delancey
Senior Member
Hmm and you don’t think that the club will up its investment considerably over the next 10 years? I mean, money talks. Pay great players enough, and they will come.
Alexander Isak
- Thread starter El Flaco
- Start date
Maradona37
Well-known member
Only problem with that is the whole PSR thing. They need to earn more to spend, unless rules start to change. I am sure they will do more to make money and increase revenue anyway.
delancey
Senior Member
Just googled Newcastle’s shirt sponsor, which is Sela @ 25m per year. Time to cook the books a bit here and up that number. Sure it will increase once FFP stops targeting City.
Haven’t done a deep dive into Newcastle or what the club could do to spend more on players and salaries, but always felt the club was acting more conservative for the time being to avoid being targeted by FFP.
How is Chelsea getting away with spending so much?
Haven’t done a deep dive into Newcastle or what the club could do to spend more on players and salaries, but always felt the club was acting more conservative for the time being to avoid being targeted by FFP.
How is Chelsea getting away with spending so much?
Newcastle and Villa suffer because they are outside the London and High revenue brands (Liverpool, United now City) club bubble. The FFP in England doesn't support clubs trying to break into the top echeleon because they don't have the existing turnover to invest, and then when they do invest, they break FFP and then can not sign anyone like Villa right now. Who are being punished for becoming a CL side and trying to stay there.
So with someone like Newcastle, unless they can artificially inflate their incomes until they can maintain their higher revenues naturally then they can never grow.
It is the setback of the English FFP system which is more to protect the existing high turnover teams then anything, and then hold the sub level teams as feeder and development teams, which may benefit that level of investors ala the Gambling boys (Brent, Bourne and Bright) but not those who aspire to be CL contenders (Newcastle and Aston Villa).
If anything the only mistake that Saudi investment made is not reading the geopolitical situation of Russia and waiting 6 months for when Abramovich is forced to sell Chelsea.
Saudi Sports minister Al-Turki is looking to get an English club for himself too btw. It would probably be best for him to go to London and buy Charlton, Millwall or Wimbledon than go to Sheffield and get a legacy club like Wednesday.
It is what it is.
TheStig
Member
What is going on with that? The 115 charges?
Maradona37
Well-known member
Yeah. I don't like Newcastle's owners for obvious reasons, but I have said this for many years, and so have others: FFP and PSR and such are implemented to protect the legacy clubs (I would call them the cartel clubs). City just about got in on time before it really started and became strong enough to cope before unlike Villa and now Newcastle.
The irony is the same thing Man United campaigned for to keep them at the top and try to stop City is the thing hampering them now - they're in massive debt and having so many financial problems partly because of all this.
Are you shocked btw that United ended up binging hugely on signings?
They started the window citing a modest transfer budget, and then suddenly they gone crazy and are looking to sign Sesko to top it off.
Debt, who cares, we are Ya-nited.
Maradona37
Well-known member
Nah, think I said before I took my sabbatical that there is something dodgy going on there.
They're horrible - not only minority owned by a horrible company like INEOS (yet still have the stones to play the moral card over other clubs) but they are penny pinching with minimum wage staff and paying fortunes for players who it's debatable will improve them all that much (to link back to the Diaz thread).
Not to get on my anti Man United rant again, but as with Chelsea, there's definitely dodgy stuff going on there. Also, with their amortising payments, they're putting themselves heavier in debt and simply kicking the can of their problems down the road for another day. There's also this stadium they want built, which is a total pipedream both financially and practically/logistically. I don't think it will happen any time soon.
delancey
Senior Member
A while back, someone made a post about how European leagues should emulate American leagues by implementing salary caps. Implement drafts! Spend as little as possible so that owners can earn as much as possible. Heck, teams cannot even get relegated in the US, ffs. I am very much against this model, as it benefits the owners more than anyone else. The owners maximize profit while knowing that however poorly they perform on the field, they cannot get regulated. Nothing ever changes.
I see European FFP in a similar negative fashion. Nothing ever changes because regulation makes change difficult. Football is a business and business owners should be allowed to spend their way to success (or to failure). Let clubs enjoy the benefits of their business decisions or suffer the consequences of poor ones. Either way, clubs aren’t better off by having a governing body telling them how they should spend their money. At the end of the day, the EPL is a better league because of foreign investment. Setting unnecessary spending caps and implementing unnecessary regulations protects legacy clubs and their respective owners, and maintains the status quo. It makes it harder for smaller clubs to challenge the status quo. And it makes leagues less competitive. More boring.
Note that I am not against regulation. But there needs to be common sense. Regulation should promote competition and work towards making the league wealthier. Think Tebas. How does he make LL better?
Hmm what else? I am gonna take flack for this opinion, but here goes: I don’t follow EPL FFP closely, but whenever I read about it in the news, it seems that non-western foreign owned clubs are the ones getting targeted. Why isn’t the governing body scrutinizing Chelsea, United, Arsenal or Liverpool? Maybe it is, but we aren’t reading about 115 charges against United, and it has spent just as much as City over the last 10 years. Surely accounting errors exist in their books too! Right? Right! One owner is American. The other is ME. Money is money, tho. Regardless of source, it has the same effect.
We saw it against Chelsea too! Abramovich was forced to sell despite having nothing to do with the invasion of Ukraine. Not only was he forced to sell but also had/has to donate the money to Ukraine. He wanted to donate to Ukraine AND Russia, but EPL regulators said no! Now… did he get rich in an honest manner? No, but it isn’t the EPL’s job to scrutinize how owners got rich 30 years ago! If so, let’s do a deep dive into all EPL owners business dealings. Let’s punish every single one, for I am sure that if we look closely enough, we will find dirt on every single one of them. See how this goes?
This type of unscrupulous behavior works for the English FFP because no one cares about fairness when the alleged bad guy is being treated unfairly.
Point is, English FFP is dishonest and political too. Not just Spanish FFP.
Now… I don’t twerk for oil owned clubs. But it’s an old money vs new rich kind of situation. Fans of United, for example, inherit the status and money whereas City won the lottery. Either way, regardless of source, they spend similarly and enrich the league and its competition.
City may have won the lottery, but it is still a well oiled machine. 🤭 Smart and competent people throughout the club hierarchy. The club is run very well, and few speak about this fact. Contrast this with United!
And I like that United has a lot of competition. 😁
I see European FFP in a similar negative fashion. Nothing ever changes because regulation makes change difficult. Football is a business and business owners should be allowed to spend their way to success (or to failure). Let clubs enjoy the benefits of their business decisions or suffer the consequences of poor ones. Either way, clubs aren’t better off by having a governing body telling them how they should spend their money. At the end of the day, the EPL is a better league because of foreign investment. Setting unnecessary spending caps and implementing unnecessary regulations protects legacy clubs and their respective owners, and maintains the status quo. It makes it harder for smaller clubs to challenge the status quo. And it makes leagues less competitive. More boring.
Note that I am not against regulation. But there needs to be common sense. Regulation should promote competition and work towards making the league wealthier. Think Tebas. How does he make LL better?
Hmm what else? I am gonna take flack for this opinion, but here goes: I don’t follow EPL FFP closely, but whenever I read about it in the news, it seems that non-western foreign owned clubs are the ones getting targeted. Why isn’t the governing body scrutinizing Chelsea, United, Arsenal or Liverpool? Maybe it is, but we aren’t reading about 115 charges against United, and it has spent just as much as City over the last 10 years. Surely accounting errors exist in their books too! Right? Right! One owner is American. The other is ME. Money is money, tho. Regardless of source, it has the same effect.
We saw it against Chelsea too! Abramovich was forced to sell despite having nothing to do with the invasion of Ukraine. Not only was he forced to sell but also had/has to donate the money to Ukraine. He wanted to donate to Ukraine AND Russia, but EPL regulators said no! Now… did he get rich in an honest manner? No, but it isn’t the EPL’s job to scrutinize how owners got rich 30 years ago! If so, let’s do a deep dive into all EPL owners business dealings. Let’s punish every single one, for I am sure that if we look closely enough, we will find dirt on every single one of them. See how this goes?
This type of unscrupulous behavior works for the English FFP because no one cares about fairness when the alleged bad guy is being treated unfairly.
Point is, English FFP is dishonest and political too. Not just Spanish FFP.
Now… I don’t twerk for oil owned clubs. But it’s an old money vs new rich kind of situation. Fans of United, for example, inherit the status and money whereas City won the lottery. Either way, regardless of source, they spend similarly and enrich the league and its competition.
City may have won the lottery, but it is still a well oiled machine. 🤭 Smart and competent people throughout the club hierarchy. The club is run very well, and few speak about this fact. Contrast this with United!
And I like that United has a lot of competition. 😁
Not sure but Chelsea is nowadays also selling players for a lot. The squad is huge and they move players on pretty early whenever they are deemed surplus. Likes of Madueke, Petrovic (sold after 2y) and Dewsbury-Hall (1y) fetched them 100m, even if it isn't pure profit, it's still revenue. Total sold 210m, totalt spent 280m this summer so far.
I'm guessing Chelsea will keep selling players for 100-200m even 3-5 years from now and with a bit of added money it means they will be able to spend more than 200m every summer on new players.
It started off with these long ass contracts to reduce amortization which has now been regulated. Could be another tactic to hoard a bunch of players for steady future income whenever they need to buy other players.
Maradona37
Well-known member
Yeah I agree with a large part of that.
Something you allude to there @delancey is what I have said many times before - every club has had 'sugar daddies' (Liverpool became successful thanks to Littlewoods and the Moores family, Arsenal during Hebert Chapman's time in the 30s had cash injections, United were saved my local benefactors from going under on two separate occasions.
Now, we can argue about the scale and source of the funding until the cows come home, but the general principle is the same: clubs were given outside investment to aid them. The only difference is it was so long ago in the legacy clubs' case that noone cares. All people care about is post 1992 Sky era. That post is generally spot on.
Something you allude to there @delancey is what I have said many times before - every club has had 'sugar daddies' (Liverpool became successful thanks to Littlewoods and the Moores family, Arsenal during Hebert Chapman's time in the 30s had cash injections, United were saved my local benefactors from going under on two separate occasions.
Now, we can argue about the scale and source of the funding until the cows come home, but the general principle is the same: clubs were given outside investment to aid them. The only difference is it was so long ago in the legacy clubs' case that noone cares. All people care about is post 1992 Sky era. That post is generally spot on.
Maradona37
Well-known member
Don't get me wrong, I don't rate Garnacho at all (and his attitude will be a factor). But how is it Liverpool and Chelsea consistently sell their donkeys for a fortune yet United can't sell for anything? There's some bizarre underhand stuff going on down there.
Any specific Chelsea donkeys you're thinking of?
delancey
Senior Member
Joao Felix was recently sold for an inflated price, wasn’t he?
Yeah to Saudi. PIF were rumoured to be involved in the takeover with Boehly.
Home of Barca Fans
