Jump to content

Newcastle United: Club Sold To PCP - Official


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 9.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

its official #Cans #Jimbo's telly

I've spent many a workday researching CHAPS.

I don’t know Callum.  But you weren’t arsed when it came to your own website (https://realcombatmedia.com), with its in depth coverage of Joshua vs Ruiz II so why are you arsed now? Fuck off

Posted Images

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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
Share on other sites

I'd just like to apologise to this board and any Saudis who happen to be lurking, when I put the tea towel on my head in 1980 I was merely playing my part in the school nativity and had no idea of the pain and anguish I must have been giving to our friends in the Middle East and especially in the guardian. I'll learn from this. 

  • Haha 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Fish said:

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.

 

3 hours ago, The Fish said:

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.

£100m for defence and another £50m for Ings and Ward-Prowse.
I don’t know if it’s education you require,Specsavers or both. X

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, essembeeofsunderland said:

 

£100m for defence and another £50m for Ings and Ward-Prowse.
I don’t know if it’s education you require,Specsavers or both. X

a) you wouldn't get Ings and Ward-Prowse for £50m. Ings had only just joined Villa and Ward-Prowse is the Southampton captain.

b) I sought clarification and your reply was "Aye, reet", so stick that in your mackem-obssessed balloon knot and swivel.

 

Oh, and at least I can work the fucking quote feature, you gormless spenk.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, The Fish said:

a) you wouldn't get Ings and Ward-Prowse for £50m. Ings had only just joined Villa and Ward-Prowse is the Southampton captain.

b) I sought clarification and your reply was "Aye, reet", so stick that in your mackem-obssessed balloon knot and swivel.

 

Oh, and at least I can work the fucking quote feature, you gormless spenk.

Blood pressure lad,blood pressure.Because one player has recently joined Villa and the other is Southampton captain they’re not worth £50m.Is that right? If Ward-Prowse was to lose the captaincy would he be worth less? Ings could be worth less come January then.Calm down lad,you’re not making sense.Should we give BUJ7 the captaincy to increase his value? 
😂

 

 

Link to post
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
×
×
  • Create New...