably higher, appreciate what people have said about early 90's and going there but I don't believe that's a fair reflection looking at the numbers over time...

http://european-football-statistics.co.uk/attnclub/league/newu.htm

Obviously they are pretty shite at winning trophies but I think some are extremely harsh to say they are on a par with the likes of Ipswich, just my opinion.

It's a sad state of affairs when people celebrate being sold off to the highest bidder and value that above the lack of humanity of the owners. Personally I would rather stay in the lower leagues forever than be sold off to Saudi's but I have no doubts they will be up challenging for trophies soon. I wonder if the Premier league title will soon become Saudi Arabia vs Abu Dhabi which in many ways is pretty depressing to think about.

Edited by Baba Yaga
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry if this question has already been answered in the thread, but I was wondering - is there no FFP equivalent in the premier league which will cap Newcastle’s ability to spend or do they have carte blanche to spend what they want and basically build a team of Galacticos from scratch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, pl00peh91 said:

Sorry if this question has already been answered in the thread, but I was wondering - is there no FFP equivalent in the premier league which will cap Newcastle’s ability to spend or do they have carte blanche to spend what they want and basically build a team of Galacticos from scratch?

There are rules, there will be some form of limit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, petehinton said:

CC4C94E1-7A04-43F0-9EC0-2AD1643377F7.png

Shocking really. Half of the clubs in the Championship including ourselves have better training facilities than Newcastle, that says it all really. Apart from the obvious of buying in new players i think the new owners first job should be getting their facilities up to date.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, bris red said:

Shocking really. Half of the clubs in the Championship including ourselves have better training facilities than Newcastle, that says it all really. Apart from the obvious of buying in new players i think the new owners first job should be getting their facilities up to date.

It would be interesting to see how BCFC compared with that list, considering the stadium and training ground costs. That’s one area where the Lansdown regime has really performed. And yes, I understand the argument that SL is just increasing the value of his investment at the expense of overspending on the squad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Leveller said:

It would be interesting to see how BCFC compared with that list, considering the stadium and training ground costs. That’s one area where the Lansdown regime has really performed. And yes, I understand the argument that SL is just increasing the value of his investment at the expense of overspending on the squad.

We’d be about mid table I’d imagine, I’m not a huge Lansdown fan but that is one thing you cannot knock him for in recent years, even if it is only increasing his investment it benefits the whole club ultimately in a positive way..It’s interesting that Shearer said in an interview that St James’s Park has become really shabby over recent years, for all the money sloshing about the Premier league it’s surprising how little clubs in that league actually do invest in their infrastructure’s.

I know a Man United season ticket holder who sits in the Stretford end and he is constantly complaining at how Old Trafford is slowly deteriorating, apparently their was a huge leak in the roof not so long back with rain water pouring on fans in the bottom tier of the stretford, embarrassing really.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Engvall’s Splinter said:

Little chuckle at the 19 other clubs who are rumoured to have complained about the takeover (including Man City). Laughable. Each club is very much in its own bubble in that league.

I think there are valid concerns about the risk of a club being effectively owned by a country with a poor human rights record and both the message that sends out and the damage it could do to the reputation of the league.

However they are extremely strange claims for the Man City owners to be making…

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Leveller said:

It would be interesting to see how BCFC compared with that list, considering the stadium and training ground costs. That’s one area where the Lansdown regime has really performed. And yes, I understand the argument that SL is just increasing the value of his investment at the expense of overspending on the squad.

Ffp limits the amount of losses an owner can underwrite, in effect how much he/she can directly invest in the playing side of things. 

However there is no such restriction on investment in infrastructure. The old AG produced ticket sales on match days, but relatively little other revenue. I think I'm right in saying that we were the only championship club without any corporate boxes. 

The new AG generates greater match day income but also on other days because of the corporate facilities now available. All the revenue generated by the stadium can be used on the playing side. 

Similarly SL can invest in the academy, which he has. Developing our own players not only saves on transfer fees  and wages if we produce championship able players, but if those players are good enough and want to play at a higher level, e.g Lloyd Kelly, then it generates larger profits on sale, which can be reinvested on the playing side. 

I am sure the investment in the stadium will enhance the asset value but in this case I am pretty sure there was wider motivation around the benefit to the club in terms of longer term financial sustainability. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LondonBristolian said:

I think there are valid concerns about the risk of a club being effectively owned by a country with a poor human rights record and both the message that sends out and the damage it could do to the reputation of the league.

However they are extremely strange claims for the Man City owners to be making…

True. But I did read that they also have stakes in Uber and Facebook to name but a few - would imagine many complaining will continue to use those services / platforms almost daily without realising. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The debate on suitbaility of ownership is well covered. What concerns me more is the football pyramid. I have less of a worry about Newcastle buying top players, what I feel is destroying football is the Chelsea model of signing all the youth talent in a farming operation. Squad sizes need limiting all through, the number of loans going out also. If lower league clubs are ever going to get a transfer fee, they need to have a fighting chance. At the moment the Prem is creating a closed shop. Newcastle will start doing the same. They (Prem) wan their cake and eat it. They will suck in hundreds of youth players. The magic of football , at least here (it has been like this for years in other countries) is being lost. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Ffp limits the amount of losses an owner can underwrite, in effect how much he/she can directly invest in the playing side of things. 

However there is no such restriction on investment in infrastructure. The old AG produced ticket sales on match days, but relatively little other revenue. I think I'm right in saying that we were the only championship club without any corporate boxes. 

The new AG generates greater match day income but also on other days because of the corporate facilities now available. All the revenue generated by the stadium can be used on the playing side. 

Similarly SL can invest in the academy, which he has. Developing our own players not only saves on transfer fees  and wages if we produce championship able players, but if those players are good enough and want to play at a higher level, e.g Lloyd Kelly, then it generates larger profits on sale, which can be reinvested on the playing side. 

I am sure the investment in the stadium will enhance the asset value but in this case I am pretty sure there was wider motivation around the benefit to the club in terms of longer term financial sustainability. 

I totally agree - I was just fending off the anti Lansdown jibes in advance. SL’s strategy benefits the club; we just need better recruitment and management to use the FFP budget more effectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Engvall’s Splinter said:

True. But I did read that they also have stakes in Uber and Facebook to name but a few - would imagine many complaining will continue to use those services / platforms almost daily without realising. 

Indeed. But I actually think that matters less. The issue for me is dodgy regimes using sports as PR to try to improve their reputation.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, bris red said:

I know a Man United season ticket holder who sits in the Stretford end and he is constantly complaining at how Old Trafford is slowly deteriorating, apparently their was a huge leak in the roof not so long back with rain water pouring on fans in the bottom tier of the stretford, embarrassing really.

Run by the Glazers, big interest to service owing to the 2005 leveraged buyout- and headline signings will help push the profile and servicing said debt.

Signing Galaticos or equivalent is much better for marketing and putting resources that way is much more useful for this than infrastructure investment at that level. Clicks, headlines- marketing, PR- all that crap.

That said as a club they could certainly IMO afford to do both financially.

On the dividends point, almost forgot- believe that the top company for Man Utd is floated on the US Stock Exchange. 'The People's Game' eh. Not been that for a while.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They may have money to spend, but there may still be limits on how they can spend it or when. 

January is a notoriously difficult window anyway and if they are still languishing near the bottom, they don't really have the kind of name that will attract marquee signings. If they really screw up and get relegated they will have to reassess their targets again.

Just throwing money our thereis not always the solution, it took Man City a good few years to get into the top 4 and stay there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

They may have money to spend, but there may still be limits on how they can spend it or when. 

January is a notoriously difficult window anyway and if they are still languishing near the bottom, they don't really have the kind of name that will attract marquee signings. If they really screw up and get relegated they will have to reassess their targets again.

Just throwing money our thereis not always the solution, it took Man City a good few years to get into the top 4 and stay there.

10th in the first season (takeover was September) 5th in the first full season and top 4 ever since

Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, Port Said Red said:

They may have money to spend, but there may still be limits on how they can spend it or when. 

January is a notoriously difficult window anyway and if they are still languishing near the bottom, they don't really have the kind of name that will attract marquee signings. If they really screw up and get relegated they will have to reassess their targets again.

Just throwing money our thereis not always the solution, it took Man City a good few years to get into the top 4 and stay there.

Agreed yeah although Simon Jordan, Kieran Maguire to name 2 reckon they have significant headroom to now splurge given how Ashley ran it financially.

All that said, it'd be most amusing if they went down...

47 minutes ago, MarcusX said:

10th in the first season (takeover was September) 5th in the first full season and top 4 ever since

In and around the relegation scrap Christmas, maybe Jan 2009. Had a better squad at that time than Newcastle do now as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...