Alexander Isak

[Toonpack 15611]

20 minutes ago, thebrokendoll said:

 

are you sure though?

I mean that would reference fmv only, we don't know the reason why we don't have sponsorship for marketable assets like the stadium, maybe we've tried and they've been refused? I'm not saying that is the case, just that its feasible.

as regards psr, every fucker and his dog's been making their feelings clear on how corrupt it is, jordan on talksport particularly vocal, emery even wrote about it in his programme notes yesterday.

silence unsurprisingly from the sky 6 mind and us.

it's not only corrupt as fuck but blatantly anti-competitive, I'd love to see us lead the charge on it legally. we just seem to lack the appetite.

 

No I'm not sure but I think it's a plausible reason, you've got to be able to prove loss in court. 

 

The stadium sponsorship will be waiting on the City case IMO, no point signing something for £10 Mill/year when you could maybe get five times that, sure you could sign something with escalators built in but those would be subject the fmv test and likely binned off, better to wait to see what happens with City's challenge.

 

PSR is shite but for as long as it gets voted for by the clubs can't see it changing, the 6 vote for it to protect themselves and they get support from those owners who just want to remain on the gravy train without being financially exposed to having to put in really big wedge to stay in the game.

 

PSR should be about making sure owners don't milk a club to death but it does none of that.

Edited August 17 by Toonpack

[thebrokendoll 14285]

anyway...

 

 

[Christmas Tree 6703]

1 hour ago, ewerk said:

We can reasonably afford to let him rot in the reserves. This is no longer about money.

 

Thats my baseline feeling as well. Just don’t want in 2 years time having to sell players we want to keep because we lost ??? Million by not getting rid.

[Alex 42159]

3 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

 

No I'm not sure but I think it's a plausible reason, you've got to be able to prove loss in court. 

 

The stadium sponsorship will be waiting on the City case IMO, no point signing something for £10 Mill/year when you could maybe get five times that, sure you could sign something with escalators built in but those would be subject the fmv test and likely binned off, better to wait to see what happens with City's challenge.

 

PSR is shite but for as long as it gets voted for by the clubs can't see it changing, the 6 vote for it to protect themselves and they get support from those owners who just want to remain on the gravy train without being financially exposed to having to put in really big wedge to stay in the game.

 

PSR should be about making sure owners don't milk a club to death but it does none of that.

I largely agree with your views but I also think there’s been a poor situation for some time in terms of the competence of those running the club on a day to day basis. Ultimately that lies with the ownership. It’s not an easy thing to get right so I will cut them some slack in terms of giving them the opportunity to learn from these mistakes. 
In a similar vein, with the sponsorship, the City case could be drawn out for ages. It already has been and it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that the PL and the cartel clubs are complicit in dragging out the saga rather than admit Man City have won. There’s form with our takeover. With that in mind, what exactly is stopping a load of sponsorship deals with rolling one year contracts? So they can be improved if and when the associated parties stuff is shown to be illegal or whatever?  

[Ayatollah Hermione 17238]

1 minute ago, Alex said:

I largely agree with your views but I also think there’s been a poor situation for some time in terms of the competence of those running the club on a day to day basis. Ultimately that lies with the ownership. It’s not an easy thing to get right so I will cut them some slack in terms of giving them the opportunity to learn from these mistakes. 
In a similar vein, with the sponsorship, the City case could be drawn out for ages. It already has been and it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that the PL and the cartel clubs are complicit in dragging out the saga rather than admit Man City have won. There’s form with our takeover. With that in mind, what exactly is stopping a load of sponsorship deals with rolling one year contracts? So they can be improved if and when the associated parties stuff is shown to be illegal or whatever?  

Only thing I can think is that maybe sponsors want to commit for a longer period? Though I know fuck all

[Alex 42159]

1 minute ago, Ayatollah Hermione said:

Only thing I can think is that maybe sponsors want to commit for a longer period? Though I know fuck all

Well you know as much as I do then  

[thebrokendoll 14285]

5 minutes ago, Alex said:

I largely agree with your views but I also think there’s been a poor situation for some time in terms of the competence of those running the club on a day to day basis. Ultimately that lies with the ownership. It’s not an easy thing to get right so I will cut them some slack in terms of giving them the opportunity to learn from these mistakes. 
In a similar vein, with the sponsorship, the City case could be drawn out for ages. It already has been and it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that the PL and the cartel clubs are complicit in dragging out the saga rather than admit Man City have won. There’s form with our takeover. With that in mind, what exactly is stopping a load of sponsorship deals with rolling one year contracts? So they can be improved if and when the associated parties stuff is shown to be illegal or whatever?  

 

said exactly the same on numerous occasions during tete a tete with mr toonpack, we've literally thrown ten of millions away over the last few years.

[Toonpack 15611]

5 minutes ago, Alex said:

I largely agree with your views but I also think there’s been a poor situation for some time in terms of the competence of those running the club on a day to day basis. Ultimately that lies with the ownership. It’s not an easy thing to get right so I will cut them some slack in terms of giving them the opportunity to learn from these mistakes. 
In a similar vein, with the sponsorship, the City case could be drawn out for ages. It already has been and it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that the PL and the cartel clubs are complicit in dragging out the saga rather than admit Man City have won. There’s form with our takeover. With that in mind, what exactly is stopping a load of sponsorship deals with rolling one year contracts? So they can be improved if and when the associated parties stuff is shown to be illegal or whatever?  

 

I just think the sponsorship thing appears to be such a blatant "tap in" that there's got to be a reason we're not doing it, hence my theory, as that's just about the only plausible thing I can think of, outside of utter incompetence - which given we've been nigh on increasing our commercial revenues by 50% year on year that doesn't smack of "we haven't a clue what we're doing".

[thebrokendoll 14285]

5 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

 

I just think the sponsorship thing appears to be such a blatant "tap in" that there's got to be a reason we're not doing it, hence my theory, as that's just about the only plausible thing I can think of, outside of utter incompetence - which given we've been nigh on increasing our commercial revenues by 50% year on year that doesn't smack of "we haven't a clue what we're doing".

 

bit the base level was incredibly low under ashley, he was giving most of our commercial revenue opportunities away to himself for nowt.

what has silverstone done for the last 2 years other than fleece the support?

[Toonpack 15611]

12 minutes ago, Ayatollah Hermione said:

Only thing I can think is that maybe sponsors want to commit for a longer period? Though I know fuck all

 

Could be a reason, massive organisations set their budgets projected for years, if they say sign a one year rolling £10 mill deal but then say it could be £50 Mill in year two they'll budget the higher number, but if because of some reason it stays at £10 Mill, that's £40 Mill money they ringfenced in the budgets that was not available to have been be spent elsewhere. They'll want certainty and over the longer term the better.

[Polarboy 2770]

8 hours ago, Craig said:

On the contrary, I think if the paying support didn’t voice their opinion it would be a sign of weakness.

 

This is a player who up until 4 weeks ago has been in receipt of nothing but universal and unconditional adoration from our supporter base.
 

For them to demonstrate undeniably how appalling his conduct has been underpins the key fact that no one player is bigger than the a club - not even one who will command a British Record Fee and whose ability is a demonstrable loss right now.

 

The owners aren’t stupid. They don’t see that as a springboard to flog him to Liverpool, they know we hold those cunts in just as much contempt as we do ‘Team Isak’.

 

Next week will be an eye opener. I sincerely hope Wor Flag’s theme is along the lines of togetherness and being a team for the banners and TIFO. I expect once the match starts there’ll be choice words to be said about Liverpool, but we ought to keep our views on Isak until after the final whistle again.

 

I sincerely hope we absolutely batter those fuckers

 

I mean that's two different arguments. Showing that we are bigger than one player, and voicing our displeasure, is a separate issue as to whether it weakens our negotiating hand in getting the highest price for Isak.

[Toonpack 15611]

52 minutes ago, thebrokendoll said:

 

bit the base level was incredibly low under ashley, he was giving most of our commercial revenue opportunities away to himself for nowt.

what has silverstone done for the last 2 years other than fleece the support?

 

Quite a bit

 

https://gregcordell.substack.com/p/newcastle-united-202324-financial

 

[Alex 42159]

2 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

 

Quite a bit

 

https://gregcordell.substack.com/p/newcastle-united-202324-financial

 

And his remit might be to make sure he doesn’t do anything that could potentially break the rules (or precipitate a change in the rules). 

[Toonpack 15611]

5 minutes ago, Alex said:

And his remit might be to make sure he doesn’t do anything that could potentially break the rules (or precipitate a change in the rules). 

 

He's not really fleeced the fans either despite TBD's assertions (or TBB = The Broken Ballot).

 

[thebrokendoll 14285]

don't get all gemmill/fish on my ass with your fucking graphs and charts.

we've had sela and noon on board and then extended in 2023, both it'd be safe to assume we're more pif influenced than silverstone.

we had adidas negotiated in september 2023

the stack opened next to sjp in august 2024 so had been long in the planning.

what has silverstone done in the last 2 years other than increase ticket prices by about 30%?

[ewerk 39261]

7 minutes ago, Alex said:

And his remit might be to make sure he doesn’t do anything that could potentially break the rules (or precipitate a change in the rules). 

Then we need to hire someone to counteract that and specifically break the rules, an anti-Silverstone.

[Alex 42159]

1 minute ago, thebrokendoll said:

don't get all gemmill/fish on my ass with your fucking graphs and charts.

we've had sela and noon on board and then extended in 2023, both it'd be safe to assume we're more pif influenced than silverstone.

we had adidas negotiated in september 2023

the stack opened next to sjp in august 2024 so had been long in the planning.

what has silverstone done in the last 2 years other than increase ticket prices by about 30%?

Laughing at the opening sentence btw 

[thebrokendoll 14285]

2 minutes ago, Toonpack said:

 

He's not really fleeced the fans either despite TBD's assertions (or TBB = The Broken Ballot).

 

 

 

oh I can assure you he fucking has.

[Toonpack 15611]

2 minutes ago, thebrokendoll said:

don't get all gemmill/fish on my ass with your fucking graphs and charts.

we've had sela and noon on board and then extended in 2023, both it'd be safe to assume we're more pif influenced than silverstone.

we had adidas negotiated in september 2023

the stack opened next to sjp in august 2024 so had been long in the planning.

what has silverstone done in the last 2 years other than increase ticket prices by about 30%?

 

Present a case backed up by facts not just wishy washy vitriol, I'm not doing your work for you.

[Toonpack 15611]

Just now, thebrokendoll said:

 

oh I can assure you he fucking has.

 

Supply and demand mate, way of the world.

 

Season Ticket prices (and we all accept that season ticket holders are the real supporters AND LIFE BLOOD of the club) have gone up 3.3% year on year, eminently reasonable.

[thebrokendoll 14285]

1 minute ago, Toonpack said:

 

Supply and demand mate, way of the world.

 

Season Ticket prices (and we all accept that season ticket holders are the real supporters AND LIFE BLOOD of the club) have gone up 3.3% year on year, eminently reasonable.

 

try harder yer useless twat. 

[ewerk 39261]

Gwent mags are the WORST.

[Toonpack 15611]

7 minutes ago, thebrokendoll said:

 

try harder yer useless twat. 

 

Must admit the pitiful slap the face reaction emoji was NOT the chomp I was hoping for ☹️

[thebrokendoll 14285]

4 minutes ago, ewerk said:

Gwent mags are the WORST.

 

 

monmouthshire I'll have you know. 

[Polarboy 2770]

I'd rather we got Samu or Ramos, and maybe Frattesi if that's a goer, with any potential Isak money than try to make some point about fairness in football that we all know doesn't exist. If we keep Isak just to spite him, and it's impossible for him to reintergrate, score a decent amount of goals, Howe's head is wrecked in every pre and post match conference, and he's stinking up the atmosphere in the squad, then half way through the season we're going to be asking ourselves was it worth it.

 

I understand the point about not showing weakness as a club, but if we have a poor season having kept him it will surely be a pyrrhic victory. Using the money from his sale wisely and being successful without him, is the best way in which we can show that he isn't bigger than the club in my opinion. Of course Liverpool still have to stump up a decent amount of money in this scenario.