Howmanheyman 33181 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 41 minutes ago, Kid Dynamite said: The FFP is over a three year period, we are due sponsorship in the near future. We've got this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wykikitoon 20129 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 Sounds like Trossard to Arsenal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17256 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 8 minutes ago, Howmanheyman said: This is normal. Anyone remember the Shepherd regime dropping a bollock with Lua Lua so he scored a last minute equaliser against us while on loan at Portsmouth? 🙋🏻♂️ I was there 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14011 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 4 minutes ago, ewerk said: It’s also worth remembering that this 95% figure is for the 21/22 season. So we were only paying wages for the likes of Trippier, Bruno et al. for half that season. Since then we’ve signed Pope, Isak and Botman so chances are that our wages are currently above 100% of revenue. I can’t imagine the NOON sponsorship appears on those books and that’s worth more than Fun88 so it may not be so bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Carr's Gloves 3894 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 Just now, Tom said: I can’t imagine the NOON sponsorship appears on those books and that’s worth more than Fun88 so it may not be so bad. We also seem to have way more match day sponsorship than we used to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17256 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 14 minutes ago, Alex said: Fanks, Mike “Newcastle, due to Ashley’s canny ownership, have lots of FFP wriggle room” Football media clowns, October/November 2021 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21915 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 remember we're announcing aramco in the summer 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinRobin 11263 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 30 minutes ago, wykikitoon said: Sounds like Trossard to Arsenal They may have done well losing that player to Chelsea then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10857 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 47 minutes ago, wykikitoon said: As said, it needs signing off by the EPL so that will stop the ridiculous type deals City have. But will certainly have us on better footings. Thing is, getting a deal signed off by the Premier League just means that we have to persuade them it's a fair market value. Lets say we get into the Champions League, what's a fair market value for sponsoring the shirt of a Premier League team in the CL? Add to that the value of association with a club with apparently boundless ambition (and the resources to achieve that). This season the 'top 6' have between £40-£67m deals. It would make sense to get at least £30m, which would be a 500% increase. Then include the commercial partnerships that will surely follow. 16 minutes ago, PaddockLad said: “Newcastle, due to Ashley’s canny ownership, have lots of FFP wriggle room” Football media clowns, October/November 2021 We did, couldn't have signed >£200m worth of talent without it. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14011 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 It looks as if Saudia will definitely have heavy involvement given the WC breaks events and the recent ticket competition etc Throw a few ARAMCO logos around the stadium and we’ll be in some serious dollar. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr Gloom 21915 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 wait till we get with the tractor sponsorships 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17256 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 (edited) 8 minutes ago, The Fish said: Thing is, getting a deal signed off by the Premier League just means that we have to persuade them it's a fair market value. Lets say we get into the Champions League, what's a fair market value for sponsoring the shirt of a Premier League team in the CL? Add to that the value of association with a club with apparently boundless ambition (and the resources to achieve that). This season the 'top 6' have between £40-£67m deals. It would make sense to get at least £30m, which would be a 500% increase. Then include the commercial partnerships that will surely follow. We did, couldn't have signed >£200m worth of talent without it. Ok, why is the wages/income equation now a problem then if the problem was there pre takeover? Or has spunking 200mill of presumably funds that the football club has largely earned itself completely skewed it/brought it to the fore? Edited January 19, 2023 by PaddockLad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom 14011 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 7 minutes ago, Dr Gloom said: wait till we get with the tractor sponsorships Party time when we get the official noodle partnership. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10857 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 Just now, PaddockLad said: Ok, why is the wages/income equation now a problem then if the problem was there pre Ashley? Or has spunking 200mill of presumably funds that the football club has largely earned itself completely skewed it/brought it to the fore? The latter. We've spent a lot of money in the last year, not just on fees but wages too. And nobody has gone out the door for any fee, and the wages we've lost haven't been massive (Muto, Atsu, Fernandez). 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Howmanheyman 33181 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 If Man Utd can have DHL on training jackets and the seats on the bench then we'll have the same. 👍 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex 35079 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 10 minutes ago, PaddockLad said: Ok, why is the wages/income equation now a problem then if the problem was there pre takeover? Or has spunking 200mill of presumably funds that the football club has largely earned itself completely skewed it/brought it to the fore? I think you’re both right, ie we had sone wriggle room initially because of his frugality. But the lack of revenue streams / lack of sponsorship / shitty sponsorship deals that were struck / outsourcing of catering etc etc means we’ve now reached a point where wages are close to exceeding revenue. I think at worst it just slows us down, the ‘market value’ stipulations probably won’t stand up in any court and the amount of daft deals / partnerships other clubs have in place allows for getting around that anyway. But we know we’re under more scrutiny than almost anyone else atm so we’re trying to stay within the rules as much as we can 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17256 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 Just now, The Fish said: The latter. We've spent a lot of money in the last year, not just on fees but wages too. And nobody has gone out the door for any fee, and the wages we've lost haven't been massive (Muto, Atsu, Fernandez). Am a bit surprised that there was 200 mill lying around from Ashley’s reign to spend tbh. All income streams were alleged to have nosedived. We’re allowed to spend 90% of all income on all transfer expenses this season, 80% next season and 70% the season after. The Chelsea transfer last week may not be the first structured like that but you’d imagine it’d likely to the norm going forward for high fee transfer deals 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9399 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 3 minutes ago, PaddockLad said: Am a bit surprised that there was 200 mill lying around from Ashley’s reign to spend tbh. All income streams were alleged to have nosedived. We’re allowed to spend 90% of all income on all transfer expenses this season, 80% next season and 70% the season after. The Chelsea transfer last week may not be the first structured like that but you’d imagine it’d likely to the norm going forward for high fee transfer deals It is the norm already, fee divided by years of contract is what hits FFP, wages are a hit as they happen. You spread the cost of a player over say 5 years but if you sell him before that whatever you get is a credit for FFP as a lump when it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinRobin 11263 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 1 minute ago, Toonpack said: It is the norm already, fee divided by years of contract is what hits FFP, wages are a hit as they happen. You spread the cost of a player over say 5 years but if you sell him before that whatever you get is a credit for FFP as a lump when it happens. The players we can get rid of will be for nothing and we'll still be paying them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17256 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 1 minute ago, Toonpack said: It is the norm already, fee divided by years of contract is what hits FFP, wages are a hit as they happen. You spread the cost of a player over say 5 years but if you sell him before that whatever you get is a credit for FFP as a lump when it happens. That’s up to nearly a decade now with the Mudryk deal though.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9399 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 Just now, RobinRobin said: The players we can get rid of will be for nothing and we'll still be paying them. Yes, we're carrying a lot of shite excess baggage. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fish 10857 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 Just now, PaddockLad said: Am a bit surprised that there was 200 mill lying around from Ashley’s reign to spend tbh. All income streams were alleged to have nosedived. We’re allowed to spend 90% of all income on all transfer expenses this season, 80% next season and 70% the season after. The Chelsea transfer last week may not be the first structured like that but you’d imagine it’d likely to the norm going forward for high fee transfer deals It's not that we had £200m in the bank, just that we're allowed to make a loss over a 3yr period. If Ashley hadn't been so tight, we'd not have had as much wriggle room. Kind of like a time limited overdraft? I guess. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobinRobin 11263 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 Just now, Toonpack said: Yes, we're carrying a lot of shite excess baggage. And only because it was "cheaper" to extend contracts than scout and buy someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaddockLad 17256 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 2 minutes ago, Toonpack said: Yes, we're carrying a lot of shite excess baggage. I think you could say that about every PL club bar Man City tbh. That’s the 25 man squad system for you 🤷🏻♂️ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toonpack 9399 Posted January 19, 2023 Share Posted January 19, 2023 Just now, PaddockLad said: That’s up to nearly a decade now with the Mudryk deal though.. Yeah so: Cost 100 Mill on 8 year deal he only costs 12.5 Mill towards FFP (plus his wages for the year) Sell him in 5 years that FFP number could come down if the fee they get is more than whats left to be accounted for. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now