Newcastle United: Club Sold To PCP - Official

[Gemmill 44931]

1 minute ago, OTF said:

 

It will hurt having to pay overs for players to end the season whichever way it goes, most of all if we're still relegated as we'll have paid huge wages with no return and they'll all have release clauses to get out of here in a hurry for cheap. But the chance of staying up mean they have to at least have a go of it. We've watched us play, we know we've been a relegation standard team for more than a season. We've improved with a new manager but we need players to stand any chance of surviving and the only way to sign them when you're in this predicement is to pony up the big bucks.

 

FFP takes the biggest hit if we're relegated, we've got room to spend so it's therefore possible and I'd also say the responsible thing to do would be to have a proper push at staying up.

What I'm saying is that I know the FFP rules say it's possible, but does the club actually have the cash to make it possible. Because those are two different things. 

And whilst I get (and agree with) the we need to spend to stay up argument, what I don't know is what that would do to our future outgoings, and whether we would NEED a future sponsorship deal to make it viable.

Maybe I'm just being a worrying so-called accountant. 

[Gemmill 44931]

9 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said:

surely the precedent has been set by the man city deal and that fair value would mean an equivalent short/stadium deal with Saudio Aramco?

They've just changed the rules though to stop that happening again, haven't they. Precedent is now irrelevant, I think. Unless that's Staveley's argument for why it can all be challenged. 

[Alex 35095]

It’ll collapse once a few clubs realise they’ve painted themselves into a corner I would think because they’re basically limiting their own income potential 

[Dr Gloom 21937]

1 minute ago, Gemmill said:

They've just changed the rules though to stop that happening again, haven't they. Precedent is now irrelevant, I think. Unless that's Staveley's argument for why it can all be challenged. 

ah, i assumed fair market value meant something akin to the types of deals PL clubs have attracted so far. 

[Gemmill 44931]

I think City's deal might have been ruled FMV actually but that was without this process in place. And City have clearly been up to some wild shit, with Mancini having dodgy contracts outside of the club etc. 

[Rayvin 5223]

7 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

What I'm saying is that I know the FFP rules say it's possible, but does the club actually have the cash to make it possible. Because those are two different things. 

And whilst I get (and agree with) the we need to spend to stay up argument, what I don't know is what that would do to our future outgoings, and whether we would NEED a future sponsorship deal to make it viable.

Maybe I'm just being a worrying so-called accountant. 

 

Is the deal here not that they could just put that £200m straight in without worrying about sponsorship deals etc? Effectively that's an allowable loss, right? The reason we need to worry about sponsorship would be for everything beyond that, since FFP blocks us from just throwing that money into the club - but up to that £200m I thought it could just be loaned or gifted straight in?

 

As an aside, is this new nonsense from the PL enforceable in the championship?

[Gemmill 44931]

Just now, Rayvin said:

 

Is the deal here not that they could just put that £200m straight in without worrying about sponsorship deals etc? Effectively that's an allowable loss, right? The reason we need to worry about sponsorship would be for everything beyond that, since FFP blocks us from just throwing that money into the club - but up to that £200m I thought it could just be loaned or gifted straight in?

 

As an aside, is this new nonsense from the PL enforceable in the championship?

Honestly I know the FFP rules about as well as I know UK accounting rules.

I'm mostly just waffling. 

[Rayvin 5223]

Just now, Gemmill said:

Honestly I know the FFP rules about as well as I know UK accounting rules.

I'm mostly just waffling. 

 

Is... is that well? You know UK accounting rules well, right?

 

I mean I don't have a clue about any of this, I'm just musing on the fact that my understanding was that the point of the sponsorships was to funnel money in beyond what the rules said we were able to do already.

[Gemmill 44931]

I didn't know them well when I passed my exams, and I sure as shit don't know them any better 20 years later.

Tbf I haven't worked in accountancy for over 10 years now, so that's fine.

I just keep checking the box that tells them I've done all the CPD I need to, nothing to see here, every year when I renew my subs. 

[Dr Gloom 21937]

12 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

I think City's deal might have been ruled FMV actually but that was without this process in place. And City have clearly been up to some wild shit, with Mancini having dodgy contracts outside of the club etc. 

if we could strike equivalent deal - i think etihad give them £70m a season or something - it would put us in a pretty good place alongside all the TV money and side hustles others alluded to. 

it strikes me that we can be competitive despite this, which is all we want really, but what they're trying to do is stop us completely taking the piss with £500m a season or whatever 

Edited December 16, 2021 by Dr Gloom

[ewerk 30629]

3 minutes ago, Gemmill said:

I didn't know them well when I passed my exams, and I sure as shit don't know them any better 20 years later.

Tbf I haven't worked in accountancy for over 10 years now, so that's fine.

I just keep checking the box that tells them I've done all the CPD I need to, nothing to see here, every year when I renew my subs. 

Well I guess Leazes was right all along...

[Gemmill 44931]

Just now, ewerk said:

Well I guess Leazes was right all along...

Hey in those days I was actually working as one. That man had NO RIGHT to say the things he said about me or the Muslim community. 

[ewerk 30629]

1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said:

if we could strike equivalent deal - i think etihad give them £70m a season or something - it would put us in a pretty good place alongside all the TV money and these deals we could strike.

it strikes me that we can be competitive despite this, which is all we want really, but what they're trying to do is stop us completely taking the piss with £500m a season or whatever 

The Etihad deal included stadium naming rights. I don't want that and I don't think Staveley et al are stupid enough to go for it.

[ewerk 30629]

Just now, Gemmill said:

Hey in those days I was actually working as one. That man had NO RIGHT to say the things he said about me or the Muslim community. 

But he was right on the grey man and the bogtrotter.

[Dr Gloom 21937]

1 minute ago, ewerk said:

The Etihad deal included stadium naming rights. I don't want that and I don't think Staveley et al are stupid enough to go for it.

do you think people would care as much this time if it led to huge investment? 

[Gemmill 44931]

I think we've not got to be precious fannies about the name of the ground. If they're pumping cash into the community and the club, they can call it what they like. 

The problem with Ashley was it was his shitty bargain basement brand and it was all take and no give. 

[Rayvin 5223]

5 minutes ago, ewerk said:

The Etihad deal included stadium naming rights. I don't want that and I don't think Staveley et al are stupid enough to go for it.

 

What if they bought the naming rights and named it "St. James Park". Legally speaking, could anyone even say anything?

[Dr Gloom 21937]

Just call it Aramco St James's Park - i could live with that. 

[Howmanheyman 33267]

1 minute ago, Dr Gloom said:

do you think people would care as much this time if it led to huge investment? 

I would. It's not a new stadium with no history but they could always sponsor it anyway and just keep it as SJP which is what Wonga apparently did in the sports direct arena shambles. Aye, it was PR guff to weasel out of it but in our present circumstances we could call it a precedent instead. 

[Gemmill 44931]

3 minutes ago, Howmanheyman said:

I would. It's not a new stadium with no history but they could always sponsor it anyway and just keep it as SJP which is what Wonga apparently did in the sports direct arena shambles. Aye, it was PR guff to weasel out of it but in our present circumstances we could call it a precedent instead. 

What about Saudi James Park. Keep the initials. Work with me here, baby, we can get this over the line. 

[Dr Gloom 21937]

The Bone Saw Arena FTW 

[Meenzer 15550]

SaudisDirect.com@StJamesPark

[Rayvin 5223]

The PL, thanks to its own modus operandi, is a de-regulated wilderness. I'd be amazed if we can't find all sorts of ways around these issues. I mean I mentioned it in jest some time back but what if we set up schools in Saudi Arabia for footballing excellence and charged £1m a year for attendance, with an intake of 100 pupils per year. Does the PL have a precedent there to set against it?

 

What if we broke off from the other sponsorship deals for TV rights and sold our own? We could take the PL's achievements as the 'precedent'.

 

We could start streaming training sessions into Saudi Arabia, the state could subsidise access to it.

 

I mean I just don't see how they can close every single loop hole without ending up in court assured of losing on at least one front.

[Howmanheyman 33267]

Imagine the fewm around the usual suspects if they make a big announcement about sponsoring the stadium and do a big reveal of the new name and unveil it behind some curtains and it's still St. James' Park. 

[Monkeys Fist 42459]

They’ve already renamed Strawberry Place.