|
Brony Car posted:People whined about this a lot, but I don't think it was an actual thing. I had at least one.
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2019 09:23
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
Greg could not handle the bants/rivals.com-style puns.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 10, 2019 09:25
|
|
|
Warnock would be a top manager in a no deal brexit Britain.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2019 15:08
|
|
|
kcer posted:the club generated a profit over the past 3 windows and that hasn't been given to Rafa How much money did you lose in the window and season before those? £90m operational loss, wasn't it?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 13, 2019 20:16
|
|
|
Is Angel Rangel on the list? He should be on the list.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2019 22:22
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:he's a really loving good manager OP. Bournemouth are backed by Russian oil money and have/had a wage bill far lower than Newcastle's (£72m vs 112m the season Newcastle were a division below). They make money while Newcastle are £150m in debt. It's nonsense to compare net transfer spends between clubs without taking their broader financial situation into account.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2019 17:58
|
|
|
Jose posted:Since you love mike ashley so much hopefully he buys swansea Big Mike sells me gym vests at £2.50 a pop so why not? Our current owners don't put any money in and can't find sponsorship anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 22, 2019 19:50
|
|
|
kcer posted:the fact that Bournemouth is making money is also pointless because as they've said themselves it's "almost entirely" down to the increased PL money. PL money vs their wage bill, which only now resembles Newcastle's after a few years in the top division. Clubs usually come up from the Championship spending £30-50m a year on wages (and that's if they've gambled on promotion, £20m is barely sustainable without sales at that level) and suddenly face a situation where they can comfortably spend £70-80m. The difference is pure spending money. Newcastle came up with a wage bill of £112m, which would bankrupt a lot of PL teams (Swansea were teetering on the edge of trouble with a £100m wage bill after 7 years in the Prem). Bournemouth's owners are oil-rich hobbyists. If they're the minimum expectation of what a football club owner should be the game is hosed (oh wait it already is).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2019 12:08
|
|
|
Bournemouth wage bill when they got promoted was £30.4m. Plus the £7.6m they got fined for breaking FFP profit and sustainability rules because their shady owner put in too much money.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2019 12:21
|
|
|
CyberPingu posted:What about non-oil-rich hobbyists...whats your opinion on them? They have to be pretty rich to put £20-55m of their own money into a football club every year to meet fans expectations. Stoke's owners are betting company billionaires so they're obviously scum.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2019 12:49
|
|
|
kcer posted:If they also matched our wage bill only after a few seasons (which we'd already had), what were we meant to do when we went down? Entirely offload our sqaud to bring the wage bill in-line with what you expect from a championship side? We've cut our wage bill from ~£100m to maybe £60m and still stand to lose money this season (because Bony won't gently caress off). We don't have a Mike Ashley to pump in millions (£15m in your case) and allow the club to rack up interest free debt on his tab. You bought 11 new players. Your wage bill went up in the Championship. Stoke have gone for a similar policy of spending beyond their means and I'm glad as hell to see it backfiring.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2019 14:32
|
|
|
kcer posted:It's mental that you're arguing about the owner putting money in. I suppose you're right that it's nice to be in a situation where your owner can do that, but it's £15m, we probably recouped that amount and the cost of the 11 signings in what we got for Sissoko, Wijnaldum, Townsend and the rest. You made a £90m operational loss so your net transfer gain still resulted in a £41.3m loss for the season (after tax). This is why net transfer spend is a pointless metric to judge clubs (and their owners) by. It's only one part of the overall financial picture. If you hadn't been promoted there would have been sanctions (like with Birmingham now, whose owners can afford to spend their own cash but aren't allowed to). https://www.nufc.co.uk/news/latest-news/accounts-year-ending-30-june-2017
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2019 16:21
|
|
|
kcer posted:Everything you post about Newcastle is misleading or just wrong That thing you quoted doesn't contradict anything I've posted. The numbers are what they are. Taking out amortisation is a weird thing to do imo as while it's not an accurate figure for loss, the devaluing of contracts over time is a legitimate expense that a football club can't absorb out of thin air. Players have to be paid to sign new contracts, or players have to be bought in to replace those that leave. If you simply break even on EBITDA over a period of years you end up with no players left without outside investment to bring them in. Which Newcastle are lucky enough to have. Look down the football league once in a while and you'll find far worse owners.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2019 19:10
|
|
|
Lazar Markovic looks like he's in his thirties. Just scored a good goal against our u23s though.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2019 20:18
|
|
|
big crush on Chad OMG posted:Hell, who hasn’t posted their cock online Me.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 13:32
|
|
|
Big Mike was ready to pay Big Money for Lukaku but they brought the wrong one (and he failed a medical).
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2019 16:29
|
|
|
Which Newcastle manager was it that saw a kid playing and thought "ooh we should sign him" and it turned out to be a Newcastle player out on loan?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2019 16:30
|
|
|
He's speaking to old football journalists so affecting the persona of a typical bloke with the ball and chain tucked away at home instead of a hip, forward-thinking foreigner can only endear him to them.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 29, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
All my Shrewsbury mates say he was a total oval office when he was there. Unlike Dave Edwards who is a top fella.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 2, 2019 09:05
|
|