Come here to laugh at Nu-Castle

[Guido 🇺🇦]

I get it, why would a fans of a team unaffected by the rules be bothered by them?

We ARE fucking affected by them!!!! EVERY CLUB "should" be affected by them because EVERY club has signed up for what they are!!!

We've abided by these same rules, not spent outside of our own means, built a stadium without government aide, and improved our team step by step inch by inch.

We've closed a financial chasm between us and ALL the big clubs who've generated over double the revenue than us a decade ago. To put this into context when Poch was appointed in 2014, newly promoted Palace's revenues were closer to us than ours were to Woolwich!!! (Their revenue was double ours and was so for 15 consecutive years as they banked CL money = over a £1b more revenue. But we not only caught them up, but we've also overtaken them and are over £100m more than them, although the numbers haven't been posted yet we should see us overtake Chavs too for the first time since the Russian Gangster rocked up!!

We've closed also on Utd (although they still remain a massive money-making machine. There is only one other club that has had a similar trajectory to us and that's Liverpool, who were also outside the top four for many years, they too have grown their Club's revenues in a sustainable way, and have improved their performance on the pitch also. (they had a massive headstart on us seeing as their fanbase was much, much larger than ours and as a consequence has always been able to leverage very large sponsorship deals especially that of Standard Chartered).

 

[WPHIII]

Oh... and our owners are scum.

If this actually mattered to you, you wouldn’t be on another team’s board carrying water so enthusiastically for those owners.

I honestly don't mind a Barcode coming in here to have the discussion about Newcastle’s new role in the modern game (especially as you’ve been laudably civil), but you absolutely don’t get to play the “I don’t like this any more than you do!” card.

You clearly want the team to experience material success under these owners. You are only against the current PSR/FFP because you want those owners to be able to spend more of their ill-gotten wealth in an effort to deliver that success. Therefore you support the owners, there’s no way around that. Just own being the bad guy and we can at least approach this from a place of honesty.

With the wealth that the owners have, the club is not going to be fucked in the future.

You have no way of knowing this. The oil state empires are all built on an increasingly unstable house of cards.

 

[JimothyCF14]

We can definitely sign someone, so I'm not sure how you've come to that conclusion. According the Kieran Maguire we could buy a £30m player 'without it touching the sides' in terms of PSR. The issue is the so called 'Newcastle Tax' and the outdated PSR restrictions. If they were up to date, we could spend more.

Boo fucking hoo. You've spent 400m net in the last couple of seasons. Fucking hell, what else is wrong? Are your diamond shoes too tight on your feet?

Jesus fucking christ.

The Newcastle Tax refers to us being; a PL club, with a reputation for being the richest club in the world, who're currently decimated with injuries.

Tough tits. You are the richest club in the world. Talk about your first world problems.

Big clubs don't want to help out a threat to the status quo, chasing pack don't want to help a team they're in direct competition with and the rest don't want to help out a team who's currently vulnerable. Which I get and don't have a problem with.

What is this status quo shite you keep banging on about? Why do you sound like such a fucking victim all the time? 10-15 years ago you'd have laughed at the very idea of Spurs being one of these "elite". There was no such thing as a Big Six. We're there on merit, not because we were already there or had some help or assistance. We weren't part of some club keeping everyone else down, we were just mid table shite. We didn't whinge and whine that other clubs had more money to spend, we just went about creating the foundations which generate the revenue to compete. And now we can.

 

[Guido 🇺🇦]

View: https://x.com/TheAthleticFC/status/1747589836352217233?s=20

£76m for Tonali!!!!!

 

[JimothyCF14]

With the wealth that the owners have, the club is not going to be fucked in the future.

I cannot wait for your club to do a Blackburn Rovers once your owners are gone. Which is literally the point.

 

[Airfixx]

View: https://x.com/TheAthleticFC/status/1747589836352217233?s=20

£76m for Tonali!!!!!

50m for Willock!!!!

 

[enfield1985]

Again, I swear there must be a filter here. I'm not saying we should be allowed to spend unlimited monies, I'm saying the current PSR isn't in line with inflation. And that it's effect is not what was originally intended.

Okay with the current rules clubs are allowed to lose £35M a season over a 3 year period at an average of £105M. Most normal businesses would go out of business by losing £35M a year.

The fact that club's are allowed to make losses of £105M over three years is ridiculous the fact that people think it is ok for it to be increased with football inflation is even stupider. The fact is football inflation is ridiculous and not a real thing. Look at Bale who left Spurs as one of the most highly rated attacking players in the world for £89m and your telling me an average midfielder like Caciedo is worth more than £100m.

How do you judge football inflation it is BS.

 

[This Fish]

You had £400m of wiggle room and now your manager is saying that you can't buy Dominic Solanke, the Newcastle tax is nothing to do with how massive you are, it's because you were dumb enough to lump near enough £50m on Anthony Gordon...

Who is talking about how massive Newcastle is? No, we can't justify spending £50m+ on Dominic Solanke because when that player fails to recreate his blistering form, it would be £50m down the plughole. We didn't spend 'near enough £50m' on Gordon, we spent £35 possibly rising to £45m on Gordon, and given his form I'd say that's money well spent. He's been outstanding for us.

You burned through all of your FFP wiggle room building a first team that was just good enough to clinch CL in a season where 4/5 teams were uncharacteristically bad, it's nothing to do with throwing games, it's that you went from signing Chris Wood one window, to blasting something like £70m on Isaak the next.

No, we didn't.
You're the one saying we should have worked our way through the lesser European competitions first.
And Isak was already signed before it transpired that those clubs would have a bad season. We needed a good striker to act as deputy or replacement for Wilson who is made out spun sugar and gossamer thin glass. Isak was available, for a price that made sense, and given his form I'd say we got a good deal.
Both him and Gordon are worth more now than they were before we signed them.

There's nothing organic or sustainable about that approach.

Whoopee, some guy on twitter reckons you can spend £30m on one player, maybe he should tell Eddie Howe that so he can stop crying to the media.

'Some guy' on twitter being the football finance expert called upon by most major news organisations to talk about football finances?

You ever think that Howe and Eales are not telling the whole truth about how much we can afford to spend?

 

[This Fish]

I cannot wait for your club to do a Blackburn Rovers once your owners are gone. Which is literally the point.

Genuine question, do you see that as a probable possibility?

 

[Herclueless]

Okay with the current rules clubs are allowed to lose £35M a season over a 3 year period at an average of £105M. Most normal businesses would go out of business by losing £35M a year.

The fact that club's are allowed to make losses of £105M over three years is ridiculous the fact that people think it is ok for it to be increased with football inflation is even stupider. The fact is football inflation is ridiculous and not a real thing. Look at Bale who left Spurs as one of the most highly rated attacking players in the world for £89m and your telling me an average midfielder like Caciedo is worth more than £100m.

How do you judge football inflation it is BS.

These figures are like the speed limit, it's a threshold, not a target.

His argument is like someone that's just inherited a Porsche after years of driving a Nissan Micra, not fair that he should be capped at driving 70mph in the flash new motor that fell into his lap, the limit should have increased with higher performing engines...

 

[This Fish]

Okay with the current rules clubs are allowed to lose £35M a season over a 3 year period at an average of £105M. Most normal businesses would go out of business by losing £35M a year.

The fact that club's are allowed to make losses of £105M over three years is ridiculous the fact that people think it is ok for it to be increased with football inflation is even stupider. The fact is football inflation is ridiculous and not a real thing. Look at Bale who left Spurs as one of the most highly rated attacking players in the world for £89m and your telling me an average midfielder like Caciedo is worth more than £100m.

How do you judge football inflation it is BS.

I don't think you've understood Football Inflation. I linked to it before, but football inflation is a very real thing. Wages and fees have increased, they have inflated. Bale's transfer, accounting for inflation would be closer to £180m were it to happen now. Likely more when you account for things outside of the pure numbers like demand for that position, strength of selling club, strength of buying club etc.

 

[Herclueless]

Who is talking about how massive Newcastle is? No, we can't justify spending £50m+ on Dominic Solanke because when that player fails to recreate his blistering form, it would be £50m down the plughole. We didn't spend 'near enough £50m' on Gordon, we spent £35 possibly rising to £45m on Gordon, and given his form I'd say that's money well spent. He's been outstanding for us.

No, we didn't.
You're the one saying we should have worked our way through the lesser European competitions first.
And Isak was already signed before it transpired that those clubs would have a bad season. We needed a good striker to act as deputy or replacement for Wilson who is made out spun sugar and gossamer thin glass. Isak was available, for a price that made sense, and given his form I'd say we got a good deal.
Both him and Gordon are worth more now than they were before we signed them.

'Some guy' on twitter being the football finance expert called upon by most major news organisations to talk about football finances?

You ever think that Howe and Eales are not telling the whole truth about how much we can afford to spend?

So you don't need to sell to buy? Why are you (YOU, not Beheddie Howe or Slippery Eales) whingeing about how handicapped you are by these rules then if you're so compliant?

You either can buy, and so there's no need for all of your manking and moaning about these rules, or you can't, and that suggests that you did in fact squander all of that wiggle room for a quick fumble in the bushes with CL football...

 

[This Fish]

These figures are like the speed limit, it's a threshold, not a target.

His argument is like someone that's just inherited a Porsche after years of driving a Nissan Micra, not fair that he should be capped at driving 70mph in the flash new motor that fell into his lap, the limit should have increased with higher performing engines...

More like the 70mph limit was introduced in the 60s and hasn't moved on with the developments in modern brakes and early warning systems that come as standard on so many cars 60yrs later... so we should probably review that limit and see what works in the modern era.

 

[Shotgunofmichalebrow]

All the sponsorships are fair value, but for some weird reason only companies with the same parent company were willing and able to pay them.

It's all very legit and above board, honest.

They also sponsor and have sponsored precisely no one else, ever. Lol. I Don't know if Fishy is genuinely happier with us thinking he is either that thick or that dishonest.

 

[enfield1985]

I don't think you've understood Football Inflation. I linked to it before, but football inflation is a very real thing. Wages and fees have increased, they have inflated. Bale's transfer, accounting for inflation would be closer to £180m were it to happen now. Likely more when you account for things outside of the pure numbers like demand for that position, strength of selling club, strength of buying club etc.

No it wouldn't the fact is if we put something in PSR for Football Inflation it will allow infinite losses in the long run and it would mean complete failure of Profit and Sustainability Rules. If we raise the Losses over a 3 year period to £208M this year next year when it increases we will have to raise it to £230M. The fact is most businesses making a yearly loss of £30M a year will go out of business, why is football any different.

Also think about it who would the burden of playing catchup to what you can then pay for players. The other clubs fans whether it is through TV Subscriptions or Tickets or Shirt Prices. Just because you Evil Over Lords are willing to lose the money to buy your cities affections does not mean we should be going ok your correct.

 

[Herclueless]

More like the 70mph limit was introduced in the 60s and hasn't moved on with the developments in modern brakes and early warning systems that come as standard on so many cars 60yrs later... so we should probably review that limit and see what works in the modern era.

And you wouldn't give a shit about that if you were still driving around in your Nissan Micra...

The 70mph limit would be perfectly fair and just then wouldn't it?

 

[Herclueless]

They also sponsor and have sponsored precisely no one else, ever. Lol. I Don't know if Fishy is genuinely happier with us thinking he is either that thick or that dishonest.

I fully believe he can be both...

 

[Herclueless]

No it wouldn't the fact is if we put something in PSR for Football Inflation it will allow infinite losses in the long run and it would mean complete failure of Profit and Sustainability Rules. If we raise the Losses over a 3 year period to £208M this year next year when it increases we will have to raise it to £230M. The fact is most businesses making a yearly loss of £30M a year will go out of business, why is football any different.

Also think about it who would the burden of playing catchup to what you can then pay for players. The other clubs fans whether it is through TV Subscriptions or Tickets or Shirt Prices. Just because you Evil Over Lords are willing to lose the money to buy your cities affections does not mean we should be going ok your correct.

Raising the losses is such an absurd suggestion (I know you're not suggesting it btw), clubs shouldn't be losing anything!

The limits are a cap not a target... They have been put there as something for the wildly overspending clubs to aim for, and you would assume that a club with any sense would, having achieved that, then aim to continue to improve so that they are as well clear of the threshold as they can get.

Then you get the donkey punchers:

"U wot, that's all we canny lose like???"

 

[r-u-s-x]

Nobody cared when Ashley 'sponsored' St James' Park for the sum total of £0. Or when he promoted his tat on the advertising boards around the pitch for £0 over 13yrs.

Is that your argument.

 

[holloway spurs]

Good chance these owners fuck off if they can't spend billions...