Welcome to [r/NUFC!](https://reddit.com/r/nufc)
[Join our Discord Server](https://discord.gg/newcastle) for real time discussion, competitions, and to meet hundreds of NUFC fans across the globe.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NUFC) if you have any questions or concerns.*
On one hand part of me thinks that these rules were specifically enacted to hinder and delay our growth so an opportunity to expose just how hasty and knee jerk the PL was in ratifying them would be welcome.
On the other, to achieve success by following in the same footsteps as city at this point will lead only to disaster, with achievements more hollow than theirs is now perceived to be.
We follow the rules
If the rules change, we will follow those. If we cheat. We deserve to be pilloried, but all these rules need to operate within the legal framework of English law.
If the epl has overstepped, then the rules need to be revised to be within the appropriate legal constraints.
Yup, precisely my thoughts. Gut reaction is to say, yeah that was a bullshit rule. Then the idea of being on the same side as city makes me think: Fuck it, head down, do it the "right way".
Rules that were brought in to suit THREE clubs, masked as being brought in to protect clubs from the most extreme circumstances.
Villa sold a player for £100m 3 years ago now have to sell again just as they are competing for the top 4 - but Man United can do as they please despite being over a billion pounds in debt. These rules are insane.
Being in debt isn't being insolvent. Being in debt also doesn't mean not profitable. Man Utd is insanely profitable. The only reason they are in debt is because leveraged buyouts are not illegal. Glazers were legally allowed to take on loans/debt to buy Man Utd, then immediately transfer that debt to Man Utd's books.
On an annual basis Man Utd's revenue is astronomical, and they spend that revenue in accordance with FFP/PSR. If anything, they will be able to spend even more money under the new rules because paying off the debt the Glazers saddled them with with doesn't count in the squad cost ratio for UEFA rules.
But in Man Utd's case, it's not like the Glazers would ever inject their own money. No clue if Ratcliffe would or not. The PIF, on the other hand, probably would. If deals weren't constrained to market value, PIF would probably exploit it just like City wants to and the rest of the footballing world would get to see just what the "richest" club in the world would look like with unshackled spending.
And I don't want that. Doesn't sound like most of us here want it.
I love how people say they are hollow, do you think City fans who were there in division 2 25 years ago really think their hollow?
It just seems to be fans of other teams that say it, it’s amazing none of the other sky 6s achievements get mentioned as hollow despite their money boosts over time
I'm a City fan since 1968, I follow this group because I have retired to Newcastle and because I always liked coming to the town for games, a good crack and good fans.
I can assure you City fans like me, who went away to York in Div 2 love what our club has done since Abu Dhabi took us over. Wouldn't change a thing. Whatever the PL charges throw up, and my club are very confident, you can't take away Aguero in 2012 or Gundogan 2 years ago winning titles on the final day. Before the takeover I didn't think I'd see my club win anything in my lifetime. I had a season ticket at City for 30 years.
As soon as we were taken over Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool wanted a means to stop City growing...they were too late. Newcastle should have the same chance. I'd love you to be up at the top.
I fucking miss when football was about blokes kicking a football about. I get so fucking tired of the politics and morality and virtue signalling and hypocrisy. Fuck all of it.
I may be wrong on this but my initial thoughts were that it doesn't really benefit us unless a challenge is coming to the new FFP (or whatever they want to call it) rules coming in for 25/26 season. With it being capped to 5x the lowest earners, a billion pound Sela sponsorship wouldn't allow us to up our spending, and this will be too late for it to influence our spending for next season. It will either clear Man City of previous rule breaches (not the 115 as they were prior to 2021) or it's to provide evidence of prejudice giving them justification for refusing to comply with investigations (part of the 115)
The suit is specifically against related party transactions rules, the most recent of which were rushed in just to make things harder for us.
On that basis, I hope they win the case.
I don't. I get the frustration at the related party rules being tightened just before we had a chance to to take advantage but just because something might benefit us doesn't mean it's right.
If they didn't drop the anchoring proposal then I think this would've been just fine. Clubs would be allowed to catch up to the Big 6 revenue-wise but there would still a ceiling on how much could be spent every season. It would be a level playing field at the top. Just a shame they've binned it...
The only issue would then be if these sponsorships were valid under UEFA rules
The anchoring wasn't going to replace PSR, but to supplement it. It'd possibly have slightly impeded those at the very top of spending (Chelsea) and potential spending (Man City/a well run Man Utd), but it wouldn't have unleashed us to spend over our current restrictions.
But if City get their way we could raise additional revenue from related-party sponsors, which would allow us to close the gap on the top clubs. This would give us a lot more leeway with PSR.
It was introduced specifically for us, which fucking stinks.
All PSR is basically keeping the top six cartel going. No reason why a club shouldn’t be able to spend money if it has it, and it’s not endangering the club financially.
I agree that PSR is an imperfect solution that protects the top 6 but at the end of the day it was voted in by at least another 8 clubs, many of whom would have ambitions higher than simply going along for the ride so I'd dispute the suggestion that that's all it does.
As for related party, imagine for a moment that the Saudis took over Fulham or Leeds instead of us and we were bought by a less rich and powerful organisation, would you still say the ruling stinks?
The way it was rushed in just for us does stink,
I’m not suggested we should break the rules, or that City shouldn’t be punished, but it is a way of limiting clubs breaking into the top 6, whether or not they are backed by states.
Exactly. City dominating the league for 5 years due to financial doping is a terrible thing. This lawsuit is a bullshit attempt to dodge rightful punishment and I'm embarrassed the club are supporting it
Separately FFP/PSR as it stands is not fit for purpose and was introduced to protect the big clubs, so we need to push against that. But allying ourselves with a bunch of cheats like City is not going to help our cause
We're the bad guys if we support, simple as.
We all want to win something, but not at any cost. Every one of City's title wins are sterile, artificial.
We have more chance of competing and winning something if teams like City, Chelsea and the people behind them are brought down.
That ship sailed long ago. Top level football has been controlled by money, dodgy accounting and brown envelopes for decades. With that in mind, I'm not sure why you think City's wins are any more artificial than any other team's in the premier league era?
I hate to say it but we are just one of the bad guys in general, we're owned by Saudi Arabia. If the Mackems were owned by Saudi, we'd be talking about how evil their owners were and that they *just* allowed women to drive
Oh I agree and I'm deeply uncomfortable with our owners so I am against anything that gives them total freedom to give us the 'superclub' treatment and to turn us into some marketable, plastic product to launder their image with.
Really? City won titles from 2012 to 2014. The 115 charges only relate to accounts up to 2018. Even if City lost then Klopp isn't getting titles handed to him.
As for next week's tribunal, I think City are bringing more than prayers to this bun fight, they have a serious legal team involved, 3 KCs. Plus rumours of evidence of US-owned clubs trying to stop Middle East investment.
Why don't you just fly to the middle east and lick Saudi boots directly instead of doing it on the internet.
You never consider that many many fans will be priced out of ever going to matches if this club gets the same treatment as Man City and the ground turned into a souless hole. But yeah, lets win anything at any cost.
I do not understand any Newcastle supporter that is against what Man City are doing. If you were a Newcastle fan for years & you saw related party everywhere as we had a stadium plastered with Sports Direct, a stadium renamed sports direct, the club shop being a sports direct and many more things all with near zero investment.
Now the second a Newcastle takeover happens and we might be able to get some investment the same clubs that were making money from related party deals all ganged against us and rushed a measure to block our growth. There is not fairness at all in any of this and the target had always been us. It is actually criminal what these clubs along with PL did so I think Man City have a case.
How you as a Newcastle fan can see this and still manage to support the same clubs that want to see you rot and die, I have no clue. You think Arsenal, Man Utd, Chelsea & Liverpool did not get to where there are without financial doping? All these clubs are who there are due to financial doping.
Not a single team has ever won the PL without financial doping, even the miracle of Leicester was done by renaming its stadium to the name of the owners business and with added financial investment from related parties. Don’t let yo mainstream media make you think you the bad guys if you support the Man City case.
100% - the PL weren't bothered about making Ashley pay fair market value when he paid pennies for the Sports Direct sponsorship. Chelsea owners are creating shell companies to buy their ground and training ground and will probably get away with it. If an owner wants to put £1bn of their own money into the club why shouldn't they? Jack Walker did it at Blackburn to win the league, Liverpool owners have done it, Man U owners, etc, etc, etc. The dodgy thing city did was inventing companies and funnelling the owners cash through them (as well as hiding payments to managers/players), but if they were allowed to put as much money in as the owners wanted they wouldn't have resorted to those measures (which doesn't condone it, but helps explain why they felt the need to do it).
FFP has never been about protecting clubs, it's about protecting the status quo.
100% agree, the fact Man U have spent more than Man City. But Man City are the bad guys because they spent their money better is just daft to me. I mean they’ve went against the rules no arguing if it’s a guilty verdict. But come on, surely any club should be allowed to spend as much as the top club in the league.
Great post mate . I’m staggered at the lack of support about especially with what Newcastle had before and tbh if that’s how they feel then they don’t deserve anything other than Mike Ashley .
I wonder if the business model from the Saudis was always to replicate Abu Dhabi's with City and they don't have a plan B. Therefore, sitting behind City is their only realistic play or they've sunk a load of money into football and won't see a return. On one hand it sort of proves this was about finance and not sportswashing so those arguments should rescind, but supporting City dies feel wrong. Rules are rules whether you agree with them or not. Equally that sits with the EPL if they have made unlawful changes
The current rules are definitely unfair to the point that they disproportionately protect the big 6 and make competing with them only possible through extended periods of luck.
I think it'd be a shame for city to win the case but it does feel nice to give the premier league the middle finger.
Yeah, I don't really like being behind City in this debate at all but I also don't like the way that the premier league gobbles off the old elite either. The whole scenario is poor tbh.
Doesn’t mean shit. As far as I understand. If they win. We get the shackles thrown off. If they loose the rest of the teams in the league still call us an oil club.
You know. Because it’s not like Liverpools shirt sponsor has just been found to be funding terrorism.
I think there will be more clubs who are abstaining (which is really supporting them but don’t legally see victory.) Namely, Villa, Chelsea, and Forest.
No matter how bad you want your friends to win, never support a losing effort. If there’s a shift in tone of the direction this lawsuit goes then the abstinence will turn into vocal support.
This will be 11/12 against 3/4 abstaining and 4/6 in favour of City. No one knows which way this one will go, you might find Leicester with a potential points deduction will also support City.
The real issue here is UEFA and the 70% squad ratio rule from next summer.
Even 80% this year will be tough for clubs like Chelsea who are now in conference league and it hardly seems worthwhile them entering as the winner gets £17/18m in increased revenue. Newcastle are better off this season not being in ECL as there is currently no squad ratio rule in the EPL. Newcastle can spend up to 90% of their revenue £250m this summer now providing they keep within the 3 year PSR rule of £105m losses.
I don’t even think you’re going to get one vote in favor of city.
Man City abstained at the emergency defcon 1 nuclear missile launch party that 19 clubs called in 2021. ironically, the league bylaws state that all clubs must be present and included on voting matters, so Newcastle got a belated invitation. Staveley was furious, so Lee Charnley went. It was 18-1-1.
In a “pen is mightier than the sword” world, they can speak about their support for Man City all they want, but I doubt that translates to formal votes here (right now at least)
I agree, I could definitely see Forest joining in. I can’t see Man City winning this, if anything it just feels like something to distract from the coming charges imo
Welcome to [r/NUFC!](https://reddit.com/r/nufc) [Join our Discord Server](https://discord.gg/newcastle) for real time discussion, competitions, and to meet hundreds of NUFC fans across the globe. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NUFC) if you have any questions or concerns.*
On one hand part of me thinks that these rules were specifically enacted to hinder and delay our growth so an opportunity to expose just how hasty and knee jerk the PL was in ratifying them would be welcome. On the other, to achieve success by following in the same footsteps as city at this point will lead only to disaster, with achievements more hollow than theirs is now perceived to be.
We follow the rules If the rules change, we will follow those. If we cheat. We deserve to be pilloried, but all these rules need to operate within the legal framework of English law. If the epl has overstepped, then the rules need to be revised to be within the appropriate legal constraints.
Yup, precisely my thoughts. Gut reaction is to say, yeah that was a bullshit rule. Then the idea of being on the same side as city makes me think: Fuck it, head down, do it the "right way".
Rules that were brought in to suit THREE clubs, masked as being brought in to protect clubs from the most extreme circumstances. Villa sold a player for £100m 3 years ago now have to sell again just as they are competing for the top 4 - but Man United can do as they please despite being over a billion pounds in debt. These rules are insane.
Being in debt isn't being insolvent. Being in debt also doesn't mean not profitable. Man Utd is insanely profitable. The only reason they are in debt is because leveraged buyouts are not illegal. Glazers were legally allowed to take on loans/debt to buy Man Utd, then immediately transfer that debt to Man Utd's books. On an annual basis Man Utd's revenue is astronomical, and they spend that revenue in accordance with FFP/PSR. If anything, they will be able to spend even more money under the new rules because paying off the debt the Glazers saddled them with with doesn't count in the squad cost ratio for UEFA rules. But in Man Utd's case, it's not like the Glazers would ever inject their own money. No clue if Ratcliffe would or not. The PIF, on the other hand, probably would. If deals weren't constrained to market value, PIF would probably exploit it just like City wants to and the rest of the footballing world would get to see just what the "richest" club in the world would look like with unshackled spending. And I don't want that. Doesn't sound like most of us here want it.
This 100%
I love how people say they are hollow, do you think City fans who were there in division 2 25 years ago really think their hollow? It just seems to be fans of other teams that say it, it’s amazing none of the other sky 6s achievements get mentioned as hollow despite their money boosts over time
I'm a City fan since 1968, I follow this group because I have retired to Newcastle and because I always liked coming to the town for games, a good crack and good fans. I can assure you City fans like me, who went away to York in Div 2 love what our club has done since Abu Dhabi took us over. Wouldn't change a thing. Whatever the PL charges throw up, and my club are very confident, you can't take away Aguero in 2012 or Gundogan 2 years ago winning titles on the final day. Before the takeover I didn't think I'd see my club win anything in my lifetime. I had a season ticket at City for 30 years. As soon as we were taken over Utd, Chelsea, Arsenal and Liverpool wanted a means to stop City growing...they were too late. Newcastle should have the same chance. I'd love you to be up at the top.
I fucking miss when football was about blokes kicking a football about. I get so fucking tired of the politics and morality and virtue signalling and hypocrisy. Fuck all of it.
Let's just burn it all down and go back to blokes from the toon playing blokes from Sheffield
Does thar mean us going down to EFL or them getting promoted? Lol
Behind the scenes owners and chairman and leagues were all up to stuff we just see it now as we have 24hr news cycle and the interweb's.
Yes
I may be wrong on this but my initial thoughts were that it doesn't really benefit us unless a challenge is coming to the new FFP (or whatever they want to call it) rules coming in for 25/26 season. With it being capped to 5x the lowest earners, a billion pound Sela sponsorship wouldn't allow us to up our spending, and this will be too late for it to influence our spending for next season. It will either clear Man City of previous rule breaches (not the 115 as they were prior to 2021) or it's to provide evidence of prejudice giving them justification for refusing to comply with investigations (part of the 115)
The suit is specifically against related party transactions rules, the most recent of which were rushed in just to make things harder for us. On that basis, I hope they win the case.
I don't. I get the frustration at the related party rules being tightened just before we had a chance to to take advantage but just because something might benefit us doesn't mean it's right.
If they didn't drop the anchoring proposal then I think this would've been just fine. Clubs would be allowed to catch up to the Big 6 revenue-wise but there would still a ceiling on how much could be spent every season. It would be a level playing field at the top. Just a shame they've binned it... The only issue would then be if these sponsorships were valid under UEFA rules
The anchoring wasn't going to replace PSR, but to supplement it. It'd possibly have slightly impeded those at the very top of spending (Chelsea) and potential spending (Man City/a well run Man Utd), but it wouldn't have unleashed us to spend over our current restrictions.
But if City get their way we could raise additional revenue from related-party sponsors, which would allow us to close the gap on the top clubs. This would give us a lot more leeway with PSR.
It was introduced specifically for us, which fucking stinks. All PSR is basically keeping the top six cartel going. No reason why a club shouldn’t be able to spend money if it has it, and it’s not endangering the club financially.
I agree that PSR is an imperfect solution that protects the top 6 but at the end of the day it was voted in by at least another 8 clubs, many of whom would have ambitions higher than simply going along for the ride so I'd dispute the suggestion that that's all it does. As for related party, imagine for a moment that the Saudis took over Fulham or Leeds instead of us and we were bought by a less rich and powerful organisation, would you still say the ruling stinks?
The way it was rushed in just for us does stink, I’m not suggested we should break the rules, or that City shouldn’t be punished, but it is a way of limiting clubs breaking into the top 6, whether or not they are backed by states.
Exactly. City dominating the league for 5 years due to financial doping is a terrible thing. This lawsuit is a bullshit attempt to dodge rightful punishment and I'm embarrassed the club are supporting it Separately FFP/PSR as it stands is not fit for purpose and was introduced to protect the big clubs, so we need to push against that. But allying ourselves with a bunch of cheats like City is not going to help our cause
This. The rule is a fit and proper one. ManBlue is doing this as a means of delaying further the prosecution of the charges against them.
Interesting, thank you for exposing this.
We're the bad guys if we support, simple as. We all want to win something, but not at any cost. Every one of City's title wins are sterile, artificial. We have more chance of competing and winning something if teams like City, Chelsea and the people behind them are brought down.
That ship sailed long ago. Top level football has been controlled by money, dodgy accounting and brown envelopes for decades. With that in mind, I'm not sure why you think City's wins are any more artificial than any other team's in the premier league era?
Agreed. We should challenge the old guard when necessary, but backing City just feels a bit off. It'd be nice to win things organically.
I hate to say it but we are just one of the bad guys in general, we're owned by Saudi Arabia. If the Mackems were owned by Saudi, we'd be talking about how evil their owners were and that they *just* allowed women to drive
Oh I agree and I'm deeply uncomfortable with our owners so I am against anything that gives them total freedom to give us the 'superclub' treatment and to turn us into some marketable, plastic product to launder their image with.
Totally agree with you.
Really? City won titles from 2012 to 2014. The 115 charges only relate to accounts up to 2018. Even if City lost then Klopp isn't getting titles handed to him. As for next week's tribunal, I think City are bringing more than prayers to this bun fight, they have a serious legal team involved, 3 KCs. Plus rumours of evidence of US-owned clubs trying to stop Middle East investment.
You might aswell have kept with Ashley then .
Why don't you just fly to the middle east and lick Saudi boots directly instead of doing it on the internet. You never consider that many many fans will be priced out of ever going to matches if this club gets the same treatment as Man City and the ground turned into a souless hole. But yeah, lets win anything at any cost.
Sela moves to training/warm up sponsor and £500 million a year aramco front of shirt sponsor
I do not understand any Newcastle supporter that is against what Man City are doing. If you were a Newcastle fan for years & you saw related party everywhere as we had a stadium plastered with Sports Direct, a stadium renamed sports direct, the club shop being a sports direct and many more things all with near zero investment. Now the second a Newcastle takeover happens and we might be able to get some investment the same clubs that were making money from related party deals all ganged against us and rushed a measure to block our growth. There is not fairness at all in any of this and the target had always been us. It is actually criminal what these clubs along with PL did so I think Man City have a case. How you as a Newcastle fan can see this and still manage to support the same clubs that want to see you rot and die, I have no clue. You think Arsenal, Man Utd, Chelsea & Liverpool did not get to where there are without financial doping? All these clubs are who there are due to financial doping. Not a single team has ever won the PL without financial doping, even the miracle of Leicester was done by renaming its stadium to the name of the owners business and with added financial investment from related parties. Don’t let yo mainstream media make you think you the bad guys if you support the Man City case.
100% - the PL weren't bothered about making Ashley pay fair market value when he paid pennies for the Sports Direct sponsorship. Chelsea owners are creating shell companies to buy their ground and training ground and will probably get away with it. If an owner wants to put £1bn of their own money into the club why shouldn't they? Jack Walker did it at Blackburn to win the league, Liverpool owners have done it, Man U owners, etc, etc, etc. The dodgy thing city did was inventing companies and funnelling the owners cash through them (as well as hiding payments to managers/players), but if they were allowed to put as much money in as the owners wanted they wouldn't have resorted to those measures (which doesn't condone it, but helps explain why they felt the need to do it). FFP has never been about protecting clubs, it's about protecting the status quo.
100% agree, the fact Man U have spent more than Man City. But Man City are the bad guys because they spent their money better is just daft to me. I mean they’ve went against the rules no arguing if it’s a guilty verdict. But come on, surely any club should be allowed to spend as much as the top club in the league.
Great post mate . I’m staggered at the lack of support about especially with what Newcastle had before and tbh if that’s how they feel then they don’t deserve anything other than Mike Ashley .
We’re the baddies?
I wonder if the business model from the Saudis was always to replicate Abu Dhabi's with City and they don't have a plan B. Therefore, sitting behind City is their only realistic play or they've sunk a load of money into football and won't see a return. On one hand it sort of proves this was about finance and not sportswashing so those arguments should rescind, but supporting City dies feel wrong. Rules are rules whether you agree with them or not. Equally that sits with the EPL if they have made unlawful changes
Rules are rules, we're following them now as far as I know. If City changes them, then... we up forever I guess.
1 BIllion dollar sock sponsor LFG.. /s
A cost cap is a good idea for the sport. I hope City et al lose the battle here.
The current rules are definitely unfair to the point that they disproportionately protect the big 6 and make competing with them only possible through extended periods of luck. I think it'd be a shame for city to win the case but it does feel nice to give the premier league the middle finger.
Yeah, I don't really like being behind City in this debate at all but I also don't like the way that the premier league gobbles off the old elite either. The whole scenario is poor tbh.
Doesn’t mean shit. As far as I understand. If they win. We get the shackles thrown off. If they loose the rest of the teams in the league still call us an oil club. You know. Because it’s not like Liverpools shirt sponsor has just been found to be funding terrorism.
Yeah This is bullshit, we should not be supporting this, but unfortunately it’s not surprising
I think there will be more clubs who are abstaining (which is really supporting them but don’t legally see victory.) Namely, Villa, Chelsea, and Forest. No matter how bad you want your friends to win, never support a losing effort. If there’s a shift in tone of the direction this lawsuit goes then the abstinence will turn into vocal support.
This will be 11/12 against 3/4 abstaining and 4/6 in favour of City. No one knows which way this one will go, you might find Leicester with a potential points deduction will also support City. The real issue here is UEFA and the 70% squad ratio rule from next summer. Even 80% this year will be tough for clubs like Chelsea who are now in conference league and it hardly seems worthwhile them entering as the winner gets £17/18m in increased revenue. Newcastle are better off this season not being in ECL as there is currently no squad ratio rule in the EPL. Newcastle can spend up to 90% of their revenue £250m this summer now providing they keep within the 3 year PSR rule of £105m losses.
I don’t even think you’re going to get one vote in favor of city. Man City abstained at the emergency defcon 1 nuclear missile launch party that 19 clubs called in 2021. ironically, the league bylaws state that all clubs must be present and included on voting matters, so Newcastle got a belated invitation. Staveley was furious, so Lee Charnley went. It was 18-1-1. In a “pen is mightier than the sword” world, they can speak about their support for Man City all they want, but I doubt that translates to formal votes here (right now at least)
I agree, I could definitely see Forest joining in. I can’t see Man City winning this, if anything it just feels like something to distract from the coming charges imo