• 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/Sportswashing - Summer 2022

Status
Not open for further replies.

​



Replying to
You must be logged on to see external links

Haha Corrupt cartel doing everything to stop nufc over taking them while they spend what they want


Logon or register to see this image


You must be logged on to see external links

@saintjimjim
Pahaha as if Newcastle have the moral high ground in any debate




You must be logged on to see external links

mof

@hopefuldivvy
·Have you got no knitting to do thicket




Jim


·Have you not got some homosexuals to lock up? Or whatever Newcastle fans are into these days
 

jlaws said:
Aww diddums...

You must be logged on to see media items
Click to expand...

He has a fair point tbh. It's just pulling up the drawbridge to perserve the status quo. I think FFP is a rule deisgned to protect the UEFA glamout clubs. The super league 12 plus a a smattering or others. I've felt this way since before the nufc takeover btw, not just saying it now.

Compare it if you had a decent corner shop and fancied opening another one which would be succesful due to location/footfall , but weren't allowed to because you can only spend what you generate, meanwhile the Co-Op or Tesco can open a small branch in the same premises because they can afford it.
You can never grow your revenues enough because you're limited to what you've got. Spending a bit more can improve your situation but never be allowed to. Bit of a clunky analogy but hopefully it makes my point.


Bad owners have ruined clubs like Bury and Derby, there should be mechanisms in place to prevent clubs over spending against the future of the club. But if an owner can afford it and wants to bankroll it they should be allowed. If it's the owner's money and not risking the future of the club it shouldn't be an issue. Maybe put the money in up front to prove its there and left in the club's bank account.
 
What A Waster said:
He has a fair point tbh. It's just pulling up the drawbridge to perserve the status quo. I think FFP is a rule deisgned to protect the UEFA glamout clubs. The super league 12 plus a a smattering or others. I've felt this way since before the nufc takeover btw, not just saying it now.

Compare it if you had a decent corner shop and fancied opening another one which would be succesful due to location/footfall , but weren't allowed to because you can only spend what you generate, meanwhile the Co-Op or Tesco can open a small branch in the same premises because they can afford it.
You can never grow your revenues enough because you're limited to what you've got. Spending a bit more can improve your situation but never be allowed to. Bit of a clunky analogy but hopefully it makes my point.


Bad owners have ruined clubs like Bury and Derby, there should be mechanisms in place to prevent clubs over spending against the future of the club. But if an owner can afford it and wants to bankroll it they should be allowed. If it's the owner's money and not risking the future of the club it shouldn't be an issue. Maybe put the money in up front to prove its there and left in the club's bank account.
Click to expand...

I disagree and have held the same views since the Chelsea takeover.

All Chelsea did was inflate wages and inflate transfer fees. Then Man City added to it and made it such that a newly promoted team needs to spend 100m to survive and something needs to be in place to avoid this situation.

This tweet is just It sour grapes that NUFC cannot spend all of those PIF billions. But if they were "allowed" to spend whatever they want then all that happens is that we get further wage and fee inflation and create further inequality. It is also to preserve the future of the clubs. e.g. if all of a sudden NUFC had a wage bill which was for arguements sake 200% of turnover then what would happen if the owners walked away or were sanctioned as per RA? It is a volatile world and that could happen.
 
jlaws said:
I disagree and have held the same views since the Chelsea takeover.

All Chelsea did was inflate wages and inflate transfer fees. Then Man City added to it and made it such that a newly promoted team needs to spend 100m to survive and something needs to be in place to avoid this situation.

This tweet is just It sour grapes that NUFC cannot spend all of those PIF billions. But if they were "allowed" to spend whatever they want then all that happens is that we get further wage and fee inflation and create further inequality. It is also to preserve the future of the clubs. e.g. if all of a sudden NUFC had a wage bill which was for arguements sake 200% of turnover then what would happen if the owners walked away or were sanctioned as per RA? It is a volatile world and that could happen.
Click to expand...

Fair point that the Chelsea and Man City take over drove up fees and wages.
But for Blackburn in the 90s, or Man City, those clubs were never gonna get near challenging without money put in. Chelsea had been doing ok before Abramovich, but obviously his money initially pushed them to the level of Man United and Arsenal.

Once the champions league went to 3 clubs in 1999 then to 4 clubs in 2002, that's where we've seen the gap start to open. Man United, Arsenal and Liverpool huge clubs already, Chelsea were around there and winning cups fairly regularly. That annual champions league income added to their already big status only cemented their position (+chelsea).
Leeds had CL football and so did Newcastle but not regularly enough to make it count, whilst both were probably already punching above their weight whilst built on sand.

A decade or so of the CL going to 4 teams before FFP is introduced has allowed them to establish their position and 'brand' and then pull up the ladder.
Imo FFP is anti competitive because it maintains the established order.

As I said if a club can afford it they should be allowed to spend, otherwise the established order will always be there. Leicester winning the league was great and a freak occurrence but it kicked the rebel 6 up the arse enough to say let's make sure that doesn't happen again. Project big picture, the super league, they want nothing to threaten their status. They want a bigger share of tv revenue from the overseas deal, which you could argue they are the ones generating it, but that again means more for their FFP benefit than mid table or lower club.

FFP just makes it harder for anybody to get close to those 6. Loads of billionaire owners in the PL who could easily afford to spend to try and be competitive, like Everton for example. If they put the money in the pot up front why can't they spend what they want? They had a go then due to FFP restrictions had to stop for a bit. The more teams competing the better imo


Edit. Didn't realise I'd written as much as that.
 
What A Waster said:
Fair point that the Chelsea and Man City take over drove up fees and wages.
But for Blackburn in the 90s, or Man City, those clubs were never gonna get near challenging without money put in. Chelsea had been doing ok before Abramovich, but obviously his money initially pushed them to the level of Man United and Arsenal.

Once the champions league went to 3 clubs in 1999 then to 4 clubs in 2002, that's where we've seen the gap start to open. Man United, Arsenal and Liverpool huge clubs already, Chelsea were around there and winning cups fairly regularly. That annual champions league income added to their already big status only cemented their position (+chelsea).
Leeds had CL football and so did Newcastle but not regularly enough to make it count, whilst both were probably already punching above their weight whilst built on sand.

A decade or so of the CL going to 4 teams before FFP is introduced has allowed them to establish their position and 'brand' and then pull up the ladder.
Imo FFP is anti competitive because it maintains the established order.

As I said if a club can afford it they should be allowed to spend, otherwise the established order will always be there. Leicester winning the league was great and a freak occurrence but it kicked the rebel 6 up the arse enough to say let's make sure that doesn't happen again. Project big picture, the super league, they want nothing to threaten their status. They want a bigger share of tv revenue from the overseas deal, which you could argue they are the ones generating it, but that again means more for their FFP benefit than mid table or lower club.

FFP just makes it harder for anybody to get close to those 6. Loads of billionaire owners in the PL who could easily afford to spend to try and be competitive, like Everton for example. If they put the money in the pot up front why can't they spend what they want? They had a go then due to FFP restrictions had to stop for a bit. The more teams competing the better imo


Edit. Didn't realise I'd written as much as that.
Click to expand...
Turning into Fishy :lol:

Tbh I wish they'd do that super league let them bugger off and have football back.
 
BigPete said:
Turning into Fishy :lol:

Tbh I wish they'd do that super league let them bugger off and have football back.
Click to expand...
Said it at the time they would be missed for a bit but things would just carry on.
Would be unusual without those clubs at first, but new big teams would emerge and things would just exist as normal. No doubt with smaller tv deals but everybody would be in the same boat
 
What A Waster said:
The more teams competing the better imo
Click to expand...
But you don't mean more teams. Selfishly you mean one more team as does everyone else posting online.

This creates less competition, not more and makes the prospect of a promoted club staying up less likely.

Newcastle will do it, it just won't happen over night.
 
What A Waster said:
Said it at the time they would be missed for a bit but things would just carry on.
Would be unusual without those clubs at first, but new big teams would emerge and things would just exist as normal. No doubt with smaller tv deals but everybody would be in the same boat
Click to expand...
Sounds good to me
 
What A Waster said:
Said it at the time they would be missed for a bit but things would just carry on.
Would be unusual without those clubs at first, but new big teams would emerge and things would just exist as normal. No doubt with smaller tv deals but everybody would be in the same boat
Click to expand...

I said exactly this at the time of ESL debacle. Let them bugger off and teams with history/crowds would rise to the top once again. Right now there is not much between a "tiny" club like Brighton (to quote that Pirlo chap) to Newcastle. Match day is largely irrelevant beyond the mega brands.
 
jlaws said:
But you don't mean more teams. Selfishly you mean one more team as does everyone else posting online.

This creates less competition, not more and makes the prospect of a promoted club staying up less likely.

Newcastle will do it, it just won't happen over night.
Click to expand...

I've said it in the past, perhaps defending the big 6 in a way, that our top flight is one of the most competitive.
If you look at the number of different winners over the last 10 seasons across the big 5 European leagues and then the ones next level down, not many have as many different winners as England.
We've got 5 different winners in 10 years.
Germany have 1
Italy 3
Spain 3
France 3
Netherlands 3
Portugal 3
Scotland 2
Austria 2

And so on.


I think more teams winning it, or even competing is better. The top 4 was cut and dried every year for about 5 years, then Man City emerged, then Tottenham so big 4 became a big 6. Then for a bit it was like big 6 + everton. Then we've had the likes of Wolves, Southampton, Leicester and West Ham pushing for Europe.
If teams outside the super league 6 have the cash and want to push for competing with the 6, they shouldn't be hamstrung by FFP. Put the money in and see how you do. As long as its not detrimental to the club. Could eventually lead to a situation like the 60s and 70s where it was wide open for many teams. Not saying we'll get loads of different champions but the top 4 or 6 places wouldn't be as predictable
 
What A Waster said:
I've said it in the past, perhaps defending the big 6 in a way, that our top flight is one of the most competitive.
If you look at the number of different winners over the last 10 seasons across the big 5 European leagues and then the ones next level down, not many have as many different winners as England.
We've got 5 different winners in 10 years.
Germany have 1
Italy 3
Spain 3


And so on.


I think more teams winning it, or even competing is better. The top 4 was cut and dried every year for about 5 years, then Man City emerged, then Tottenham so big 4 became a big 6. Then for a bit it was like big 6 + everton. Then we've had the likes of Wolves, Southampton, Leicester and West Ham pushing for Europe.
If teams outside the super league 6 have the cash and want to push for competing with the 6, they shouldn't be hamstrung by FFP. Put the money in and see how you do. As long as its not detrimental to the club. Could eventually lead to a situation like the 60s and 70s where it was wide open for many teams. Not saying we'll get loads of different champions but the top 4 or 6 places wouldn't be as predictable
Click to expand...
I did some analysis previously using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index and it shows that the EPL is one of the most competitive in Europe.

I still believe you cannot let clubs spend as they wish as you will end up with many more than a few whipping boys each year.

If Newcastle do it right they will make it regardless and will likely be more satisfying that splurging 100's of millions each year. They are already entirely dependent on external funding due to the recent signings and additional wages.
 
jlaws said:
I did some analysis previously using the Herfindahl-Hirschman Index and it shows that the EPL is one of the most competitive in Europe.

I still believe you cannot let clubs spend as they wish as you will end up with many more than a few whipping boys each year.

If Newcastle do it right they will make it regardless and will likely be more satisfying that splurging 100's of millions each year. They are already entirely dependent on external funding due to the recent signings and additional wages.
Click to expand...

No doubt building it slowly would be more rewarding. Saw that at city. Their first proper window in January 09 was Given, Bellamy, De Jong, Bridge... players to raise them a level up, then it was the likes of Adebayoor, Santa Cruz, Tevez, then they get Toure 2 years in...
Can't really sign the top names when you're 10th where hughes had them despite the money being there. Mancini had to get them up the league a bit with a steadier build than what we saw ast Chelsea (who tbf were already top 4).

Newcastle will take longer than man city and it's a far more competitive environment now. There's the big 6 (man city was at the time of big 4), plus 3 or 4 outside of that. There is a pretty strong top 9 or 10 in the league these days
 
What A Waster said:
Fair point that the Chelsea and Man City take over drove up fees and wages.
But for Blackburn in the 90s, or Man City, those clubs were never gonna get near challenging without money put in. Chelsea had been doing ok before Abramovich, but obviously his money initially pushed them to the level of Man United and Arsenal.

Once the champions league went to 3 clubs in 1999 then to 4 clubs in 2002, that's where we've seen the gap start to open. Man United, Arsenal and Liverpool huge clubs already, Chelsea were around there and winning cups fairly regularly. That annual champions league income added to their already big status only cemented their position (+chelsea).
Leeds had CL football and so did Newcastle but not regularly enough to make it count, whilst both were probably already punching above their weight whilst built on sand.

A decade or so of the CL going to 4 teams before FFP is introduced has allowed them to establish their position and 'brand' and then pull up the ladder.
Imo FFP is anti competitive because it maintains the established order.

As I said if a club can afford it they should be allowed to spend, otherwise the established order will always be there. Leicester winning the league was great and a freak occurrence but it kicked the rebel 6 up the arse enough to say let's make sure that doesn't happen again. Project big picture, the super league, they want nothing to threaten their status. They want a bigger share of tv revenue from the overseas deal, which you could argue they are the ones generating it, but that again means more for their FFP benefit than mid table or lower club.

FFP just makes it harder for anybody to get close to those 6. Loads of billionaire owners in the PL who could easily afford to spend to try and be competitive, like Everton for example. If they put the money in the pot up front why can't they spend what they want? They had a go then due to FFP restrictions had to stop for a bit. The more teams competing the better imo


Edit. Didn't realise I'd written as much as that.
Click to expand...
As long as you've got a team that tries these days you'll be fine and happy man after all that's all you want
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top