[Albion] Yankuba Minteh SINGS on 5 year contract

[Zeberdi]

This is correct. Though I'd say that with us paying the £30m up front (rather than in instalments), I'd be quite surprised if the deal was favourable for Newcastle in terms of a sell-on. Seems that they needed the money in the accounts now, and they got that, I'm sure we'd not give them much additional to hold on to.

Unless you are buying a player out of his contract (as with a Spanish contract), then it would be very unusual not to pay transfer fees in instalments as they can be amortised for up to 5 years* and spread out the burden of purchasing new players over the duration of their contracts. (There will also be add ons in the form of appearances and performance and wage structure factored in..)

Re. PSR - As long as the contract was made before the deadline, that is all that matters afaia but I’m not clued up on that.

As for the sell-on, I would be very surprised if Newcastle had not insisted on that - the sell on percentage could be as much as 10-12% to help compensate for the loss they’ve almost certainly (bar career changing injury) incurred by selling him earlier than they might have wanted - the clause might even be more, depending on who we eventually sell him to. Without a sell on, we almost certainly would have been looking at a higher basic transfer fee.

(*Previously I think this 5 yr rule only applied to Clubs who were in UEFA - in the EPL, it was 10 years - so Chelsea’s long contracts stretching instalments over 8 or 9 years fell outside the scope of UEFA but any new contracts fees now will have to comply with the 5 yr amortisation limit.)

 

[The Fish]

Geordie here,

Torn on this one. Minteh is a really exciting prospect, he's been very very good in the Dutch league, we're arguably weakest at RW and there are plenty of other players I'd have preferred to move on ahead of him.

BUT, he's never kicked a ball in anger for us, we've no guarantee he'd be a success int he Prem, we've made a £25m+ profit on him in a year and he helps clear some of the PSR hole.

For what it's worth, I don't think the current iteration of PSR is fit for purpose. Aston Villa have just had their best ever PL season and are playing in the CL next season. Now they've been forced to sell one of their best players, aren't likely to get out of their CL group and are highly unlikely to finish top 4 again next season. All because they aren't allowed to invest further. It's nonsensical and damages the PL 'brand' internationally. Versus Chelsea selling themself a hotel to circumvent to rules so that they can stockpile even more players on prison contracts.

You're a really well run club and show that it is possible to get Midtable in the Premier League without gambling with the future of the club. I'd argue that it's highly unlikely you'll consistently get European competition without significant investment, and with the current PSR rules that's not going to happen.

It's broken.

 

[Springal]

Geordie here,

Torn on this one. Minteh is a really exciting prospect, he's been very very good in the Dutch league, we're arguably weakest at RW and there are plenty of other players I'd have preferred to move on ahead of him.

BUT, he's never kicked a ball in anger for us, we've no guarantee he'd be a success int he Prem, we've made a £25m+ profit on him in a year and he helps clear some of the PSR hole.

For what it's worth, I don't think the current iteration of PSR is fit for purpose. Aston Villa have just had their best ever PL season and are playing in the CL next season. Now they've been forced to sell one of their best players, aren't likely to get out of their CL group and are highly unlikely to finish top 4 again next season. All because they aren't allowed to invest further. It's nonsensical and damages the PL 'brand' internationally. Versus Chelsea selling themself a hotel to circumvent to rules so that they can stockpile even more players on prison contracts.

You're a really well run club and show that it is possible to get Midtable in the Premier League without gambling with the future of the club. I'd argue that it's highly unlikely you'll consistently get European competition without significant investment, and with the current PSR rules that's not going to happen.

It's broken.

Villa have spent astronomical amounts getting in to the Europa Conference League & now Champions League though. So I’d argue PSR is working ok because they effectively pushed boundaries to get to their perhaps ‘false’ decision

 

[Mancgull]

Villa have spent astronomical amounts getting in to the Europa Conference League & now Champions League though. So I’d argue PSR is working ok because they effectively pushed boundaries to get to their perhaps ‘false’ decision

But agree re Chelsea.

 

[jcdenton08]

Geordie here,

Torn on this one. Minteh is a really exciting prospect, he's been very very good in the Dutch league, we're arguably weakest at RW and there are plenty of other players I'd have preferred to move on ahead of him.

BUT, he's never kicked a ball in anger for us, we've no guarantee he'd be a success int he Prem, we've made a £25m+ profit on him in a year and he helps clear some of the PSR hole.

For what it's worth, I don't think the current iteration of PSR is fit for purpose. Aston Villa have just had their best ever PL season and are playing in the CL next season. Now they've been forced to sell one of their best players, aren't likely to get out of their CL group and are highly unlikely to finish top 4 again next season. All because they aren't allowed to invest further. It's nonsensical and damages the PL 'brand' internationally. Versus Chelsea selling themself a hotel to circumvent to rules so that they can stockpile even more players on prison contracts.

You're a really well run club and show that it is possible to get Midtable in the Premier League without gambling with the future of the club. I'd argue that it's highly unlikely you'll consistently get European competition without significant investment, and with the current PSR rules that's not going to happen.

It's broken.

Hi mate, thanks for your views. I personally don’t think the PSR rules are “broken” or unfair in any sense though, except to the poorer clubs. I think some clubs run their businesses very poorly, overpay (Everton), overspend (Chelsea) and then ironically spend even more money to find ways to abuse the systems in place to try and create parity.

The richest clubs haven’t treated PSR in good faith since the start, and they’ve had ages to get their affairs in order, but have continued to spend well beyond their earnings due to infinitely wealthy owners and a dismissive, downright arrogant attitude towards the rules in place with the belief that they are above punishment.

Bigger clubs already have an advantage in PSR accounting in that they have larger revenue streams through bigger stadiums, global income and by virtue of reputation with merchandising, match day income and global exposure. That should be the only advantage.

It isn’t though, because when you add ambitious, ludicrously wealthy owners (including foreign nation states) it adds another whole level of disparity between the Luton’s and the Manchester City’s.

If anything, PSR needs to work harder to close every loophole (such as the Chelsea hotel scam) and the cynical inter-trading of players such as youth players for hugely inflating prices.

 

[The Fish]

Villa have spent astronomical amounts getting in to the Europa Conference League & now Champions League though. So I’d argue PSR is working ok because they effectively pushed boundaries to get to their perhaps ‘false’ decision

Astronomical? Over the past 5yrs, they've spent c€145m net, so a little under €30m a season. Now that they are in the Champions League, they have to sell their best player, trade players with other PL clubs to magically create accounting wriggle room and they'll still be way behind the established teams in terms of spending power. Despite having sufficient liquid wealth to ensure no risk comes to the club itself.

Meanwhile Chelsea have sought every loophole they can to avoid the same kind of obstacles and Manchester United are reported to have £1bn worth of debt and yet still can spend pretty much whatever they like.

 

[Springal]

Astronomical? Over the past 5yrs, they've spent c€145m net, so a little under €30m a season. Now that they are in the Champions League, they have to sell their best player, trade players with other PL clubs to magically create accounting wriggle room and they'll still be way behind the established teams in terms of spending power. Despite having sufficient liquid wealth to ensure no risk comes to the club itself.

Meanwhile Chelsea have sought every loophole they can to avoid the same kind of obstacles and Manchester United are reported to have £1bn worth of debt and yet still can spend pretty much whatever they like.

PSR is less than 5 years isn’t it ? And how about wages?

 

[brighton_tom]

Geordie here,

Torn on this one. Minteh is a really exciting prospect, he's been very very good in the Dutch league, we're arguably weakest at RW and there are plenty of other players I'd have preferred to move on ahead of him.

BUT, he's never kicked a ball in anger for us, we've no guarantee he'd be a success int he Prem, we've made a £25m+ profit on him in a year and he helps clear some of the PSR hole.

For what it's worth, I don't think the current iteration of PSR is fit for purpose. Aston Villa have just had their best ever PL season and are playing in the CL next season. Now they've been forced to sell one of their best players, aren't likely to get out of their CL group and are highly unlikely to finish top 4 again next season. All because they aren't allowed to invest further. It's nonsensical and damages the PL 'brand' internationally. Versus Chelsea selling themself a hotel to circumvent to rules so that they can stockpile even more players on prison contracts.

You're a really well run club and show that it is possible to get Midtable in the Premier League without gambling with the future of the club. I'd argue that it's highly unlikely you'll consistently get European competition without significant investment, and with the current PSR rules that's not going to happen.

It's broken.

Chelsea are a whole different conversation in itself. But on your Villa example, they have spent a lot in recent years and there has to be some kind of cap to it, whether it's PSR or not. They had their best Prem season in years partly because they did up their spending. It doesnt really wash to say we should let them keep spending to help them get out of their Champions league group or to maintain the Prem brand. It's about longterm sustainability for everyone. The reasons you mention are what we typically hear from the big overspending clubs. In your own words we're a well run mid table club who got into Europe without overspending, so to say others should be able to keep spending to maintain european football just seems wrong & creates a constant tilt towards helping the top 6 clubs remain so.

 

[dazzer6666]

Astronomical? Over the past 5yrs, they've spent c€145m net, so a little under €30m a season. Now that they are in the Champions League, they have to sell their best player, trade players with other PL clubs to magically create accounting wriggle room and they'll still be way behind the established teams in terms of spending power. Despite having sufficient liquid wealth to ensure no risk comes to the club itself.

Meanwhile Chelsea have sought every loophole they can to avoid the same kind of obstacles and Manchester United are reported to have £1bn worth of debt and yet still can spend pretty much whatever they like.

Villa’s wage bill is the 6th highest in the PL according to reports, and almost double ours.

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

Manic Monday - The Bangals​

Three o'clock already
II was just cheering out the team
I was eating a piglets pie
and considering a nice ice cream

But then I see his name
The guy we've come here to see play
These are the days
When your footballing dreams are already made

[Chorus]
We've come to see Yankuba Minteh (woah woah)
Doesn't matter which day (woah woah)
He makes it a fun day (Woah, woah, woah, woah)
We just wanna watch him play (Woah, woah)
We've come to see Yankuba Minteh

 

[Springal]

Villa’s wage bill is the 6th highest in the PL according to reports, and almost double ours.

£120M loss in 22/23

 

[The Fish]

Chelsea are a whole different conversation in itself. But on your Villa example, they have spent a lot in recent years and there has to be some kind of cap to it, whether it's PSR or not. They had their best Prem season in years partly because they did up their spending. It doesnt really wash to say we should let them keep spending to help them get out of their Champions league group or to maintain the Prem brand. It's about longterm sustainability for everyone. The reasons you mention are what we typically hear from the big overspending clubs. In your own words we're a well run mid table club who got into Europe without overspending, so to say others should be able to keep spending to maintain european football just seems wrong & creates a constant tilt towards helping the top 6 clubs remain so.

Sorry, think there's been some misunderstanding. I'm all for a cap, some kind of limit to what a club can fritter away on expensive gambles like Mudryk or Antony. But that cap shouldn't be to the benefit of the established teams, or to the uber-wealthy, but more to the benefit of the chasing pack. Something to restrict the largesse of them, without hobbling those below.

A wage cap makes sense in theory, though any kind of limit to wages where it isn't a closed system will see the best players going to wherever wages are not restricted.
A cap anchored to the amount the least wealthy Premier League club brings in also makes sense.

The issue with PSR for me is that the best commercial deals go to the successful clubs, who are successful because they can pay the biggest wages and buy the best players, which means they get into the prestigious competitions and win prestigious trophies, which means they get the best commercial deals and can pay the.....

A club like Brighton can be run brilliantly, can find great players, trade them for big sums and reinvest that money, but until their commercial revenue compares with that of the established, they are doomed to stay where they are and consistently selling their best players. Who do you sell your best players to? The established teams. So you spend the time and money scouting the player, bed them into the league (and often the country), coach them well for a season or so, then Chelsea, Liverpool or whomever come along and reap the benefit. So they stay in the European conversation, which gets them more favourable commercial deals, which means they can spend more money, which means they can afford to poach your best players, again.

How is that promoting competition?

 

[ConfusedGloryHunter]

I hope the thread police don't baton charge this PSR discussion

 

[dazzer6666]

Good interview……

 

[Gabbiano]

"PSR is great apart from how it's affecting my club!"

I've generally got on with all the Newcastle fans that I've met, but maybe a little more perspective is needed.

Since the Saudi takeover, Newcastle is not one of the poor victimised others. The club has spent huge amounts of money chasing CL football to be a vehicle for Saudi sport washing. They just haven't been as clever at it as Man City (or perhaps not enough time to convincingly plump up their income figures with fake sponsorships and contracts).

Yes, the system benefits the very richest clubs. Yes Chelsea are taking the absolute piss and should have the book thrown at them. Yes, clubs like Everton, Forest, Newcastle, Villa and Leicester have consistently spent beyond their means and this is the consequence.

No sympathy from me.

The clubs who I do feel sorry for are the newly promoted ones who would need to invest in the best part of a squad in order to compete, but can't because their income isnt big enough.

Newcastle and Villa? Nah.

 

[The Fish]

"PSR is great apart from how it's affecting my club!"

I've generally got on with all the Newcastle fans that I've met, but maybe a little more perspective is needed.

Since the Saudi takeover, Newcastle is not one of the poor victimised others. The club has spent huge amounts of money chasing CL football to be a vehicle for Saudi sport washing. They just haven't been as clever at it as Man City (or perhaps not enough time to convincingly plump up their income figures with fake sponsorships and contracts).

Man City didn't have the regulations to comply with. There was no PSR/FFP, there were no rules against commercial deals with associated parties, there were no rules against buying or selling between associated football clubs. We've been compliant and have made great strides in commercial deals, and made 2 of our 3 biggest ever sales in this summer alone. Our issue is a hangover from the Ashley days. He put no money into the squad depth, or the academy, so we have few saleable assets.

Yes, the system benefits the very richest clubs. Yes Chelsea are taking the absolute piss and should have the book thrown at them. Yes, clubs like Everton, Forest, Newcastle, Villa and Leicester have consistently spent beyond their means and this is the consequence.

No sympathy from me.

The clubs who I do feel sorry for are the newly promoted ones who would need to invest in the best part of a squad in order to compete, but can't because their income isnt big enough.

Newcastle and Villa? Nah.

Ourselves and Villa and others have been spending beyond our means for decades, way way before any notion of PSR or FFP was even a twinkle in the eye. Forget about us and Villa. What about you? Say you finish in 6th position this season, UEFA rules means you can only spend 70% of your revenue on wages, transfers and agent fees. Your revenue is about £200m, isn't it? So that's c£140m on transfers, wages and agent fees.

Meanwhile Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City, Man Utd and Spurs can all spend 70% of their revenue, or anywhere between c£325m-500m. They can buy your best players (again), take your coach (again), and then you need another season where you get everything right just to stay where you are.

What about Brentford? or West Ham? How can they be the very best version of themselves, when PSR is essentially the rope pulled up after the established teams? Without consistent European competition, they can't increase their commercial revenue, which means they can't match the spending power of the established clubs, which means any 'success' is fleeting and not attractive to commercial partners. PSR is anticompetitive, protectionist, horseshit.

 

[Gabbiano]

Man City didn't have the regulations to comply with. There was no PSR/FFP, there were no rules against commercial deals with associated parties, there were no rules against buying or selling between associated football clubs. We've been compliant and have made great strides in commercial deals, and made 2 of our 3 biggest ever sales in this summer alone. Our issue is a hangover from the Ashley days. He put no money into the squad depth, or the academy, so we have few saleable assets.


Ourselves and Villa and others have been spending beyond our means for decades, way way before any notion of PSR or FFP was even a twinkle in the eye. Forget about us and Villa. What about you? Say you finish in 6th position this season, UEFA rules means you can only spend 70% of your revenue on wages, transfers and agent fees. Your revenue is about £200m, isn't it? So that's c£140m on transfers, wages and agent fees.

Meanwhile Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool, Man City, Man Utd and Spurs can all spend 70% of their revenue, or anywhere between c£325m-500m. They can buy your best players (again), take your coach (again), and then you need another season where you get everything right just to stay where you are.

What about Brentford? or West Ham? How can they be the very best version of themselves, when PSR is essentially the rope pulled up after the established teams? Without consistent European competition, they can't increase their commercial revenue, which means they can't match the spending power of the established clubs, which means any 'success' is fleeting and not attractive to commercial partners. PSR is anticompetitive, protectionist, horseshit.

The model that Brighton have is based in the reality that we are a medium sized club punching above our weight, and it will be extremely difficult to maintain a position competing for European spots every season. This is why the club pivoted to targeting profits from player sales.

I am under no illusions to say that this will last forever. Eventually, the gold dust will run out and we will be relegated. This is part of the cycle. Other fans admittedly are not so pragmatic.

The biggest clubs do have the biggest resources available to spend (assuming for the moment that the numbers aren't pumped up, which we know in some cases they are). They therefore buy the best players off other teams, as has always been the case. The difference now is with the global branding and reach that these clubs have they can attract orders of magnitude more income than before.

But is the answer to that to falsely pump up the next tier of clubs with sugar daddy or state investment fund money, leaving them high and dry should the sugar daddy disappear later, and the community without that asset?

Wouldn't it be more productive and fair to revisit the distribution of PL income?

PSR is far from a perfect system, but I don't buy the argument that unsustainable spending must be allowed in order to challenge the big 6.

And it goes without saying that Chelsea and Man City need to be held accountable for their PSR shenanigans just the same as the other clubs.

 

[dazzer6666]

Exclusive: Eddie Howe 'Very Disappointed' After £30m Newcastle Deal

The move has not gone down well behind the scenes 😮

www.givemesport.com

 

[Weststander]

Villa have spent astronomical amounts getting in to the Europa Conference League & now Champions League though. So I’d argue PSR is working ok because they effectively pushed boundaries to get to their perhaps ‘false’ decision

 

[Greg Bobkin]

Crap puns aside, this is a bit of a strange one, in that we’re buying from a club who have effectively “flipped” a young player for profit. That’s supposed to be us doing that!

I think it's a calculated punt at a higher than normal (recent) price. Maybe the club think they can do another Caicedo with this fella and/or Beleba (he was pretty pricy, no?) so it's profit, just not as much as MC.

Unless Chelsea Todd gets involved and offers £600m for the pair...