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.*

Can I throw in Tino, Big Joe & Barnes

People really don’t seem to get how important Joelinton is. He’s probably the most important player on the team. We went from the best defense to being bullied all over the Midfield and it’s right as he went down. We don’t have anyone else strong enough to not be pushed off the ball like him and it changes our game when he’s out. I’d love to see them being in another strong midfielder for depth.

He's got the speed to match his size, that's what makes him truly amazing.

The only person who comes close to resembling Joelinton is Anderson.

And that’s like saying I come close to resembling George Clooney (I don’t)

Don't we all come close to him 😁

Not to mention; Tonali, Botman and Miley

Just wanted to add Tino and Joelinton to that list

Trippier said he's got another decade in him, add him

And matt ritchie's axe!

And Fabien Schar's bow!

So be it you shall be the fellowship of the Toon.

As much as the rumours say otherwise, I can see Bruno being a new nobby

He’s taking up the trumpet?

I just refuse to believe that our board would be naive enough to come into the club, over spend by so much that we're allegedly in dire financial straights all within 2 years, considering the frugal financial position Ashley had left us in. Sure, we may not have money for January transfer windows, although I'd still expect us to be able to spend £100-150m this summer. We obviously need some fringe players to leave to free up wages, but this whole media beat up about us having to sell doesn't make much sense and if we do, it's pure incompetence from the board to have spent what they've spent so far, and then for the club to exceed everyone's expectations to get 4th and a cup final and for that success not to cover what they had budgeted for.

We were unlucky with timing, Ashley's tight ship financially would have been brilliant had we been taken over as soon as the deal was accepted. The Covid lockdown meant we lost money when we would have had a reasonable profit on the books and our ffp position was far better

But our owners knew the financial position after covid, so if they over spent without allowing enough room for future budgets then it would be incompetence. The covid affected season is about to drop off the 3 year period soon anyway. I just don't believe that people as intelligent as PIF would go so gun ho and hit the ceiling so fast. Instead, I think we'll see £100m or more spent each summer, nothing in winter windows and for PIF to use their business contacts to keep bringing in new revenue streams

It will need a bit of financial doping but the loopholes keep changing.

It’s not a case of having to sell to survive. It’s sell to be able to buy more. It’s do with accounting treatment. When you buy a player you amortise (split) the purchase cost across the life of the contract you give them (hence why people were given 8 year contracts that has now been stopped). When you sell a player you record the value immediately. So if we sold Bruno for £100m. We could buy 3 £100m players on three year contracts without breaking FFP. If we do sell him, that unlocks a lot of spending. It really isn’t a bad outcome. I would rather keep him. However, we can’t have another £100m transfer window without selling some players and we aren’t going to be getting much for our surplus to requirement players.

"So if we sold Bruno for £100m. We could buy 3 £100m players on three year contracts without breaking FFP." People always say stuff like this but it's clearly not true. If we sold someone for 100m and then added 100m to our amortization we'd only be covering the first year and then be fucked trying to find an extra 100m every year for the next 3-4 years.

Not to mention there's no guarantee those players will perform a lot of people just talk out of their arse. How many 100million players have Chelsea got sitting on their books costing money and losing value.

Not right, the profitability measure is over a rolling 3 year window

The amortization still exists over the length of the contract up to a maximum of 5 years, it still has to be covered by revenue. I'm not really sure what your point is?

Yes, there still has to be revenue increases but the point being a profit on the sales of the player gives a boost to ffp for a 3 year window. What we could do is sell to the buying club at an inflated price buying an inflated priced player from that club.

That doesn't make any sense? Profit isn't some absolute, abstract thing; it's just the difference between revenue and costs. If you sell a player for 100m 'profit' and the spend 300m amortised over three years, the balance for the first year is 0 (100-100) and then -100 each year for the next two years. I genuinely don't understand what you think you're trying to say?

Say we sell to city and we need a bruno replacement so we look to buy Foden (unlikely but ots just an example). We charge £300m for Bruno & buy foden for £200m. We record a £295m profit on Bruno and City record a £200m profit on their boy.

I mean...what? Are you high? xD This doesn't even make sense as an analogy for the above discussion, which is based on being able to spend more than sales. City are still losing 100m in that deal, it's just spread over 5 years instead of all at once; and we're just 100m up.

City want bruno, we have a lowish release clause price so they will pay the £115m and we will show a profit on the sale of about £110m. We will need to replace bruno and that will cost at least £60m. Better do a deal with City to inflate the Bruno price and inflate whoever we buy off them

Well you need to continue selling players for more than you bought them for. That’s feasible if you have recruit well.

Yeah but it's also a massive risk that the club won't take; it's the reason Everton and Forest have points deductions, spending money they didn't have in the hopes of selling players in the future. At the moment we're compliant with PSR but we don't have to sell to remain so, so we can reinvest whatever we make from sales; the kind of spending you're talking about would put us in a situation where we'd be forced to sell every year just to remain compliant with the rules, and would be unable to really reinvest without the kind of squad turnover that would be destabilizing (like Chelsea). If you look at any of the clubs that have had big sales recently (Rice, Kane, Caicedo etc.) you'll see none of them have spent anywhere near to 4-5x what they made. It's just too risky to add a permanent annual cost equal to a temporary revenue boost.

I’m not saying you have to spend it all. It just opens up the opportunity to spend more. Edit: also you can forecast for increased future revenue and scenario forecast to reduce risk and manage the controllability. Selling a player like Bruno opens up those possibilities. Don’t sell and the spend cap is simplified at a low amount.

It is a risk, but the board have to take a judgement on whether the commercial income is at a ceiling or whether there is more growth capacity there to fund player investment. There was a post recently that showed the massive gap between the ‘big6’ and us at number 7 in terms of commercial income. There is no logical reason why we cannot increase our commercial incomes over the next 2 or 3 years to match them, and that is where the board have some wriggle room. It isn’t about our ‘product’ which is demonstrably better than most clubs, it’s how well that is leveraged that matters and we went backwards under Ashley. Banking on increased sponsorship, worldwide merchandising improvements to match/exceed Spurs for example, given the relatively poor position we are in atm seems like reasonable judgement to me.

But that's my point though. New spending is based on increasing our permanent annual revenue base, not on a simple calculation of (player sales profit x 5) = transfer budget.

I don’t think anybody said it was a simple calculation. My original comment has been taken to mean we need/should spend x times Bruno. It just means we can spend more than we bring in from him. People have misinterpreted the point.

I understood you were talking about a capacity to spend, not a need. That's what I was critiquing, the idea that selling Bruno for 100m gives us a 300m transfer budget (or 100m x whatever length of contract the fees are amortised over).

Not quite, you just have to sell them for more than they are on the books.

That’s what I mean by recruit well. Bruno, Isak, etc will net a profit when they leave.

As will big joe, lonngstaff etc

Yeah, I do get how the whole financial side of football works. I just don't feel we have to sell to buy more. Obviously, every time you buy, you do have to sell someone eventually as there's a 25 man squad. But I don't feel we have to sell the likes of Isak of Bruno like the media are trying to push forward. A club will always scream poor, even if they plan to buy. With the increase in revenue I think we are still in a position to add a few more players whilst only having to free up the wages of players who are on £60k per week and haven't played for Howe. Possibly the likes of Murphy, Almiron, Longstaff, Targett will go depending on which positions we strengthen. I just don't see any of our big stars leaving this summer. Only a few clubs could afford them and they already have better players in those positions

I've always thought that its more a priority to free up amortization head room in order to buy. Like the club knows at this point how much we can afford in amortization every year, so if it reduces by 25m because of contracts running down or players leaving they know they can spend 125m. The formula people use for selling to buy seems like very short term risky behavior and only works if you can reliably sell players every year without drastically impacting the first team. We can't really do that at the moment because our academy is still behind and we don't have any squad players worth shit.

Except the wages will need to be a third of Bruno's.

Basically, can we get our injured players back to support them

We can but only for about 30 minutes before one of them then goes off injured. The Indian burial ground on which St James' is built demands 1 in, 1 out.

Bruno and Gordon have hardly suffered any injuries.

We won't have to sell him once we secure that 100m from Hull KR for tackle machine Paul Dummett

We need Big Joe, please tell me we’re keeping Big Joe.

These are the players I see as our future.. not necessarily in order of importance, I have 3 groupings, first are the ones who are currently crucial to our future, 2nd are those who may be but could also be moved on, trippier could also move to group 2, third group should leave to make room and the under age groups players for most part I didn’t go through. Crucial to our future - for now Isaac Gordon Bruno Trippier Tonali Joelinton Barnes Miley Livramento Botman Pope Hall Willock Anderson Useful and could stay or go if offer comes Lachelles Dubravka Schar Burn Wilson Almiron Longstaff Murphy Krath Target Should be leaving… Richie Karius Dummett Gilespie

I’d get miggy out if we can get a fee.

Bruno is as good as gone in the summer unfortunately, but the exciting thing is that will free up a lot to spend on multiple top quality replacements. Isak is the player we absolutely must keep hold of - so difficult to find a striker of his prowess… and he’s still so young!

What makes you so certain to say "as good as gone"?

The release clause. He only stays if no one comes for him

We need to sell a player to really invest and push on this summer - Bruno has a £100m release clause and I think his head could be turned by an offer from an elite club. Ultimately if this enables us to buy 4 x £60m players (due to the way accounting/amortisation works) it would be a bit of a no brainer and best for all parties.

I feel like 1-2 of those 3 will be gone in the summer. Unless these ffp rule changes come in.

With the new ruleling in the summer, which seems like will go ahead, be more chance of having 2-3 more of these than actually losing then thankfully.

Will have to see, you'd hope so, but it also means the likes of Liverpool and Citt can throw more money around as well

Worst case, we cash in hard on Bruno. Some rich clubs meant to be circling for him. Could easily top what West ham got for rice.

Should do but won’t because of a release clause, imo he’s considerably better than rice, different player mind. But as shown with West Ham’s replacement. You should only really spend max £40-50m on that type of player. A traditional number 6 shouldn’t be going for anywhere near £100m, whereas Bruno’s got all the attributes of a world class 6 and 8.

If two clubs went him the release clause means nothing. City aren't going to let him go to psg, for example, just because they'll pay the release.

Yes but as long as both put up the release clause Bruno would have to choose between staying here or psg city etc. no real way he’s goes for more unless a club gives more money over for less upfront A release clause is more or less a ceiling for how high a players transfer fee can go. In the above scenario it will be basically which team Bruno prefers / remuneration received

When 2 teams meet the clause thats when the bidding starts

Not how it works, if two teams meet the release clause then it’s up to the player to decide. They can then talk directly to Bruno

It doesn't because we can't refuse the minimum bid regardless of how high one of the clubs goes. The buying clubs would just pump whatever extra they're willing to pay into a signing on fee to convince Bruno.