fecking Bojo, Tory Twats
Newcastle United now owned by the PIF | PL receives "legally binding assurances that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia will not control NUFC" ;)
- Thread starter Damien
- Start date
All I've seen is people saying we've spent smartly but not lavishly.Which is true.
€300m+ over the last 2 years is lavishly for a club that was battling relegation before being taken over.
"immediate risk" to the countries relationship my arse, more like "immediate risk" to the likely bungs he'll be getting down the road for pushing it through.
To be fair, in today's market I think Newcastle spent smartly and it's unbelievable how fast they could get CL football next season. Maybe this season due to Liverpool, Spurs and Chelsea somehow can't get their shit together.
Newcastle have been impressive considering they didn't spent crazy money like City and Chelsea used to be when billionaire owners bought the club. Well, you could say that these 2 clubs are still spending heavily.
Compared to them, Newcastle spent smartly and probably ease into CL football next year.
Newcastle have been impressive considering they didn't spent crazy money like City and Chelsea used to be when billionaire owners bought the club. Well, you could say that these 2 clubs are still spending heavily.
Compared to them, Newcastle spent smartly and probably ease into CL football next year.
Yeah also says something about Man Utd that we havnt even been able to be top 4 consistently ever since Fergie retired despite spending quite heavily.
Wouldn’t it be 6 in 8 or something if we get CL this season?
We have finished outside top 4 five times since SAF retired. This is terrible for a club as big as United and even worse taking the money spent into account.
This
But it’s still consistent CL? Maybe it’s the feeling of going back to square one but we are consistently a CL team
Newcastle has spent well so far. This takeover couldn’t have gone better.
how is it consistent when we’re there one season and then not?
its been 10/11 seasons since. We’ve spent money comparable to clubs that should be winning the champions league
For a team in your position you’ve spent lavishly, in a way you never would have pre-takeover. Signings have been good and probably giving value, but let’s not pretend everything is business as usual for the Toon and their season success is a total surprise…
45 million for Anthony Gordon?
As a Chelsea fan I am an expert in spotting bad spending.
If we get top 4 this year it will be 4 CL campaigns in 5 years.
your last point is part of a different argument all together. Fact is we are a consistent CL team, that’s all I’m saying.
It doesn’t really feel like it but we are.
I believe I then just have a very different understanding of the word consistent.
You do know that pre-takeover we were owned by Mike Ashley, right? A man not exactly famous for being loose with the purse strings? Ashley's austerity is only ever hailed as making us an attractive "debt free" target but it's always skipped or forgotten that his tight finances meant anyone with ambition who came in would need to massively invest as well.
But lavishly? We certainly haven't spunked hundreds of millions on "trophy" or "statement" signings as was widely predicted. Tripps, Bruno, Burn, Botman, Pope, Isak have all so far looked very good value for their fees. Our worst buy so far was the release-clause trigger of Chris Wood at 25m, and we're recouping a good chunk of that with the sale to Forest later on anyway so I'm not arsed.
Newcastle could be like Chelsea, City and PSG cook the book with dubious sponsors/owner loans to inflate earnings to splash crazy transfers money but they didn't.
When Chelsea and City first started they were competing with Man Utd to sign the best players when we were at the pinnacle of world football. It was unbelievable how they spent money when they hit the jackpot. Overnight they were competing with the biggest clubs in the world.
Newcastle didn't and they shop mostly at a tier below the top clubs for talents. So far they have done very well and the way they build the club is surely term as "smartly" and not "lavishly".
When Chelsea and City first started they were competing with Man Utd to sign the best players when we were at the pinnacle of world football. It was unbelievable how they spent money when they hit the jackpot. Overnight they were competing with the biggest clubs in the world.
Newcastle didn't and they shop mostly at a tier below the top clubs for talents. So far they have done very well and the way they build the club is surely term as "smartly" and not "lavishly".
This would be the same Ashley that re-established you as a premier league club, yes?
If he didn't get them relegated he wouldn't have had to re-establish them. They were qualifying for champions leagues and making world record signings a few years before he showed up.
They're probably spending as much money as FFP lets them, i wouldn't lavish praise on them for being restrained. Spending sensibly and picking good targets is fair
Why are we getting grouped in with City and their fake sponsorships? Last time I checked we weren’t even 2nd for sponsorship income. This is fake news. Pure and simple.
Read the owner loans part.
Because once you’re owned by a cheating regime your awards will always be tainted.
Aye, don’t agree with Chelsea being lumped in there with those either. Chelsea were a CL club when bought by Roman & have never been guilty of the ridiculous nonsense City & PSG have been up to. They remind me more more of the single rich benefactor clubs, such as Blackburn. Hell, most if not all big clubs have had one of those at some point in their history. Very rich individuals but not the bottomless pit of state ownership.
Chelsea’s ownership model was nothing like the bullshit state ownership that has made a mockery of the game.
Deep pockets is the threat to football and Chelsea qualifies. Normal owners don’t loan their club the amount the previous did.
Deep pockets.
Before Chelsea were bought by the russians, they were getting into a huge amount of debt weren't they? Was this over a long period? I like to think it was fishy and engineered to give an excuse to let the russians in, as they were trying to get lots of property in london at the time. I've never liked chelsea and am quite happy to be called ignorant or anything else for my view on their situation.
To me there is no difference between Chelsea and City/PSG ownership. As I said, overnight Chelsea was competing with us for players like Robben, Essien and etc. We were much bigger than them. Chelsea then had bottomless cash.
For Newcastle you don't see them compete at the top tier signings yet. They have a proper plan to build the club and so far looks very well run club. If they are anything like Chelsea, City and PSG they would be competing for players like Haaland, Bellingham, Kane and etc competing with much bigger and established clubs for top talents.
For Newcastle you don't see them compete at the top tier signings yet. They have a proper plan to build the club and so far looks very well run club. If they are anything like Chelsea, City and PSG they would be competing for players like Haaland, Bellingham, Kane and etc competing with much bigger and established clubs for top talents.
At least Chelsea were a CL side that many big names had joined prior to Roman, Jack Walker had bloody Blackburn competing with us with the likes of Shearer
Man City were a lower table Premier League club and PSG a mid table French side.
Chelsea under Roman were never the bottomless pit of PsG and City, they were owned by one extremely rich benefactor, something that has been repeated throughout football history.
Chelsea started the whole process that lead to City and PSG being taken over. They weren’t an established CL team, Guilit, Viali and Ranieri had steadied the ship and got them playing decent stuff with decent players (98/99 was the first time they’d ever been in the Champions League, 02/03 the second).
FFP exists because of Chelsea. Their spend post Roman as a percentage of turnover was unprecedented in the history of football. Adjusted for inflation, their spend in 2003 is the equivalent of a club blowing £700m today (he bought the club for £60m at the time and then immediately spent £115m). They have regularly spent the most of any club in any given window.
And while Roman was an incredibly wealthy man, it was wealth intrinsically tied to the Russian state, as we all now know. Reportedly bought on the orders of Putin, but who knows for sure.
To go from a 2nd division team in 1989 to winning back to back titles under Roman between 04-06 is not too dissimilar to City - albeit they were competing at the end of the 90s early 00’s. Chelsea are 100% lumped in with the oil clubs, to suggest otherwise is to rewrite history.
FFP exists because of Chelsea. Their spend post Roman as a percentage of turnover was unprecedented in the history of football. Adjusted for inflation, their spend in 2003 is the equivalent of a club blowing £700m today (he bought the club for £60m at the time and then immediately spent £115m). They have regularly spent the most of any club in any given window.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
And while Roman was an incredibly wealthy man, it was wealth intrinsically tied to the Russian state, as we all now know. Reportedly bought on the orders of Putin, but who knows for sure.
To go from a 2nd division team in 1989 to winning back to back titles under Roman between 04-06 is not too dissimilar to City - albeit they were competing at the end of the 90s early 00’s. Chelsea are 100% lumped in with the oil clubs, to suggest otherwise is to rewrite history.
The main difference between what Chelsea did and what Newcastle are doing is that FFP exists now and didn’t back then. City did the same thing as Chelsea in FFP times but cooked the books in a way that Newcastle don’t seem intent on doing.
I can agree with that.
To be fair, Chelsea wouldn’t have the success they had without the Ambramavich financial doping years.
You going unchecked at that time is what started the decline to the situation we have now with the other two plastic clubs.
Not true. cf AC Milan.
Not sure about that.
Our league finishes have been -
7, 4, 5*, 6, 2, 6, 3, 2*, 6
The asterisked campaigns have also seen group stage exits of the CL as well.
Top post. It’s galling to read people giving Chelsea a bye for some bullshit reason. They started the whole process.
Innovators, mavericks, trailblazers. I agree.
Chelsea spent shiton of money from 2003 to 2012.
Not sure if it was with fake sponsorship or not, but they were outspending everyone in PL until Abu Dhabi bought Manchester City.
Alarm bells will be ringing if Glazers stays and we see this: