|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Nov 14, 2022 11:01:36 GMT 1
None of the Newcastle fans I know now ever go to the games. Not because they dont want to, they all do, but because they have zero chance of getting a ticket. If they could magically put an extra 30,000 seats on ST James park before the next home game, making it the biggest stadium in the PL, there'd still be thousands disappointed each and every game, regardless of the opposition. First time they win something it'll be absolute mayhem in that city!!  |
|
|
|
Post by themanfromatlantis on Nov 14, 2022 11:28:09 GMT 1
Id say Newcastle are a bigger club than both Man City and Chelsea in terms of their core fanbase. Watching the Brentford game on Saturday it was noticeable how many empty seats there were at the Etihad. Lot of their new fans obviously not bothered about a game against 'the likes of ' Brentford. that doesnt happen at Newcastle even when theyre struggling, never mind when theyre the dominant force in the game. What I like about Newcastle,, as appose to Chelsea. Arsenal, Spurs, Man Utd, Liverpool....is that theyre just a much bigger version of Town, in that pretty much all their fanbase comes from that place. Its a 'local club'.. just a very big one. Maybe that will change over time if they become dominant.. It will be doing at Man City Id guess. Since moving north I know quite a few Newcastle fans and none of then could care less about the source of the money they now have. Think that would be the same at every club.. the vast majority wouldn't care. If a Saudi prince bought Town I wouldn't. There'll always be people who do and thats fair enough, some people have very strong principles, though I wonder how they get through life if they insist on not personally doing business with ( buying products from ) any nation who are guilty of some level of persecution, including bumping people off. That must be a huge daily challenge! You’re just playing to your audience now Slapps, got to keep in with the (sort of) locals… 😉 |
|
|
|
Post by themanfromatlantis on Nov 14, 2022 11:36:33 GMT 1
Chelsea and citeh both classed as top 6 clubs. Both nowhere until rich folk got hold of them 20 years ago. Don’t think until the money turned up either could class themselves as bigger than Newcastle. Some folk have principles that would say they’d rather be utter rubbish than accept this money. The vast majority I would suggest don’t care where the money comes from. The biggest problem is it’s just another club with boat loads of cash, transfer prices rise, wages rise and yet there’s still only the same number of trophies I feel the same about Chelski and City as I do about Newcastle. There aren’t many clubs up there nowadays that you could say haven’t used money to influence success. I acknowledge that it’s always been that way, but in the PL era the contrast between clubs has become more stark. It’s becoming like US sports franchises, the ones with the deepest pockets ‘win’ the spoils. Leicester was a refreshing upset, but even they’re not short of a few bob and were also the first ‘name’ club who exploited administration loopholes. Nor are Town exempt from criticism with respect to buying success (if you’re looking at Town from the perspective of a prudent L2 club). Maybe I just don’t like sport where it just becomes awash with cash, dirty or otherwise. It just feels like they’re a plaything for some of these owners. It induces corruption into the game. |
|
|
|
Post by Sio on Nov 14, 2022 11:36:59 GMT 1
If you spend a nett £500m in the next 2 seasons to secure a CL spot, will you think that’s been hard earned and deserved? Or will it feel a bit tainted?Thing is, aside a total freak season like Leicester, there's very little chance to win anything, or even break into the top 4, without ridiculous spending. So whilst your sentiment is fair, and I'd imagine it would always feel a little tainted if it was us, the alternative is surviving in the bottom 14 and bouncing between the Championship and Prem for eternity. For the first time in my life following football/Town - given the way we've been run, and the relative misery that it's brought - I'd probably welcome a similar situation to Newcastle to have a bit of fun for a change. However, the novelty would absolutely wear off after a few years, which is when the regret might creep in |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Nov 14, 2022 11:48:58 GMT 1
Chelsea and citeh both classed as top 6 clubs. Both nowhere until rich folk got hold of them 20 years ago. Don’t think until the money turned up either could class themselves as bigger than Newcastle. Some folk have principles that would say they’d rather be utter rubbish than accept this money. The vast majority I would suggest don’t care where the money comes from. The biggest problem is it’s just another club with boat loads of cash, transfer prices rise, wages rise and yet there’s still only the same number of trophies I feel the same about Chelski and City as I do about Newcastle. There aren’t many clubs up there nowadays that you could say haven’t used money to influence success. I acknowledge that it’s always been that way, but in the PL era the contrast between clubs has become more stark. It’s becoming like US sports franchises, the ones with the deepest pockets ‘win’ the spoils. Leicester was a refreshing upset, but even they’re not short of a few bob and were also the first ‘name’ club who exploited administration loopholes. Nor are Town exempt from criticism with respect to buying success (if you’re looking at Town from the perspective of a prudent L2 club). Maybe I just don’t like sport where it just becomes awash with cash, dirty or otherwise. It just feels like they’re a plaything for some of these owners. It induces corruption into the game. Were not exactly beyond criticism ourselves your right. 5 or 6 years after being in administration and no doubt reneging on a lot of debts to local businesses, we were trying to buy our way out of league 1. The other clubs at that level at the time must have looked at us in the same way those in the Pl look at Newcastle, when we were suddenly spaffing £500k on that player and £500k on this player back in 2009. None of which was money the club had 'earned'. |
|
|
|
Post by Mastercracker on Nov 14, 2022 12:15:10 GMT 1
The problem with this notion that clubs should only be able to spend what they earn is that it just locks in Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal and now Chelsea as winning everything forever, yet they are only earning the vast sums because they happened to be the bigger/succesful clubs at the time the premier league went global.
Man U have been 'shite' for a decade and apparently have dreadful owners but have still outspent everyone else because they have 100s of millions of hangers on worldwide buying shirts and tat.
|
|
paullow1
Iain Dunn Terrier
Lost magpie
Posts: 541 
|
Post by paullow1 on Nov 14, 2022 12:48:45 GMT 1
None of the Newcastle fans I know now ever go to the games. Not because they dont want to, they all do, but because they have zero chance of getting a ticket.If they could magically put an extra 30,000 seats on ST James park before the next home game, making it the biggest stadium in the PL, there'd still be thousands disappointed each and every game, regardless of the opposition. First time they win something it'll be absolute mayhem in that city!! Tell me about it. A nightmare if you don't have connections, and they all sell out weeks in advance. They are apparently looking into whatever they can regarding increasing capacity - I think they ideally want to stay at SJP and develop it however best they can in line with the obvious East Stand / listed buildings restrictions, but you're probably looking at only 60k, or 64k at an absolute push, which while better than present, won't be enough either. I'd prefer to stay in the city centre if possible, but would actually prefer a move away to a new 75/80k stadium, and you know if the Saudi's are involved in the planning, they'd want the stadium to be absolutely state of the art and among the best in the world, which would be exciting, but as it currently is, 52k is nowhere near enough and there will likely be a generation that can't see their team, which really does need addressing. |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Nov 14, 2022 13:05:22 GMT 1
The problem with this notion that clubs should only be able to spend what they earn is that it just locks in Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal and now Chelsea as winning everything forever, yet they are only earning the vast sums because they happened to be the bigger/succesful clubs at the time the premier league went global. Man U have been 'shite' for a decade and apparently have dreadful owners but have still outspent everyone else because they have 100s of millions of hangers on worldwide buying shirts and tat. Its probably become more acute since the PL was formed and the way the internet has opened up 'supporting' a club to the whole world, regardless of where you are. But it started back in 1961 with the abolishment of the maximum wage for players. I dont think that was wrong ethically, but it meant the big city clubs would always dominate the game from there on. Theres been a few brief exceptions since, like Derby and forest in the 70s, Leicester not long ago , but in general the trophies go to a small handful of big city clubs and always will. I doubt its just a resentment within England either about it. Big clubs on the continent must have a similar resentment about the PL riches. A club like Everton who year on year do nothing at all must have a much bigger financial clout than almost all of Europes biggest and most domestically successful clubs. But is it wrong? The PL gets the money because its by far the most popular all over the globe. The 'product' is better and its extremely well marketed. |
|
paullow1
Iain Dunn Terrier
Lost magpie
Posts: 541
|
Post by paullow1 on Nov 14, 2022 13:18:01 GMT 1
Chelsea and citeh both classed as top 6 clubs. Both nowhere until rich folk got hold of them 20 years ago. Don’t think until the money turned up either could class themselves as bigger than Newcastle. Some folk have principles that would say they’d rather be utter rubbish than accept this money. The vast majority I would suggest don’t care where the money comes from. The biggest problem is it’s just another club with boat loads of cash, transfer prices rise, wages rise and yet there’s still only the same number of trophies I feel the same about Chelski and City as I do about Newcastle. There aren’t many clubs up there nowadays that you could say haven’t used money to influence success. I acknowledge that it’s always been that way, but in the PL era the contrast between clubs has become more stark. It’s becoming like US sports franchises, the ones with the deepest pockets ‘win’ the spoils. Leicester was a refreshing upset, but even they’re not short of a few bob and were also the first ‘name’ club who exploited administration loopholes. Nor are Town exempt from criticism with respect to buying success (if you’re looking at Town from the perspective of a prudent L2 club). Maybe I just don’t like sport where it just becomes awash with cash, dirty or otherwise. It just feels like they’re a plaything for some of these owners. It induces corruption into the game. Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the likes of West Ham, and other spendings? I'm not just plucking numbers out of my behind when I say they have spent £150m this summer, they've spent £30m more than us in the 2022/23 season thus far, and combined, pretty much the same as us over seasons 2021/22 and 2022/23, to an already far better side on paper. West Ham www.transfermarkt.co.uk/west-ham-united/transfers/verein/379/plus/?saison_id=2021&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=www.transfermarkt.co.uk/west-ham-united/transfers/verein/379/plus/?saison_id=2022&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=167m Euro net + 70m Euro net = £206m net over the past two seasons Newcastle www.transfermarkt.co.uk/newcastle-united/transfers/verein/762/plus/?saison_id=2021&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=www.transfermarkt.co.uk/newcastle-united/transfers/verein/762/plus/?saison_id=2022&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=130m Euro net + 135m Euro net = £230m net over the past two season VERY comparable figures, but is West Ham's spending not quite as bad because they are currently seemingly going backwards and not upsetting the applecart, or is it because it is English money as opposed to Middle East? We've barely scratched the surface in relative terms in our spending, nowhere near the likes of Chelsea and Man City following their lucrative takeovers, and are currently WAY ahead of schedule where we find ourselves in the league. Most Newcastle fans would have been happy with 9th and a decent cup run at the start of this season (I'd still be happy with 7th), putting pressure on the likes of West Ham and Leicester who were still likely to be a year or two ahead of us following the Ashley years. Now obviously there is the likelihood that Newcastle will continue to invest and improve every area and aspect of the club - sporting directors / CEO's, ground improvements, playing squad, training facilities, scouting, commercial deals and going forward, potential geopolitical issues aside, should be more of a threat to the top brass than your West Ham's, Everton's. Wolves, Villa's, Leicester's, but at the moment, it's pretty sustainable and measured, it's just going far better than anyone could have ever imagined, and while some will obviously not be happy with where the money has come from, and the prospect of the club, in time, consistently mixing it at the top end in a lottery type win, for now, enormous credit should go to Eddie, his backroom staff, and the players for performing MILES better than what they should be for what they are currently working with in comparison to the far more established sides at the top end of the league, and in large parts, they actually are getting the credit. We might get there eventually, and the source of the investment is obviously (just as, if not more) controversial, but at the moment, we're nowhere near the likes of Chelsea and Man City in terms of outlay, so those comparisons should be dished out when it's actually warranted. |
|
|
|
Post by Mastercracker on Nov 14, 2022 13:39:34 GMT 1
None of the Newcastle fans I know now ever go to the games. Not because they dont want to, they all do, but because they have zero chance of getting a ticket.If they could magically put an extra 30,000 seats on ST James park before the next home game, making it the biggest stadium in the PL, there'd still be thousands disappointed each and every game, regardless of the opposition. First time they win something it'll be absolute mayhem in that city!! Tell me about it. A nightmare if you don't have connections, and they all sell out weeks in advance. They are apparently looking into whatever they can regarding increasing capacity - I think they ideally want to stay at SJP and develop it however best they can in line with the obvious East Stand / listed buildings restrictions, but you're probably looking at only 60k, or 64k at an absolute push, which while better than present, won't be enough either. I'd prefer to stay in the city centre if possible, but would actually prefer a move away to a new 75/80k stadium, and you know if the Saudi's are involved in the planning, they'd want the stadium to be absolutely state of the art and among the best in the world, which would be exciting, but as it currently is, 52k is nowhere near enough and there will likely be a generation that can't see their team, which really does need addressing. My Mrs, who had a season ticket 15 years or so ago is resigned to never going again, for anything of note at least. Personally, I think it will calm down, once the novelty of being good wears off. Regardless, she gets to live in West Yorkshire with me and go to the odd town game for free, so she's the real winner. |
|
|
|
Post by Mastercracker on Nov 14, 2022 13:51:52 GMT 1
The problem with this notion that clubs should only be able to spend what they earn is that it just locks in Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal and now Chelsea as winning everything forever, yet they are only earning the vast sums because they happened to be the bigger/succesful clubs at the time the premier league went global. Man U have been 'shite' for a decade and apparently have dreadful owners but have still outspent everyone else because they have 100s of millions of hangers on worldwide buying shirts and tat. Its probably become more acute since the PL was formed and the way the internet has opened up 'supporting' a club to the whole world, regardless of where you are. But it started back in 1961 with the abolishment of the maximum wage for players. I dont think that was wrong ethically, but it meant the big city clubs would always dominate the game from there on. Theres been a few brief exceptions since, like Derby and forest in the 70s, Leicester not long ago , but in general the trophies go to a small handful of big city clubs and always will. I doubt its just a resentment within England either about it. Big clubs on the continent must have a similar resentment about the PL riches. A club like Everton who year on year do nothing at all must have a much bigger financial clout than almost all of Europes biggest and most domestically successful clubs. But is it wrong? The PL gets the money because its by far the most popular all over the globe. The 'product' is better and its extremely well marketed. Agree. But the difference is that from then to the premier league Town were akin to a local bakers, someone like Forest akin to Hadfields and Man U akin to Greggs. Within reason, gaps could be bridged. Now following the globalisation of English football town are still the local bakers, Forest are still Hadfields, but Man U are a global conglomerate like Coca-Cola. |
|
|
|
Post by runner76 on Nov 14, 2022 14:07:02 GMT 1
Its probably become more acute since the PL was formed and the way the internet has opened up 'supporting' a club to the whole world, regardless of where you are. But it started back in 1961 with the abolishment of the maximum wage for players. I dont think that was wrong ethically, but it meant the big city clubs would always dominate the game from there on. Theres been a few brief exceptions since, like Derby and forest in the 70s, Leicester not long ago , but in general the trophies go to a small handful of big city clubs and always will. I doubt its just a resentment within England either about it. Big clubs on the continent must have a similar resentment about the PL riches. A club like Everton who year on year do nothing at all must have a much bigger financial clout than almost all of Europes biggest and most domestically successful clubs. But is it wrong? The PL gets the money because its by far the most popular all over the globe. The 'product' is better and its extremely well marketed. Agree. But the difference is that from then to the premier league Town were akin to a local bakers, someone like Forest akin to Hadfields and Man U akin to Greggs. Within reason, gaps could be bridged. Now following the globalisation of English football town are still the local bakers, Forest are still Hadfields, but Man U are a global conglomerate like Coca-Cola. I’d say Town are more like Merrie England. |
|
|
|
Post by themanfromatlantis on Nov 14, 2022 16:07:03 GMT 1
I feel the same about Chelski and City as I do about Newcastle. There aren’t many clubs up there nowadays that you could say haven’t used money to influence success. I acknowledge that it’s always been that way, but in the PL era the contrast between clubs has become more stark. It’s becoming like US sports franchises, the ones with the deepest pockets ‘win’ the spoils. Leicester was a refreshing upset, but even they’re not short of a few bob and were also the first ‘name’ club who exploited administration loopholes. Nor are Town exempt from criticism with respect to buying success (if you’re looking at Town from the perspective of a prudent L2 club). Maybe I just don’t like sport where it just becomes awash with cash, dirty or otherwise. It just feels like they’re a plaything for some of these owners. It induces corruption into the game. Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the likes of West Ham, and other spendings? I'm not just plucking numbers out of my behind when I say they have spent £150m this summer, they've spent £30m more than us in the 2022/23 season thus far, and combined, pretty much the same as us over seasons 2021/22 and 2022/23, to an already far better side on paper. West Ham www.transfermarkt.co.uk/west-ham-united/transfers/verein/379/plus/?saison_id=2021&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=www.transfermarkt.co.uk/west-ham-united/transfers/verein/379/plus/?saison_id=2022&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=167m Euro net + 70m Euro net = £206m net over the past two seasons Newcastle www.transfermarkt.co.uk/newcastle-united/transfers/verein/762/plus/?saison_id=2021&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=www.transfermarkt.co.uk/newcastle-united/transfers/verein/762/plus/?saison_id=2022&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=130m Euro net + 135m Euro net = £230m net over the past two season VERY comparable figures, but is West Ham's spending not quite as bad because they are currently seemingly going backwards and not upsetting the applecart, or is it because it is English money as opposed to Middle East? We've barely scratched the surface in relative terms in our spending, nowhere near the likes of Chelsea and Man City following their lucrative takeovers, and are currently WAY ahead of schedule where we find ourselves in the league. Most Newcastle fans would have been happy with 9th and a decent cup run at the start of this season (I'd still be happy with 7th), putting pressure on the likes of West Ham and Leicester who were still likely to be a year or two ahead of us following the Ashley years. Now obviously there is the likelihood that Newcastle will continue to invest and improve every area and aspect of the club - sporting directors / CEO's, ground improvements, playing squad, training facilities, scouting, commercial deals and going forward, potential geopolitical issues aside, should be more of a threat to the top brass than your West Ham's, Everton's. Wolves, Villa's, Leicester's, but at the moment, it's pretty sustainable and measured, it's just going far better than anyone could have ever imagined, and while some will obviously not be happy with where the money has come from, and the prospect of the club, in time, consistently mixing it at the top end in a lottery type win, for now, enormous credit should go to Eddie, his backroom staff, and the players for performing MILES better than what they should be for what they are currently working with in comparison to the far more established sides at the top end of the league, and in large parts, they actually are getting the credit. We might get there eventually, and the source of the investment is obviously (just as, if not more) controversial, but at the moment, we're nowhere near the likes of Chelsea and Man City in terms of outlay, so those comparisons should be dished out when it's actually warranted. You mean the club who got a massive leg up from the taxpayer? Do you really want me to say what I think of them. In summary, money taints sport for me. The PL is an entertainment product nowadays, not a sporting competition. It wasn’t always like that of course, maybe the first 10-15 years the money pumped in was a lot in comparison to the old Div 1, but in recent years it’s morphed into something way beyond that. That’s the problem for me though, I’d still like Town to pit their wits in the top division, like most of our supporters would, but it’s not the same as any of the promotions from lower divisions in the EFL, the PL is a bloodsucking entity and clubs that can’t afford eye watering sums will just become obsolete eventually. I think the Toon have sold their soul a bit, that’s all. All in the name of chasing some glory for what I can’t disagree, is probably the most fanatic fanbase outside of the 2 Glasgow clubs. You’re potentially going to become one of the top clubs in that division, amongst the clubs who seem to hold far too much power in the game. It’ll get to the point that the ownership of the ‘elite clubs’ will be so far removed from what the game traditionally stood for, and it’ll move towards a franchise competition. Having said that, there’s something on Netflix just now, about how the game was run in the very early days of association football, essentially it was a game for the elite back in the day. Maybe we’re just seeing the money retaking the game from the common man? BTW, you’re still a good egg, even if I think your club has rotten ethics… |
|
|
|
Newcastle
Nov 14, 2022 18:32:52 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by reverendstarbuck on Nov 14, 2022 18:32:52 GMT 1
None of the Newcastle fans I know now ever go to the games. Not because they dont want to, they all do, but because they have zero chance of getting a ticket.If they could magically put an extra 30,000 seats on ST James park before the next home game, making it the biggest stadium in the PL, there'd still be thousands disappointed each and every game, regardless of the opposition. First time they win something it'll be absolute mayhem in that city!! Tell me about it. A nightmare if you don't have connections, and they all sell out weeks in advance. They are apparently looking into whatever they can regarding increasing capacity - I think they ideally want to stay at SJP and develop it however best they can in line with the obvious East Stand / listed buildings restrictions, but you're probably looking at only 60k, or 64k at an absolute push, which while better than present, won't be enough either. I'd prefer to stay in the city centre if possible, but would actually prefer a move away to a new 75/80k stadium, and you know if the Saudi's are involved in the planning, they'd want the stadium to be absolutely state of the art and among the best in the world, which would be exciting, but as it currently is, 52k is nowhere near enough and there will likely be a generation that can't see their team, which really does need addressing. Hang on a minute, Paul. It's one thing for wannabe fans to say they really want to go but can't get tickets, it's something else for them to actually cough up and attend week in, week out when ground capacity is no longer an issue. There's only one club in world football who can regularly fill - as opposed to claiming to fill - an 80,000-seat stadium. Dortmund. I'd put Newcastle more in the Schalke bracket. |
|
araucaria
Frank Worthington Terrier
Posts: 1,802
Member is Online
|
Post by araucaria on Nov 14, 2022 18:59:59 GMT 1
Tell me about it. A nightmare if you don't have connections, and they all sell out weeks in advance. They are apparently looking into whatever they can regarding increasing capacity - I think they ideally want to stay at SJP and develop it however best they can in line with the obvious East Stand / listed buildings restrictions, but you're probably looking at only 60k, or 64k at an absolute push, which while better than present, won't be enough either. I'd prefer to stay in the city centre if possible, but would actually prefer a move away to a new 75/80k stadium, and you know if the Saudi's are involved in the planning, they'd want the stadium to be absolutely state of the art and among the best in the world, which would be exciting, but as it currently is, 52k is nowhere near enough and there will likely be a generation that can't see their team, which really does need addressing. Hang on a minute, Paul. It's one thing for wannabe fans to say they really want to go but can't get tickets, it's something else for them to actually cough up and attend week in, week out when ground capacity is no longer an issue. There's only one club in world football who can regularly fill - as opposed to claiming to fill - an 80,000-seat stadium. Dortmund. I'd put Newcastle more in the Schalke bracket. This reminds me of a story about Newcastle from 20-odd (?) years ago. A Newcastle supporter introduced a Schalke fan to Freddie Shepherd, one of the directors (?) at the Toon. The Schalke guy said it cost him the equivalent of £30 to watch his team; 'not bad that, per match' says FS - 'for the season' comes the reply. |
|
araucaria
Frank Worthington Terrier
Posts: 1,802
Member is Online
|
Post by araucaria on Nov 14, 2022 19:02:10 GMT 1
It sometimes happens that a comment gets added to the quoted piece, like mine above. What am I doing wrong to occasion it?
|
|
|
|
Post by Terrier Ramone on Nov 14, 2022 20:38:14 GMT 1
It sometimes happens that a comment gets added to the quoted piece, like mine above. What am I doing wrong to occasion it? Sometimes the final [/quote] is straight after the words so your reply to the quote will be fine but sometimes it is a few lines further down, you need to ensure you type your reply after that last quote - if that makes sense? |
|
|
|
Newcastle
Nov 14, 2022 22:34:59 GMT 1
via mobile
Post by philstarbuckscoffee on Nov 14, 2022 22:34:59 GMT 1
I feel the same about Chelski and City as I do about Newcastle. There aren’t many clubs up there nowadays that you could say haven’t used money to influence success. I acknowledge that it’s always been that way, but in the PL era the contrast between clubs has become more stark. It’s becoming like US sports franchises, the ones with the deepest pockets ‘win’ the spoils. Leicester was a refreshing upset, but even they’re not short of a few bob and were also the first ‘name’ club who exploited administration loopholes. Nor are Town exempt from criticism with respect to buying success (if you’re looking at Town from the perspective of a prudent L2 club). Maybe I just don’t like sport where it just becomes awash with cash, dirty or otherwise. It just feels like they’re a plaything for some of these owners. It induces corruption into the game. Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the likes of West Ham, and other spendings? I'm not just plucking numbers out of my behind when I say they have spent £150m this summer, they've spent £30m more than us in the 2022/23 season thus far, and combined, pretty much the same as us over seasons 2021/22 and 2022/23, to an already far better side on paper. West Ham www.transfermarkt.co.uk/west-ham-united/transfers/verein/379/plus/?saison_id=2021&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=www.transfermarkt.co.uk/west-ham-united/transfers/verein/379/plus/?saison_id=2022&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=167m Euro net + 70m Euro net = £206m net over the past two seasons Newcastle www.transfermarkt.co.uk/newcastle-united/transfers/verein/762/plus/?saison_id=2021&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=www.transfermarkt.co.uk/newcastle-united/transfers/verein/762/plus/?saison_id=2022&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=130m Euro net + 135m Euro net = £230m net over the past two season VERY comparable figures, but is West Ham's spending not quite as bad because they are currently seemingly going backwards and not upsetting the applecart, or is it because it is English money as opposed to Middle East? We've barely scratched the surface in relative terms in our spending, nowhere near the likes of Chelsea and Man City following their lucrative takeovers, and are currently WAY ahead of schedule where we find ourselves in the league. Most Newcastle fans would have been happy with 9th and a decent cup run at the start of this season (I'd still be happy with 7th), putting pressure on the likes of West Ham and Leicester who were still likely to be a year or two ahead of us following the Ashley years. Now obviously there is the likelihood that Newcastle will continue to invest and improve every area and aspect of the club - sporting directors / CEO's, ground improvements, playing squad, training facilities, scouting, commercial deals and going forward, potential geopolitical issues aside, should be more of a threat to the top brass than your West Ham's, Everton's. Wolves, Villa's, Leicester's, but at the moment, it's pretty sustainable and measured, it's just going far better than anyone could have ever imagined, and while some will obviously not be happy with where the money has come from, and the prospect of the club, in time, consistently mixing it at the top end in a lottery type win, for now, enormous credit should go to Eddie, his backroom staff, and the players for performing MILES better than what they should be for what they are currently working with in comparison to the far more established sides at the top end of the league, and in large parts, they actually are getting the credit. We might get there eventually, and the source of the investment is obviously (just as, if not more) controversial, but at the moment, we're nowhere near the likes of Chelsea and Man City in terms of outlay, so those comparisons should be dished out when it's actually warranted. Apologies as I don’t profess to know the detail but isn’t transfer fee spending in comparison to others irrelevant? It’s all about the wage budgets surely? West Ham may have spent more on fees (perhaps on younger players in long term contracts with high potential) and Newcastle could have spent less on fees but in players in the final year of a contract but comparatively be paying much higher wages. The biggest correlation in the PL always seems to be linked to the relative wage budgets of the clubs and invariably the biggest budgets tend to win the league. I remember seeing something recently and the only real exceptions were Man U underperforming and Brentford over performing relative to wages |
|
paullow1
Iain Dunn Terrier
Lost magpie
Posts: 541
|
Post by paullow1 on Nov 15, 2022 0:05:44 GMT 1
Out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on the likes of West Ham, and other spendings? I'm not just plucking numbers out of my behind when I say they have spent £150m this summer, they've spent £30m more than us in the 2022/23 season thus far, and combined, pretty much the same as us over seasons 2021/22 and 2022/23, to an already far better side on paper. West Ham www.transfermarkt.co.uk/west-ham-united/transfers/verein/379/plus/?saison_id=2021&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=www.transfermarkt.co.uk/west-ham-united/transfers/verein/379/plus/?saison_id=2022&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=167m Euro net + 70m Euro net = £206m net over the past two seasons Newcastle www.transfermarkt.co.uk/newcastle-united/transfers/verein/762/plus/?saison_id=2021&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=www.transfermarkt.co.uk/newcastle-united/transfers/verein/762/plus/?saison_id=2022&pos=&detailpos=&w_s=130m Euro net + 135m Euro net = £230m net over the past two season VERY comparable figures, but is West Ham's spending not quite as bad because they are currently seemingly going backwards and not upsetting the applecart, or is it because it is English money as opposed to Middle East? We've barely scratched the surface in relative terms in our spending, nowhere near the likes of Chelsea and Man City following their lucrative takeovers, and are currently WAY ahead of schedule where we find ourselves in the league. Most Newcastle fans would have been happy with 9th and a decent cup run at the start of this season (I'd still be happy with 7th), putting pressure on the likes of West Ham and Leicester who were still likely to be a year or two ahead of us following the Ashley years. Now obviously there is the likelihood that Newcastle will continue to invest and improve every area and aspect of the club - sporting directors / CEO's, ground improvements, playing squad, training facilities, scouting, commercial deals and going forward, potential geopolitical issues aside, should be more of a threat to the top brass than your West Ham's, Everton's. Wolves, Villa's, Leicester's, but at the moment, it's pretty sustainable and measured, it's just going far better than anyone could have ever imagined, and while some will obviously not be happy with where the money has come from, and the prospect of the club, in time, consistently mixing it at the top end in a lottery type win, for now, enormous credit should go to Eddie, his backroom staff, and the players for performing MILES better than what they should be for what they are currently working with in comparison to the far more established sides at the top end of the league, and in large parts, they actually are getting the credit. We might get there eventually, and the source of the investment is obviously (just as, if not more) controversial, but at the moment, we're nowhere near the likes of Chelsea and Man City in terms of outlay, so those comparisons should be dished out when it's actually warranted. Apologies as I don’t profess to know the detail but isn’t transfer fee spending in comparison to others irrelevant? It’s all about the wage budgets surely? West Ham may have spent more on fees (perhaps on younger players in long term contracts with high potential) and Newcastle could have spent less on fees but in players in the final year of a contract but comparatively be paying much higher wages. The biggest correlation in the PL always seems to be linked to the relative wage budgets of the clubs and invariably the biggest budgets tend to win the league. I remember seeing something recently and the only real exceptions were Man U underperforming and Brentford over performing relative to wages I would say transfer fees in relation to other clubs was pretty relevant personally, because if other non top sides are spending the same or even more then it surely it 'isn't all about the money', and you often hear, 'it's amazing what £200m can do', well if it's so amazing, why aren't other similar spenders doing as well? Anyway, not sure how reliable this site is, but in terms of wages they have the following: 1. Manchester United – £222,984,000 2. Chelsea – £169,720,000 3. Manchester City – £163,060,000 4. Liverpool – £141,782,000 5. Tottenham – £101,344,000 6. Arsenal – £85,490,000 7. Leicester City – 78,780,000 8. Aston Villa – £75,232,000 9. West Ham – £70,160,000 10. Newcastle United – £62,610,000 11. Crystal Palace – £59,180,000 12. Everton – £43,120,000 13. Wolves – £38,310,000 14. Fulham – £37,610,000 15. Southampton – £35,380,000 16. Bournemouth – £32,044,000 17. Nottingham Forest – £28,590,000 18. Brighton – £28,340,000 19. Leeds United – £17,300,000 20. Brentford – £15,240,000 www.planetfootball.com/quick-reads/premier-league-wage-bill-ranking-arsenal-newcastle-man-utd-city-liverpool/Newly-minted Newcastle only have the Premier League’s 10th highest wage bill, although you’d expect them to rise up this list in the coming years, and currently behind Leicester, Aston Villa and West Ham.So again, significantly behind all the 'big 6', and currently lower than a few other middle pack sides, and yet more emphasis that Howe is working minor miracles with what he has at his disposal, and is getting the best out of the vast majority of his players. The blood money hasn't really kicked in yet, but he has them performing well above where they should be. Trippier is apparently the highest paid on £144,231.00. Digne highest at Villa on £163,462.00 Zaha - £130,000.00 Vardy - £140,000.00 Ronaldo - £515,385.00 KDB - £400,000.00 Salah - £350,000.00 Sterling - £325,000.00 Jesus - £265,000.00 |
|
|
|
Post by Captainslapper on Nov 15, 2022 10:35:00 GMT 1
Yeah think if theyre saying Leeds are paying their entire squad £330k a week then we can dismiss it as nonsense!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mastercracker on Nov 15, 2022 12:32:28 GMT 1
Yeah you've had a mare there paullow1 . Those figures are absolute nonsense, half the championship is spending more than a lot of that. Your wage bill for 2020/21, pre takeover, was £107m. It's in your accounts. It's probably £130/140m now. |
|
paullow1
Iain Dunn Terrier
Lost magpie
Posts: 541
|
Post by paullow1 on Nov 15, 2022 12:55:56 GMT 1
Yeah you've had a mare there paullow1 . Those figures are absolute nonsense, half the championship is spending more than a lot of that. Your wage bill for 2020/21, pre takeover, was £107m. It's in your accounts. It's probably £130/140m now. It'll be more that particular site having a mare than me to be fair. I wasn't just avoiding sites not suiting a particular narrative and plucking ones out that do, but most sources I can find have Newcastle around 10th in the pack. www.spotrac.com/epl/payroll/Not sure if it's not taking into account things like backroom staff or just selecting 18 players or something, but I'm just posting what I can find. I am genuinely interested in this sort of thing though, and how they do compare to other teams, whether that be the established top 6, or those other relatively big clubs trying to finish as high up as they can, so if you can find a more realistic source (of the whole league, and how they compare), I'd be keen to see it, but at this stage of our takeover, I'd fully expect our wage bill to be in line with where I had them on a relative basis in comparison to the rest of the league. |
|
|
|
Post by themanfromatlantis on Nov 15, 2022 13:00:04 GMT 1
If Trippier is on £144k p/w, then it would also mean he takes around 12% of your entire squad budget.
But as other have already said, it’s bollocks.
Strange how we’ve become conditioned to Monopoly money wages in football.
If you think that a decent PL name would be earning £200k p/w, that’s £10.4m per year. A 4 yr contract that’s £41.6m. That’s before other sponsorship deals and add ons.
If you take a probable conservative estimate that there are 100 players in that bracket, that would mean their contracts are worth a combined £4.16bn.
Someone might want to check my maths as that figure is absolutely bonkers…
So that’s £41.6m for one bloke, to kick a bag of wind around for a few hours each week. Hardly surprising intelligent life from other planets might well have decided to give us a miss… 😂
Chicken feed to the owners of Toon eh Paul… I wonder what the Jarrow marchers would make of it all?
|
|
|
|
Post by sabailand on Nov 15, 2022 13:11:47 GMT 1
Sad thing is about some players on eye watering amounts is that they're not even top of their game, some are distinctly average.
|
|
|
|
Post by themanfromatlantis on Nov 15, 2022 13:20:26 GMT 1
Sad thing is about some players on eye watering amounts is that they're not even top of their game, some are distinctly average. Imagine what Law, Best etc. would have been on in comparative terms nowadays? Game’s gone mad… |
|
araucaria
Frank Worthington Terrier
Posts: 1,802
Member is Online
|
Post by araucaria on Nov 15, 2022 13:21:08 GMT 1
If Trippier is on £144k p/w, then it would also mean he takes around 12% of your entire squad budget. But as other have already said, it’s bollocks. Strange how we’ve become conditioned to Monopoly money wages in football. If you think that a decent PL name would be earning £200k p/w, that’s £10.4m per year. A 4 yr contract that’s £41.6m. That’s before other sponsorship deals and add ons. If you take a probable conservative estimate that there are 100 players in that bracket, that would mean their contracts are worth a combined £4.16bn. Someone might want to check my maths as that figure is absolutely bonkers… So that’s £41.6m for one bloke, to kick a bag of wind around for a few hours each week. Hardly surprising intelligent life from other planets might well have decided to give us a miss… 😂 Chicken feed to the owners of Toon eh Paul… I wonder what the Jarrow marchers would make of it all? They'd surely all be horrified, but half of them probably supported the other lot. Steve Cram, Sunderland supporter, is apparently known as the Jarrow Arrow. |
|
|
|
Post by Mastercracker on Nov 15, 2022 14:26:57 GMT 1
Yeah you've had a mare there paullow1 . Those figures are absolute nonsense, half the championship is spending more than a lot of that. Your wage bill for 2020/21, pre takeover, was £107m. It's in your accounts. It's probably £130/140m now. It'll be more that particular site having a mare than me to be fair. I wasn't just avoiding sites not suiting a particular narrative and plucking ones out that do, but most sources I can find have Newcastle around 10th in the pack. www.spotrac.com/epl/payroll/Not sure if it's not taking into account things like backroom staff or just selecting 18 players or something, but I'm just posting what I can find. I am genuinely interested in this sort of thing though, and how they do compare to other teams, whether that be the established top 6, or those other relatively big clubs trying to finish as high up as they can, so if you can find a more realistic source (of the whole league, and how they compare), I'd be keen to see it, but at this stage of our takeover, I'd fully expect our wage bill to be in line with where I had them on a relative basis in comparison to the rest of the league. /photo/1 Thats 19/20, obviously they've gone up since then. All the sites that come up when you google are just clickbaity nonsense. There will be a version of this for 20/21 (the last set of everyone's accounts) but twitters search is crap and I cant find it through google because of all the bullshit clickbait that comes up first. If you are that interested just go on companies house and view each clubs last accounts, the wages are always on there. |
|
|
|
Post by ringdisco on Nov 16, 2022 10:57:14 GMT 1
Rather the club folded that have Saudi money. The worst part of it, is maybe all the shithead fans running around with hijabs etc. Give your head a shake. Utter horrible comment. Sounds a bit more like jealousy from you. You absolute card. Jealousy hahaha. Funny. Fine, it wouldn't have to fold, gloryhunters could stay on at the club, I'd just find a new pasttime. |
|
rickrast
Jimmy Nicholson Terrier
Posts: 1,531
|
Post by rickrast on Nov 27, 2022 17:31:34 GMT 1
Recent articles in the media claiming Jurgen Klopp is 'obsessed' with the current situation at Newcastle, and may fancy the manager's job. The Saudi owners may be tempted to replace Eddie Howe with a big name/big pedigree manager....and Klopp's future at Liverpool no longer looking as certain as it was.
|
|
|
|
Post by westislandterrier on Nov 27, 2022 17:50:28 GMT 1
Recent articles in the media claiming Jurgen Klopp is 'obsessed' with the current situation at Newcastle, and may fancy the manager's job. The Saudi owners may be tempted to replace Eddie Howe with a big name/big pedigree manager....and Klopp's future at Liverpool no longer looking as certain as it was. So even though he is German and not a Czech - it looks like he’s a Cheque after all... A Cheque book manager ! |
|
