• The forums will be unavailable for a few hours on Saturday 6th June, when they do return they will initially be in a degraded state with some features missing, but normal posting/reading will be possible. The main website will not be affected by these updates.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.
    Some other features of the forum are also currently disabled.

NUFC and other Sportswashing Spring 2022

Status
Not open for further replies.

jlaws said:
Deluded calling me out....but they lack so much football knowledge that they did not realise the 222m for Shearer is actually correct! I suspect few of them have an Athletic subscription so here it is in cartoon form which is more your level -
You must be logged on to see media items

You must be logged on to see media items


Are you coming here to snipe or to discuss?
Click to expand...
The money teams had available to them has increased dramatically since the mid 90s which has allowed for the obscene transfers. Back in 1996, what would £15m be as a percentage of NUFC's total revenue? £222m now would be more than their revenue wouldn't it so did they spend over their revenue on Shearer way back in 1996? Surely the transfer fees are in some way relative to the clubs overall revenues also?

Looking for Premier League Prize money history, I found and it shows that in the early 90's the TV money wasn't that great at just under £2m average per team up until 1997 (£192m over 5 seasons between 20 teams). It's not the exact figure and obviously this is just one part of the revenue for a club as it won't include matchday/merchandising/sponsors etc. It would be interesting to know what club revenues were back in the 90s given the growth in other revenues outside of the TV money, especially overseas money as you see in 2nd pic which has probably allowed for the massive growth in transfer figures.

In 1979, Notts Forest paid £1m for Trevor Francis and Shearer was 15 times that 17 years later which had doubled 4 times. Now 26 years later, apart from Neymar and Mbappe (thanks to PSG taking the piss with sponsorship) the next highest transfers are just over £100m without any clauses (I just looked at
You must be logged on to see external links
)

You must be logged on to see external links

Logon or register to see this image



Logon or register to see this image
 
Binxy said:
Men.
Click to expand...
Ahhh ok. It's still impressive regardless and I've read up it was free which makes no difference as it still is massively impressive, so fair play.
Half of St.James' Park was free entry for those under 18 so free makes no odds. It's immensely impressive at over 22,000.
It's not about one-upmanship from me it's all about the support.

If your women got a large crowd like that I'd be equally impressed.
 
Sporty said:
The money teams had available to them has increased dramatically since the mid 90s which has allowed for the obscene transfers. Back in 1996, what would £15m be as a percentage of NUFC's total revenue? £222m now would be more than their revenue wouldn't it so did they spend over their revenue on Shearer way back in 1996? Surely the transfer fees are in some way relative to the clubs overall revenues also?

Looking for Premier League Prize money history, I found and it shows that in the early 90's the TV money wasn't that great at just under £2m average per team up until 1997 (£192m over 5 seasons between 20 teams). It's not the exact figure and obviously this is just one part of the revenue for a club as it won't include matchday/merchandising/sponsors etc. It would be interesting to know what club revenues were back in the 90s given the growth in other revenues outside of the TV money, especially overseas money as you see in 2nd pic which has probably allowed for the massive growth in transfer figures.

In 1979, Notts Forest paid £1m for Trevor Francis and Shearer was 15 times that 17 years later which had doubled 4 times. Now 26 years later, apart from Neymar and Mbappe (thanks to PSG taking the piss with sponsorship) the next highest transfers are just over £100m without any clauses (I just looked at
You must be logged on to see external links
)

You must be logged on to see external links

Logon or register to see this image



Logon or register to see this image
Click to expand...

Interesting point. The mags YE 1996 a/c's are on companies house. Revenue from football was 29m and provision of catering was 12.5m.....so they were spending 36% of revenue on Shearer. Whereas 222m is more than 100% of current revenue. However, the way that transfer fees are accounted for is different. The entire 15m is realised in the accounts back in 1996 whereas now that 222m would be amortized over the life of the contract so say 222m/5 = 44m each year for 5 years. Remember they also just spent 95m which is around half of full year revenue so that link to revenue seems to not exist anymore.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Roker Mackem said:
why does 40K stick in my head too? Wasn't there some other big reserves game that season where Beckham was playing or something?
Click to expand...
Aye I thought 42 for some reason against man u.
But my memory is foggy ha ha
Roker Mackem said:
why does 40K stick in my head too? Wasn't there some other big reserves game that season where Beckham was playing or something?
Click to expand...
Found a decent article on it.

You must be logged on to see external links

Mags are still murderer apologists like
 
Last edited:
jlaws said:
Deluded calling me out....but they lack so much football knowledge that they did not realise the 222m for Shearer is actually correct! I suspect few of them have an Athletic subscription so here it is in cartoon form which is more your level -
You must be logged on to see media items

You must be logged on to see media items


Are you coming here to snipe or to discuss?
Click to expand...
A little from column A, a little from column B.
 
Mackem2017 said:
Wish we could wave some flags :cry:

You must be logged on to see media items
Click to expand...
"huge" because of a f***ing flag display, they're going on as if they're the first team to do it, have they not seen some of the displays in Germany, Brazil and Argentina? They probably have, but they're massive and do it better than everyone else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top