Jump to content

Newcastle United: Club Sold To PCP - Official


The Mighty Hog
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, Andrew said:

 

Thats not strictly true because we don't need to pump the books to spend a SHIT load in january, because we've been so cheap in the last few years.

Infrastructure doesn't play into FFP and we can spend upwards of 200mil before we get near the limits of our available spend.

 

Yeah but I was under the impression that if we go all out this year we'd need to pull it back in next two years in order to avoid being fined. It sounds risky to do much other than simply match other middle of the road teams. I guess I don't know what net spent averages are these days though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Rayvin said:

 

Yeah but I was under the impression that if we go all out this year we'd need to pull it back in next two years in order to avoid being fined. It sounds risky to do much other than simply match other middle of the road teams. I guess I don't know what net spent averages are these days though.

 

Thats true, I still can't imagine this sticking.

I was referring mostly to you saying the most immediate problem is getting money in to save ourselves. We can do that.

 

After that it remains to be seen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fair. I mean I'm still feeling fairly confident on this now anyway given the discussions that have gone on. Still can't believe they're bothering though, I'd be flabbergasted if Newcastle United actually became a global footballing superpower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, RobinRobin said:

I'm shitting myself looking at the photos :sick:

He wasn't bothered, Salma Hayek was having a shower on the other side of the glass. (Hence the dopey grin). :good:

Edited by Howmanheyman
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Rayvin said:

Does anyone think we have serious cause for concern about the cabal play on sponsorship? I'm having a hard time believing that Staveley wouldn't have expected it on some level and the fact she sent Charnley to go and deal with it is actually sort of reassuring in a way, keeps cards close to the chest etc (I doubt Charnley knows anything remotely useful beyond what he was told).

 

I do find it quite depressing though, that this is how the league is reacting to the still fairly slim chance that we might actually someday manage to win something.

It wouldn't be such a bullshit new rule if existing sponsorships were subject to it. King Power Stadium, Everton's owners 'sponsoring' the training ground and so on. 

 

Also, 'Fair Market Value', :lol: who the fuck decides what's fair? If IBM think they want to get in on the ground floor of a project with the potential to get among the top 6 clubs, them spending £30m a year on a shirt sponsorship for the next 5 years is fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the shower of shit we have playing for us in defence,£100m may not be enough to keep us up.Does Ings fancy a move? Ward-Prowse would be a decent signing also.That’s £150m spent In January.How much will we have? Getting rid of TOT and BUJ7 will bring in £30m.There’s always a club or two out there who will pay over the odds for shite players 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Andrew said:

The problem with those kind of schemes is assuming that just making the team good is the only angle for the money here.

 

PIF want Saudi Airlines or Aramco or whatever on the shirts and on the hoardings.

 

You need the parts of your stuff you want to be seen to be visible if you want to get your sportswashing done. 

 

If they can't been seen through NUFC, they won't bother.

It needs to be made clear that you can have a sponsorship deal with a pre-existing business partner if it's at 'fair market value'. So, Aramco could sponsor the stadium for X and the new Saudi Airline could sponsor the shirt for Y and as long as a market case can be made for it's valuation, it's allowed. 

 

No, Saudi Airlines couldn't sponsor the shirt for £1bn, but they could do £30m a year. That's less than the big 6 get for theirs and if that's the company we're looking to get amongst, it could be argued that it's fair. We're on tv more than everyone bar the top 6, we're now the club with the richest owners on the planet, the global spotlight is going to be on us even when we're not playing because of the very nature of the owners, there are going to loads of stories about signings, managerial changes, investments in facilities. A better mind than I could certainly make a case that it's reasonable given all the above. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, essembeeofsunderland said:

With the shower of shit we have playing for us in defence,£100m may not be enough to keep us up.Does Ings fancy a move? Ward-Prowse would be a decent signing also.That’s £150m spent In January.How much will we have? Getting rid of TOT and BUJ7 will bring in £30m.There’s always a club or two out there who will pay over the odds for shite players 😉

Wait, you think Danny Ings and James Ward Prowse are worth £150m for the pair? No chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, The Fish said:

It needs to be made clear that you can have a sponsorship deal with a pre-existing business partner if it's at 'fair market value'. So, Aramco could sponsor the stadium for X and the new Saudi Airline could sponsor the shirt for Y and as long as a market case can be made for it's valuation, it's allowed. 

 

No, Saudi Airlines couldn't sponsor the shirt for £1bn, but they could do £30m a year. That's less than the big 6 get for theirs and if that's the company we're looking to get amongst, it could be argued that it's fair. We're on tv more than everyone bar the top 6, we're now the club with the richest owners on the planet, the global spotlight is going to be on us even when we're not playing because of the very nature of the owners, there are going to loads of stories about signings, managerial changes, investments in facilities. A better mind than I could certainly make a case that it's reasonable given all the above. 

And because of synergies it could be argued that the value of the sponsorship to those companies was above the normal market value.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The thing that I've found most alarming about all this is the very notion that 20 football club CEOs are deciding the rules by which clubs in the division are allowed to operate. This shit should be decided independent of the participants in the competition ffs. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, essembeeofsunderland said:

Aye.Reet.

Ings went for £25m this summer. You're saying he's trebled in value? Ward Prowse is worth more than Hakimi, or Varane? Give your head a fucking good shake and do it now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Fish said:

It wouldn't be such a bullshit new rule if existing sponsorships were subject to it. King Power Stadium, Everton's owners 'sponsoring' the training ground and so on. 

 

Also, 'Fair Market Value', :lol: who the fuck decides what's fair? If IBM think they want to get in on the ground floor of a project with the potential to get among the top 6 clubs, them spending £30m a year on a shirt sponsorship for the next 5 years is fair.

 

Ah yes, IBM (Ibrahim Bin Muhammad).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aye :lol: 

 

A lot of Saudi blokes on twitter, some popular journalists have been saying they find it “endearing” and in no way offensive. 
 

So it won’t be going away anytime soon. 
 

Whereas if people had kept quiet….

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, The Fish said:

It needs to be made clear that you can have a sponsorship deal with a pre-existing business partner if it's at 'fair market value'. So, Aramco could sponsor the stadium for X and the new Saudi Airline could sponsor the shirt for Y and as long as a market case can be made for it's valuation, it's allowed. 

 

No, Saudi Airlines couldn't sponsor the shirt for £1bn, but they could do £30m a year. That's less than the big 6 get for theirs and if that's the company we're looking to get amongst, it could be argued that it's fair. We're on tv more than everyone bar the top 6, we're now the club with the richest owners on the planet, the global spotlight is going to be on us even when we're not playing because of the very nature of the owners, there are going to loads of stories about signings, managerial changes, investments in facilities. A better mind than I could certainly make a case that it's reasonable given all the above. 

 

The PIF bought Carnival Cruises, the world's largest Cruise company just before the pandemic which now has been all but gutted by the same plague, they would be perfectly within their right to pay an over the odds for sponsorship deal because it's a huge company that needs to rebuild their billion dollar industry.

The whole thing is a crock of shite and there is no way jealous clubs can push through a rule that is anti-competition, especially one that only applies to deals in the future but exempts current agreements.

Biggest problem for NUFC is these cunts are just going to keep taking pot shots until something sticks.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

 

They'd have been better off just leaving it and hoping it dies off in time. Don't tell a fucking divvy what not to do. 

There's also something a bit off about a bunch of non-Saudi's telling Saudi's what they should find offensive. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.