FFP

[Olneythelonely]

If he said ok we wnat to extend stadium but after CL campaign as we want all fans there for this then i think everyone would have been good with that.

But we want to be in the Champions League next season too. To me, that article makes the short term thinking make more sense.

[frank black]

Having read the above Athletic article - interesting comment that we would have sold Luiz this summer, even if we did not have PSR issues.

I don’t think that what I interpreted. He said “could”.

I’d expect us to have kept the best and sold the rest, unless something amazing came up.

[Somniloquism]

If he said ok we wnat to extend stadium but after CL campaign as we want all fans there for this then i think everyone would have been good with that.

But we want to be in the Champions League next season too. To me, that article makes the short term thinking make more sense.

I suspect if we were still hanging around mid-table and not having a genius like Emery, then the North would have been done even if Heck was brought in. But with the chance of CL and the need to keep the extra revenue going for PSR etc, that does seem to be the reason for decision. Even with CL, a season (and half?) with 33k instead of 41k would have a knock on for the transfers if we are butting so close to the line.

As for the GA+, they aren't meant for repeat customers are they? They are there for the one or two time visitor who wants to see a match. The likes of Derry Villain wanting to come over for certain games etc.

[Dave]

Having read the above Athletic article - interesting comment that we would have sold Luiz this summer, even if we did not have PSR issues.

I don’t think that what I interpreted. He said “could”.

I’d expect us to have kept the best and sold the rest, unless something amazing came up.

Yup, had there been no restrictions, it's impossible to say how it pans out. Maybe we spend Ł300m on brilliant players and he's now desperate to stay because of how great we look. Maybe we spend Ł300m and he wants to leave because he's now sixth choice midfielder.

[Somniloquism]

Having read the above Athletic article - interesting comment that we would have sold Luiz this summer, even if we did not have PSR issues.

Doug was the big player that has been sold. Seems they are stating we could have got more money and not be rushed into a sale.

What is telling is they stated they could have sold Ramsey to fix the PSR issues but didn't want to remove one of Emery's most important players. So it seems Emery was ok with Doug going. 

Monchi: "If we sold Ramsey, it (PSR) would be solved. And we could (have) because we had offers.”

Vidagany: “We needed to manage the solution of PSR but not take out one of Unai’s most important players.”

[pauliewalnuts]

Luiz is the big player we sold - and it was the right decision making it him in my opinion - but let’s not forget we also punted Diaby, without which maybe it would have been worse.

These rules, though, they’re a sack of shit for the position we are in, but then again if they disappeared tomorrow, Newcastle’s owners have wealth way beyond ours and what would we think about them getting the green light to spend their way to being the new Man City?

The way the current rules are implemented are an anti competitive disaster which just reduces competitively whilst discouraging the nurture and growth of young players, but there does need to be some form of control.

There are probably ten clubs in the top flight who realistically will be either entrenched in the select six or able to compete to be there - the sky six plus us, Newcastle, Everton (I know, I know) and West Ham.

For the rest of the league the current implementation probably suits them quite well. Which is why there was no traction behind our attempt to raise the allowed losses recently.

[Dave]

These rules, though, they’re a sack of shit for the position we are in, but then again if they disappeared tomorrow, Newcastle’s owners have wealth way beyond ours and what would we think about them getting the green light to spend their way to being the new Man City?

Indeed. For all we complain about it, there's a pretty decent chance we wouldn't have got fourth at all had Champions League Newcastle had the freedom to spend Ł500m last summer.

[LeeB]

These rules, though, they’re a sack of shit for the position we are in, but then again if they disappeared tomorrow, Newcastle’s owners have wealth way beyond ours and what would we think about them getting the green light to spend their way to being the new Man City?

Indeed. For all we complain about it, there's a pretty decent chance we wouldn't have got fourth at all had Champions League Newcastle had the freedrom to spend Ł500m last summer.

This is the rub, and also this system means there's an increased emphasis on having a world class coach and recruitment team and thankfully we appear to be streets ahead of some our rivals on this front.

[Toronto Villa]

There is no doubt that relaxing the rules would allow Newcastle immediately the ability to outspend everyone. But that’s the huge mistake made by the PL. To allow essentially a sovereign state to own a team. Nobody can compete with that. The owners of Newcastle if allowed to spend as they wish cannot really make expensive mistakes in the market because their wealth would mask all of it.

[Villan82]

If he said ok we wnat to extend stadium but after CL campaign as we want all fans there for this then i think everyone would have been good with that.

But we want to be in the Champions League next season too. To me, that article makes the short term thinking make more sense.

I suspect if we were still hanging around mid-table and not having a genius like Emery, then the North would have been done even if Heck was brought in. But with the chance of CL and the need to keep the extra revenue going for PSR etc, that does seem to be the reason for decision. Even with CL, a season (and half?) with 33k instead of 41k would have a knock on for the transfers if we are butting so close to the line.

As for the GA+, they aren't meant for repeat customers are they? They are there for the one or two time visitor who wants to see a match. The likes of Derry Villain wanting to come over for certain games etc.

Without the North our capacity would be 35,000. If we were to relocate temporarily to do a big rebuild we'd be very, very fortunate to find a 35,000 capacity alternate ground.

We hope to be successful every season so that means we cannot expand our stadium and cater to the increased demand? Makes absolutely no sense, why are other clubs doing it then?

No, somebody at the club bottled this and I think we all know who it was. The guy who is on record stating he decided in November 2023 that it was a 'bad idea'.

[paul_e]

Without the North our capacity would be 35,000. If we were to relocate temporarily to do a big rebuild we'd be very, very fortunate to find a 35,000 capacity alternate ground.

We hope to be successful every season so that means we cannot expand our stadium and cater to the increased demand? Makes absolutely no sense, why are other clubs doing it then?

No, somebody at the club bottled this and I think we all know who it was. The guy who is on record stating he decided in November 2023 that it was a 'bad idea'.

It would've been 33k because parts of the trinity would've been closed as well.

It doesn't mean we cannot expand our stadium, it means that for this season it would've been a mistake, it could've been the difference between signing Onana or not. Give it a year or 2 for our commercial income to improve, for our big overspending seasons to drop off and to clear up the wage bill a little and we'll be in a very different position.

As I said on another thread I wouldn't be surprised if our turnover for 23/24 is up 25-30% on the previous season and I'd hope we see an even bigger jump again this year. All combined our finances should look much healthier going into 25/26 so long as we don't have a big drop in performance on the pitch. That would then be the time to start revisiting plans for the stadium where the drop in matchday income will be easier to 'hide'.

[Ads]

Already been mentioned, but two interesting points; (i) Onana told Man United and Ten Haag to do one and to their face. Just when I thought I couldn't like him anymore. (ii) Dougie was off anyway.

Like Paulie said, the rules are a nonsense. Diaby going made sense for CL rules, but didn't move the dial much for PSR. Just garbage. Makes what we're doing even more special. If we can continue as we are, we'll eventually get to the otherside of the rules where they benefit us by keeping the hoi pilloi out.

[Somniloquism]

Without the North our capacity would be 35,000. If we were to relocate temporarily to do a big rebuild we'd be very, very fortunate to find a 35,000 capacity alternate ground.

We hope to be successful every season so that means we cannot expand our stadium and cater to the increased demand? Makes absolutely no sense, why are other clubs doing it then?

No, somebody at the club bottled this and I think we all know who it was. The guy who is on record stating he decided in November 2023 that it was a 'bad idea'.

I didn't mention that. PSR at the moment means that the reduced capacity fell in the same time as Grealish coming off the books. If we can increase the revenue with constant CL qualification and better off the pitch deals, then the loss of revenue for 12-18 months is less of an issue.

And tell me which other club is upgrading their stadium whilst trying to compete for top four and who don't have a better revenue then us? The closest to our current situation was Spurs a few years ago, but they happened to have a national stadium of greater capacity they could use. As you rightly point out, if we had a 40-50k option in the locality, we might have gone there temporarily.

 And yes, he decided in Nov 2023. Remind me where we were in the table and where we finished the year before.

[AV82EC]

Without the North our capacity would be 35,000. If we were to relocate temporarily to do a big rebuild we'd be very, very fortunate to find a 35,000 capacity alternate ground.

We hope to be successful every season so that means we cannot expand our stadium and cater to the increased demand? Makes absolutely no sense, why are other clubs doing it then?

No, somebody at the club bottled this and I think we all know who it was. The guy who is on record stating he decided in November 2023 that it was a 'bad idea'.

It would've been 33k because parts of the trinity would've been closed as well.

It doesn't mean we cannot expand our stadium, it means that for this season it would've been a mistake, it could've been the difference between signing Onana or not. Give it a year or 2 for our commercial income to improve, for our big overspending seasons to drop off and to clear up the wage bill a little and we'll be in a very different position.

As I said on another thread I wouldn't be surprised if our turnover for 23/24 is up 25-30% on the previous season and I'd hope we see an even bigger jump again this year. All combined our finances should look much healthier going into 25/26 so long as we don't have a big drop in performance on the pitch. That would then be the time to start revisiting plans for the stadium where the drop in matchday income will be easier to 'hide'.

Spot on Paul.

[Risso]

Without the North our capacity would be 35,000. If we were to relocate temporarily to do a big rebuild we'd be very, very fortunate to find a 35,000 capacity alternate ground.

We hope to be successful every season so that means we cannot expand our stadium and cater to the increased demand? Makes absolutely no sense, why are other clubs doing it then?

No, somebody at the club bottled this and I think we all know who it was. The guy who is on record stating he decided in November 2023 that it was a 'bad idea'.

I didn't mention that. PSR at the moment means that the reduced capacity fell in the same time as Grealish coming off the books. If we can increase the revenue with constant CL qualification and better off the pitch deals, then the loss of revenue for 12-18 months is less of an issue.

And tell me which other club is upgrading their stadium whilst trying to compete for top four and who don't have a better revenue then us? The closest to our current situation was Spurs a few years ago, but they happened to have a national stadium of greater capacity they could use. As you rightly point out, if we had a 40-50k option in the locality, we might have gone there temporarily.

 And yes, he decided in Nov 2023. Remind me where we were in the table and where we finished the year before.

You're allowed to factor in a reduction in matchday income for stadium redevelopment though, so PSR is largely irrelevant in that case.