Probably got more zero hours employees though
Pros for buying SAFC vs NUFC
- Thread starter Left For Dead
- Start date
- Status
Probably got more zero hours employees though
Last edited:
There factors relevant when deciding which club is the more attractive to purchase are
1: purchase cost
2: current status
3: cost to make the club a genuine top 6 side
4: The area as a draw
1:You are probably looking at 150mil for sunderland and 350 mil for newcastle so newcastle is going to cost a whopping 200 mil more. While that sounds like a one up for sunderland it's not.
The sky income for sunderland will be a 40 mil parachute payment this year and a 16mil the following assuming sunderland are not promoted this year so lets make that a round 50 mil sky money.
two mid table finishes for newcastle over the same time period will be in the region of 280 mil, this is 230 mil more income than sunderland which rises exponentially unless sunderland gain promotion next season. This sky money makes necastles purchase cost more attractive to a would be investor.
2: Newcastle are currently a mid table premiership side with a great stadium, 5200 gate even without success, a world class manager , a below average premier league squad with good team spirit, a positive air round the club and needing player investment to kick on to become a side challenging around those european spots.
Sunderland is a struggling championship side currently on course for league 1, it has a below par champion ship squad, poor team spirit, a negative vibe around the club and needing investment to avoid the drop never mind get promotion. on a positive note it has a great stadium which is unfortunately looking embarrassingly empty and a great training ground.
3: How much money it will cost to make newcastle a genuine top 6 side i really have no idea but one thing we can say for certain is it will cost a hell of a lot more to get sunderland there.
4: neither club as the draw of the london lights but newcastle is by far the more vibrant city, more top class clubs and restaurants, more cultural venues and more affluent residential areas.
In short newcastle as a club is by far a more attractive proposition.
1: purchase cost
2: current status
3: cost to make the club a genuine top 6 side
4: The area as a draw
1:You are probably looking at 150mil for sunderland and 350 mil for newcastle so newcastle is going to cost a whopping 200 mil more. While that sounds like a one up for sunderland it's not.
The sky income for sunderland will be a 40 mil parachute payment this year and a 16mil the following assuming sunderland are not promoted this year so lets make that a round 50 mil sky money.
two mid table finishes for newcastle over the same time period will be in the region of 280 mil, this is 230 mil more income than sunderland which rises exponentially unless sunderland gain promotion next season. This sky money makes necastles purchase cost more attractive to a would be investor.
2: Newcastle are currently a mid table premiership side with a great stadium, 5200 gate even without success, a world class manager , a below average premier league squad with good team spirit, a positive air round the club and needing player investment to kick on to become a side challenging around those european spots.
Sunderland is a struggling championship side currently on course for league 1, it has a below par champion ship squad, poor team spirit, a negative vibe around the club and needing investment to avoid the drop never mind get promotion. on a positive note it has a great stadium which is unfortunately looking embarrassingly empty and a great training ground.
3: How much money it will cost to make newcastle a genuine top 6 side i really have no idea but one thing we can say for certain is it will cost a hell of a lot more to get sunderland there.
4: neither club as the draw of the london lights but newcastle is by far the more vibrant city, more top class clubs and restaurants, more cultural venues and more affluent residential areas.
In short newcastle as a club is by far a more attractive proposition.
Grumpy Old Man
Striker
You're ignoring relative costs in relation to income. Yes, Newcastle's income is going to be much higher than Sunderland's, but so are their costs. As I've explained above, for a investor aiming to achieve a capital return, this could probably be done at lower cost to buyer at Sunderland. You're assuming that being in the top six is the be all and end all for an owner. If someone wants to make £150m starting with a Championship club, as Ashley will do if he gets his asking price, being in the PL is more important than being in the top 6. Unless a buyer for Newcastle is prepared to commit Man City like sums, then Ashley is probably taking most of the upside in the capital value of the club.
two left feet
Midfield
Woopty fuckin' doo. The fuckin' beach.
I wasn't ignoring relative costs in relation to income.
NUFC wage bill relegation season was 74.7 million, the lowest in the premiership, SAFC wage bill on relegation season was 90 million.
Newcastle fans can slag ashley off for any number of things but one think they can't complain about is the sound financial platform he has put the club on. Newcastle and Arsenal where the only two clubs in the premier league to post a profit.
keep in mind that Newcastle delivered a profit and that was before the sky money doubled, add to that all the money generated through merchandise, none of which currently goes into the club coffers, add to that all the advertising which is given to sports direct for free.
Any buyer of Newcastle will inherit a club that makes money.
EssexYid
Midfield
“Newcastle and Arsenal where the only two clubs in the premier league to post a profit” apart from that little porky pie the fact is that the majority of clubs posted a profit in 2015/16.
https://www.theguardian.com/football/2017/jun/01/premier-league-finances-club-by-club
Apologies for the duff info and I concede that the newcastle and arsenal being the only clubs to post a profit was wrong.
I was actually referring to 2013-14 season as the point I was making is newcastle posted a profit and that was before the mega bucks sky deal. As it happens my info was still duff anyway but the point that i was making is still valid and that is because of ashley having deep pockets and short arms that newcastle is in a very sound financial position.
Newcastle posted a profit and a potential buyer would have added to that the extra funds from the mega bucks sky deal, all of the money from the merchandising which is currently denied the club and all the advertising income which currently goes to sports direct free of charge.
As a side note as the conversation is about which club is the most attractive proposition to a potential buyer the fact that your link shows that even though Sunderland had the money from the mega sky deal you still managed to post a pre tax loss of 33 million.
Left For Dead
Winger
You cant say you have premier money incomings and not declare all the premier league wages and cost- - and you have dodged tax- look what happened to rangers- our new owners could live in newcastle so thats irrelevant
EssexYid
Midfield
I don’t support Sunderland but I do like them, I am a Spurs fan, and they posted a £38m profit in 2015/16
Last edited:
I'd actually been rethinking the matter and, really, lower mid-table is about as good as it gets for Newcastle. Seems very much like a buy high, sell low scenario for any potential buyers.
Sunderland, by contrast, could theoretically hold some appeal for long-term investment. Though, as Grumpy noted, a new owner wouldn't likely see much profit for a long time, if ever.
Sunderland, by contrast, could theoretically hold some appeal for long-term investment. Though, as Grumpy noted, a new owner wouldn't likely see much profit for a long time, if ever.
Aye if the last 20 years has shown us anything it’s that Newcastle’s ceiling is ‘lower mid-table’
D
Deleted member 35923
Guest
First two posts tried to maintain a neutral tone with no references to us, we or them but you let it slip.
Not that the superiority complex wasn't shining through in the first two posts like
I have no idea what the wages are so i can't declare them. Newcastle have a wage bill, sunderland have a wage bill, I only made reference to the difference in sky money between the two.clubs at present time. Will Newcastle need to spend some of its sky money on wages, I imagine they well, then again I imagine sunderland will have to use their sky money for wages also.
I was simply showing the difference between the two sky revenue incomes over the next two years.
I think newcastles current wage bill is less than it was the season we went down, but I don't know that as fact
I am unable to post links for source but a fan posted a link from the guardian and it states sunderlands accounts for the year to July 31 2016 as:
Turnover 108m
wages 84m (78% of turnover)
loss before Tax 33m
Net debt 110m
Debt interest payments 8m
Aye if the last 20 years has shown us anything it’s that Newcastle’s ceiling is ‘lower mid-table’
I don't think highest historical premiership position is particularly relevant but if you feel it is I believe your information is incorrect.
The last 20yrs has shown us that Newcastle's premier ship ceiling is 3rd
Like I say I don't think this would influence a potential buyer but if you feel it would since the premiership started in 1992 Newcastle have spent 22 seasons in the premiership with the highest position being 2nd, with 8 x top 6 finishes and a average position of 9.68
Sunderland have spent 16 seasons in the premiership with the highest position being 5 with that being the only top 6 finish, and a average position of 15th
The Fish
Winger
How's that then?
We couldn't usurp West Brom, Burnley, etc. even with a sizeable investment? Why not?
B
Big club
Guest
Yep.
- Status
