The most concerning financial journo article yet!

[Swizzlestick]

While I'm not exactly unconcerned about the current ownership situation, Tariq Panja is coming across a troublemaker looking for a headline. What on earth did he expect in response to that question? There isn't an owner in the country who'd start rattling through relegation scenarios with a journalist. Kieran Maguire is another one who just seems to go with the prevailing wind and strikes me as a bit of a chancer.

[ClaretPete001]

We are a long way from the scenario you are hypothesising using guessed numbers.

So far on this thread we’ve seen people suggest some payments disappear, others suggest that payments are due immediately, suggestions MSD will want capital payments along with interest payments (this seems nonsensical to me but never mind), suggestions John B gets his money between now and 2025.

Nobody knows any of the facts bar those involved yet all the scenarios suggested work on worst case.

The problem is, as I said above, people who don’t know/understand look here for info and your hypothesis becomes bar room fact.

There has always been an element of high suspicion of foreign owners on this board and an immediate expectation that it inevitably turns bad…..the number of clubs here this has come to pass is minimal.

Another fact completely overlooked is that the two clubs that I would suggest that have come closest to complete capitulation are Bolton and now it seems Derby…….an interesting fact for you, both were owned by lifelong fans at the point it went tits up!

So stop worrying, what will be, will be and there is an awful lot of water to flow under many bridges before any of it comes to pass.

You haven't referenced any guessed numbers so...

If you want to point to them I will try to explain or offer an apology if I have got something wrong. More than happy to do that...

In terms of your point regarding MSD I presume they will want their money back at some point. Even so, paying high interest rates on big loans is not sensible, particularly, if the loans were not taken to generate more income

[Jakubclaret]

While I'm not exactly unconcerned about the current ownership situation, Tariq Panja is coming across a troublemaker looking for a headline. What on earth did he expect in response to that question? There isn't an owner in the country who'd start rattling through relegation scenarios with a journalist. Kieran Maguire is another one who just seems to go with the prevailing wind and strikes me as a bit of a chancer.

But there isn’t another owner who’s presiding over a club heavily in debt with more than half the team out of the contract in the summer facing relegation that within itself is unique.

[claretonthecoast1882]

But there isn’t another owner who’s presiding over a club heavily in debt with more than half the team out of the contract in the summer facing relegation that within itself is unique.

Who were the last 3 prominent people in football to agree to an interview with this journo ?

[Jakubclaret]

Who were the last 3 prominent people in football to agree to an interview with this journo ?

I read snippets all the time, Steve parish, radrizzani, ect owners talking to the press it’s not taboo.

[claretonthecoast1882]

I read snippets all the time, Steve parish, radrizzani, ect owners talking to the press it’s not taboo.

Cheers is there a link to the interviews between any of these owners and Tariq ?

[Swizzlestick]

But there isn’t another owner who’s presiding over a club heavily in debt with more than half the team out of the contract in the summer facing relegation that within itself is unique.

We aren't relegated though, it wouldn't matter if this identical scenario was replicated with a different owner, it would be tantamount to lunacy to start discussing hypothetical relegation scenarios with a journalist from the New York Times.

[ClaretTony]

I’ve heard more from Alan Pace in 13
Months than I heard from Mike Garlick in the best part of 10 years.

Garlick was joint chairman for three years and then chairman for a further five and a half years but throughout that time he employed a CEO so less need to speak.

[ClaretPete001]

We aren't relegated though, it wouldn't matter if this identical scenario was replicated with a different owner, it would be tantamount to lunacy to start discussing hypothetical relegation scenarios with a journalist from the New York Times.

That is a fair point; however, with regard to your point above Maguire is a respected academic and not a chancer.

It is using words like "shonky" and describing well respected academics as chancers that cause problems in any debate.

[Jakubclaret]

We aren't relegated though, it wouldn't matter if this identical scenario was replicated with a different owner, it would be tantamount to lunacy to start discussing hypothetical relegation scenarios with a journalist from the New York Times.

He isn’t the first person though other people have also unsuccessfully failed, nobody at this moment in time are claiming we are relegated it’s discussing what would happen in that eventuality & how the debt will be serviced with a far lower turnover. I’m not aware of people asking deep probing questions it is really run of the mill stuff.

[Bordeauxclaret]

But there isn’t another owner who’s presiding over a club heavily in debt with more than half the team out of the contract in the summer facing relegation that within itself is unique.

Which team had more than half out of contract in the summer?

[Jakubclaret]

Which team had more than half out of contract in the summer?

I’m not exactly sure how many we have out of contract but I suspect it’s more than a few & extensions or goodbyes will happen, please enlighten me?

[ClaretTony]

I’m not exactly sure how many we have out of contract but I suspect it’s more than a few & extensions or goodbyes will happen, please enlighten me?

Contract details at link
https://www.uptheclarets.com/players/squad-list

[Swizzlestick]

That is a fair point; however, with regard to your point above Maguire is a respected academic and not a chancer.

It is using words like "shonky" and describing well respected academics as chancers that cause problems in any debate.

Perhaps 'chancer' is a bit strong but I don't think he's as au fait with the details as he likes to think he is. Also he tends to come up with what I'd call hollow statistics - "30% chance each year of losing your prime revenue" e.g.

[Jakubclaret]

Contract details at link
https://www.uptheclarets.com/players/squad-list

Thanks, that’s concerning. The site I checked 10 was the number all expiring in June/July I knew it was a fair old number which probably more than justifies my comment more than half a team, palace had a similar situation & I can’t recall Steve parish refusing to speak to the press when questioned on it.

[claretonthecoast1882]

Thanks, that’s concerning. The site I checked 10 was the number all expiring in June/July I knew it was a fair old number which probably more than justifies my comment more than half a team, palace had a similar situation & I can’t recall Steve parish refusing to speak to the press when questioned on it.

not having a desire to speak to either simple Simon or this Tariq fella has really got to you

[Chester Perry]

Garlick was joint chairman for three years and then chairman for a further five and a half years but throughout that time he employed a CEO so less need to speak.

I have been quite vocal about the need for a chairman to keep his counsel and stay out of the media spotlight in the past - and got a few pelters for it. Pace appears to like the media when it is nice and friendly (he has his go to's), though there are definite suggestions he really doesn't like being questioned or challenged. I have heard he can really be quite aggressive/unpleasant in private communication, veering towards threatening in some instances, which reminds me of Bob Lord for some reason. It is clear he would not have had the career he has had without having that in him, the global finance industry is not for the faint hearted. For all his utterances I haven't heard him really add anything to what he said in the meet and greet press conference in early January last year - I cannot complain about the content and as you say without a Chief Exec someone needs to be visible.

So in essence he has made a lot of public utterances but had essentially repeated what has been said previously, add nothing of substance to a press conference where he said very little of substance.

On the substance front while I like many others am curious about the detail (and perhaps I am more curious than most) I cannot complain about a chairman doing what I have long argued a chairman should do. I just wish I didn't have to see that grin quite so often. For some reason that reminds me of ruthless financier Sir James Goldsmith who famously smiled more the worse things were or the more ruthless he was about to be.

[Bordeauxclaret]

Ah so it’s half ‘a’ team now not half ‘the’ team.

Excellent.

[Jakubclaret]

Ah so it’s half ‘a’ team now not half ‘the’ team.

Excellent.

You ram on splitting hairs it’s double figures.

[TheFamilyCat]

Thanks, that’s concerning. The site I checked 10 was the number all expiring in June/July I knew it was a fair old number which probably more than justifies my comment more than half a team, palace had a similar situation & I can’t recall Steve parish refusing to speak to the press when questioned on it.

Some of those players will be offered new contracts, others will be released and replaced.

Why do you need someone to waste their time going on Talksport to say that?

And you believe Simon Jordan over the manager of Burnley Football Club over the Chris Wood release clause so you are unlikely to accept anything anyone from the club might say.

[Bordeauxclaret]

You ram on splitting hairs it’s double figures.

Well it’s important in this case to the lame point you trying to make about the club being in chaos.

In reality we have a couple of regular first team starters, a few back ups and a few kids out of contract.

[ClaretPete001]

Perhaps 'chancer' is a bit strong but I don't think he's as au fait with the details as he likes to think he is. Also he tends to come up with what I'd call hollow statistics - "30% chance each year of losing your prime revenue" e.g.

To be fair some would call it mathematics - Bayesian probability.

It's how climate science works or stock market predictions etc.

[Jakubclaret]

Well it’s important in this case to the lame point you trying to make about the club being in chaos.

In reality we have a couple of regular first team starters, a few back ups and a few kids out of contract.

Ok then if it’s not important the players won’t need replacing then. The club is in complete disarray mark my words it’s just not that noticeable yet.

[spt_claret]

Ah so it’s half ‘a’ team now not half ‘the’ team.

Excellent.

Splitting hairs and playing semantics is negative debate tactics not positive argument and I despise its proliferation.
We have out of contract in the summer:
Mee- guaranteed starter
Tarks- guaranteed starter
Barnes- relegated to backup former starter
Vydra- squad player, usually backup, occasionally starter
Cork-relegated to backup former starter
Stephens- backup
Pieters- squad player, only LB cover
Lennon- squad player only recognised RM cover
Bardsley- backup
Jay- former backup, now a likely starter- if not him then Lennon
Given our already small squad, you can reasonably expect 6-7 of these ten to start double figures a season due to injuries. This leaves us with no recognisable option in certain positions for 20-25% of a season, and for our defence and frontline the first choices are gone and we hav no backup to the promoted backup. We generally play two forwards- we face having one recognised striker.
Let's assume for argument sake they all go,but nobody else leaves. Our squad becomes:
Pope
Roberts/Lowton Long Collins Taylor
JBG Westwood Brownhill McNeil
Cornet Weghorst
With absolutely no first team backup or substitute options for any except the right back slot and Hennessey for Pope. Whatever happens we face a colossal recruitment drive this summer, staying up should secure Mee, if we drop I'm doubtful, you can say "well we can extend the current expiries" sure and they may well take a wage cut, but they are aging and it is kicking the can down the road and hoping they're good enough to still win promotion.
If we stay up we have a better chance at recruitment due to both Premier League status attracting players and better finances but history says we will still be having to take a punt on hopefuls or short term options for the majority, and not tangibly strengthen until we have more stability. If we drop, the financial impact and status loss makes recruitment harder and outgoings more likely and results in possibly having to take punts at championship level or bet the ranch and heighten the risk of disaster.
It's an enormous job either way and infinitely harder if we drop. I'm not expecting us to outline our entire transfer strategy, but people are right to be worried at the avoidance of difficult questions because even tougher ones are looming this summer either way.

[Rombald]

To be fair some would call it mathematics - Bayesian probability.

It's how climate science works or stock market predictions etc.

Not quite. How do pure mathematics work out the 30% probability. I'm intrigued. Too many assumptions I'm afraid

[Rombald]

Not quite. How do pure mathematics work out the 30% probability. I'm intrigued. Too many assumptions I'm afraid

I must add, I respect and like Kieran Maguire and he isn't a chancer at all

[Bordeauxclaret]

Splitting hairs and playing semantics is negative debate tactics not positive argument and I despise its proliferation.
We have out of contract in the summer:
Mee- guaranteed starter
Tarks- guaranteed starter
Barnes- relegated to backup former starter
Vydra- squad player, usually backup, occasionally starter
Cork-relegated to backup former starter
Stephens- backup
Pieters- squad player, only LB cover
Lennon- squad player only recognised RM cover
Bardsley- backup
Jay- former backup, now a likely starter- if not him then Lennon
Given our already small squad, you can reasonably expect 6-7 of these ten to start double figures a season due to injuries. This leaves us with no recognisable option in certain positions for 20-25% of a season, and for our defence and frontline the first choices are gone and we hav no backup to the promoted backup. We generally play two forwards- we face having one recognised striker.
Let's assume for argument sake they all go,but nobody else leaves. Our squad becomes:
Pope
Roberts/Lowton Long Collins Taylor
JBG Westwood Brownhill McNeil
Cornet Weghorst
With absolutely no first team backup or substitute options for any except the right back slot and Hennessey for Pope. Whatever happens we face a colossal recruitment drive this summer, staying up should secure Mee, if we drop I'm doubtful, you can say "well we can extend the current expiries" sure and they may well take a wage cut, but they are aging and it is kicking the can down the road and hoping they're good enough to still win promotion.
If we stay up we have a better chance at recruitment due to both Premier League status attracting players and better finances but history says we will still be having to take a punt on hopefuls or short term options for the majority, and not tangibly strengthen until we have more stability. If we drop, the financial impact and status loss makes recruitment harder and outgoings more likely and results in possibly having to take punts at championship level or bet the ranch and heighten the risk of disaster.
It's an enormous job either way and infinitely harder if we drop. I'm not expecting us to outline our entire transfer strategy, but people are right to be worried at the avoidance of difficult questions because even tougher ones are looming this summer either way.

Another way to look at it
Tarks - gone
Mee - wants to stay we’ll see what happens

Cork - has the option of another year
Barnes - has the option of another year

The others will need replacing if they/we decide to go but hardly ever play so it’s a good time to shift out and improve.
Bardsley of course has already been replaced and is third choice.


I’m hardly seeing the “chaos” in this.

[ClaretPete001]

Not quite. How do pure mathematics work out the 30% probability. I'm intrigued. Too many assumptions I'm afraid

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_ ... %20belief.

[claretonthecoast1882]

Splitting hairs and playing semantics is negative debate tactics not positive argument and I despise its proliferation.
We have out of contract in the summer:
Mee- guaranteed starter
Tarks- guaranteed starter
Barnes- relegated to backup former starter
Vydra- squad player, usually backup, occasionally starter
Cork-relegated to backup former starter
Stephens- backup
Pieters- squad player, only LB cover
Lennon- squad player only recognised RM cover
Bardsley- backup
Jay- former backup, now a likely starter- if not him then Lennon
Given our already small squad, you can reasonably expect 6-7 of these ten to start double figures a season due to injuries. This leaves us with no recognisable option in certain positions for 20-25% of a season, and for our defence and frontline the first choices are gone and we hav no backup to the promoted backup. We generally play two forwards- we face having one recognised striker.
Let's assume for argument sake they all go,but nobody else leaves. Our squad becomes:
Pope
Roberts/Lowton Long Collins Taylor
JBG Westwood Brownhill McNeil
Cornet Weghorst
With absolutely no first team backup or substitute options for any except the right back slot and Hennessey for Pope. Whatever happens we face a colossal recruitment drive this summer, staying up should secure Mee, if we drop I'm doubtful, you can say "well we can extend the current expiries" sure and they may well take a wage cut, but they are aging and it is kicking the can down the road and hoping they're good enough to still win promotion.
If we stay up we have a better chance at recruitment due to both Premier League status attracting players and better finances but history says we will still be having to take a punt on hopefuls or short term options for the majority, and not tangibly strengthen until we have more stability. If we drop, the financial impact and status loss makes recruitment harder and outgoings more likely and results in possibly having to take punts at championship level or bet the ranch and heighten the risk of disaster.
It's an enormous job either way and infinitely harder if we drop. I'm not expecting us to outline our entire transfer strategy, but people are right to be worried at the avoidance of difficult questions because even tougher ones are looming this summer either way.

2 guaranteed starters and only 1 of them certain to leave. Only on here could we have people complaining about the age of the squad then worried about letting players like Lennon, Bardlsey & Stephens go

[Chester Perry]

...The amount of monies now available to Premier League clubs via central distribution is about to get bigger, this will not be reflected in Parachute Payments as the growth is coming from overseas income, their value will be the same as this cycle which is actually less than cycle prior to that. Parachutes still provide a distinct advantage though, particularly when combined with sustained development spend while in the Premier League. We are now in a situation where there are only around 25 or so clubs have a realistic opportunity to benefit from Premier League monies on a regular basis - with at least half that amount looking like being permanent fixtures going forward given the funds being lavished on them to try and ensure that end.

Some news on this front - it appears that the Premier League has raised the fixed distribution from Overseas TV rights next season which on the face of it will see an increase in Parachute Payments and solidarity payments to the EFL - however there is also a warning that the way Parachute Payments are calculated is up for reconsideration

Overall looking like a £1.3 billion increase in revenues over the cycle - given the length of the big deals the growth for the following cycle is likely to be flatter.

https://outline.com/UjcHkL

[ClaretPete001]

2 guaranteed starters and only 1 of them certain to leave. Only on here could we have people complaining about the age of the squad then worried about letting players like Lennon, Bardlsey & Stephens go

Yes but you have to replace them and the point is that they have accrued no value.

Letting players go when they have reached the age of 34 is bad business and problematic.

That's self evident isn't it?

[Rombald]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_ ... %20belief.

I can search myself thanks. I didn't need to as it happens.
The 30% is finger in the air , not mathematics .

[claretonthecoast1882]

Yes but you have to replace them and the point is that they have accrued no value.

Letting players go when they have reached the age of 34 is bad business and problematic.

That's self evident isn't it?

Only if you have an agenda and ignore the others who are sold at quite high profits. There is a reason why clubs have squads.

[ClaretPete001]

Some news on this front - it appears that the Premier League has raised the fixed distribution from Overseas TV rights next season which on the face of it will see an increase in Parachute Payments and solidarity payments to the EFL - however there is also a warning that the way Parachute Payments are calculated is up for reconsideration

Overall looking like a £1.3 billion increase in revenues over the cycle - given the length of the big deals the growth for the following cycle is likely to be flatter.

https://outline.com/UjcHkL

The reality is that it is going to kill the game because the stakes will get so high that even the big 6 won't be able to live with it.

Particularly, the American owned clubs that have risky business models.

The big 6 (at least) will eventually form that European league - it's only a matter of time.

[Lancasterclaret]

The reality is that it is going to kill the game because the stakes will get so high that even the big 6 won't be able to live with it.

Particularly, the American owned clubs that have risky business models.

The big 6 (at least) will eventually form that European league - it's only a matter of time.

Yes

All I would say to that is don't let the door hit them on their way out

[aggi]

But there isn’t another owner who’s presiding over a club heavily in debt with more than half the team out of the contract in the summer facing relegation that within itself is unique.

There's Watford. Heavily in debt, 5 players out of contract (we can call that half a team I reckon) and facing relegation.

I've not seen any interviews with Gino Pozzo recently.

[ClaretPete001]

Only if you have an agenda and ignore the others who are sold at quite high profits. There is a reason why clubs have squads.

What agenda - you made a point about the problem of older players leaving the club. That is the problem of having a lot of older players you have to replace then and you also have to replace the players who leave for a fee.

It doesn't matter who leaves they have to be replaced whether for a fee or otherwise.

[spt_claret]

2 guaranteed starters and only 1 of them certain to leave. Only on here could we have people complaining about the age of the squad then worried about letting players like Lennon, Bardlsey & Stephens go

Youre missing the point.
Starter or backup or rotation they are players we need to replace sooner or later- I happen to think a number would still be very good at championship level so if we got relegated worth a one year extension but that just delays the process.
I pointed out that we COULD (Not will, but could) face a scenario where we only have first team alternates for 2 of the xi and one of those is goalkeeper. Before any player sales- and McNeil, Pope, Cornet, and Weghorst could all be expected to be in the shop window, possibly Taylor and Roberts (though in truth I think we would keep both for at least one year).
Either way that necessitates replacements or extensions, and that means one of 4 things- replacing with comparable or weaker backups (a problem for bouncing back in the championship especially), taking a punt (risky either way probably more feasible in the championship but better chance of attracting a gem in the Prem), betting the ranch (which risks total disaster) or renewing and hoping (which might well work in the championship but just delays the problem).
I do believe we can stay up, but the fact is even if we do we have a massive summer task ahead, and if we DON'T then that problem amplifies as while some things are mitigated, other factors worsen. And all of this affects and is affected by the finances

[ClaretPete001]

Yes

All I would say to that is don't let the door hit them on their way out

I actually agree; however, many clubs would then have a big problem because their business models are based on big TV revenue, which would follow the big 6. That is the problem.

[spt_claret]

Only if you have an agenda and ignore the others who are sold at quite high profits. There is a reason why clubs have squads.

Its agenda seeking to consider it a problem to replace players and we can replace them by.... spending the money from selling our best remaining players?
Do you see the self defeating nature of this argument?
You think we can comfortably replace first choice and squad players because we can sell first choice players. Barring superhuman scouting and transfer haggling this weakens the squad, which weakens prospects of survival or bouncing back

[claretonthecoast1882]

Its agenda seeking to consider it a problem to replace players and we can replace them by.... spending the money from selling our best remaining players?
Do you see the self defeating nature of this argument?
You think we can comfortably replace first choice and squad players because we can sell first choice players. Barring superhuman scouting and transfer haggling this weakens the squad, which weakens prospects of survival or bouncing back

No an agenda is when ignore the age of all the players in the squad, the players sold at good profits and talk purely of the players aged 34 and of no value.

[Lancasterclaret]

I actually agree; however, many clubs would then have a big problem because their business models are based on big TV revenue, which would follow the big 6. That is the problem.

Yes

Would that be a bad thing long term?

I don't think so

[aggi]

To be fair, I didn't contradict Paul others did. In fact, I got pulled up on it and issued a mea culpa. I have always used Paul's figures to cast ALK in the best light.

You also conjectured on ALK being able to sell the ground at a profit and a number of other things. And again I gave you a fact - £80 million quid in the bank - and you speculate it is going to be less than that...! You do it without realising.

The reality is that the facts as we know them are troubling. Your speculation that ALK can sell the ground or find revenue from other sources is just that ... speculation. From my perspective, it is that speculation, which distorts the debate. The media has latched onto the club it because it is self evidently problematic.

With all due respect your assertions the article is "shonky" based on what Watford are doing is not helpful. From my perspective, the article is self evidently, at least, justifiable - Burnley probably are the least best prepared to cope with relegation - you night disagree but you can hardly say that with the certainty that would let you describe it as "shonky".

I don't remember saying they could sell the ground at a profit (a profit on what? I've no idea what the cost would be) or that they could sell the ground, I think you're mixing me up with someone else there.

Fair point on the £80m, I should have said it's very unlikely. Given that the only reason we had £80m in the bank was there was £30m+ of Premier League money for the upcoming season that had just been received it's very unlikely we would have had that amount if we'd gone down.

I'm not sure why people talking about other revenue streams is speculation but suggesting that £120m or so of debt will need to be paid back by Burnley FC if we get relegated isn't. Again, I've no issue with speculation, conjecture or assumptions. Just that it should be clear when that's what things are.

I described it as shonky on the basis of not getting simple facts right or omitting them and inconsistency between the comments. It's a puff piece, not one to take too seriously.

[Chester Perry]

The reality is that it is going to kill the game because the stakes will get so high that even the big 6 won't be able to live with it.

Particularly, the American owned clubs that have risky business models.

The big 6 (at least) will eventually form that European league - it's only a matter of time.

Have you seen how much UEFA's club competitions are generating in the next cycle - and that is before they go to the Swiss model in the cycle that follows

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foo ... 11555.html

but of course there is always the spectre of FIFA and it's rampant greed

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foo ... 12440.html

[ClaretTony]

I've not seen any interviews with Gino Pozzo recently.

Scott Duxbury does all the talking at Watford

[arise_sir_charge]

Garlick was joint chairman for three years and then chairman for a further five and a half years but throughout that time he employed a CEO so less need to speak.

Yes, we couldn’t get Dave Baldwin etc out of the press or off the radio and tv could we.

[ClaretTony]

Yes, we couldn’t get Dave Baldwin etc out of the press or off the radio and tv could we.

I thought Hoos & Baldwin did a good job in that respect.

[ClaretPete001]

Have you seen how much UEFA's club competitions are generating in the next cycle - and that is before they go to the Swiss model in the cycle that follows

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foo ... 11555.html

but of course there is always the spectre of FIFA and it's rampant greed

https://www.independent.co.uk/sport/foo ... 12440.html

Interesting thanks for those.

I think articles like these also provide a backdrop to the Burnley story. The problem primarily is the American business model, which tends to want to transfer risk from those who get the rewards to those who effectively pay for those rewards. You see it in American sports where risk is much more mitigated than in European sports primarily to facilitate franchising and the kind of sports portfolios that ALK purports to have but the likes of John Henry and Stan Kroenke actually do have.

The risk is not borne by the people who own the business it is placed upon the business itself and the communities in which those businesses operate. The irony of this is that individual business people can take excessive personal risk to secure companies but in doing so they create companies that are excessively at risk.

Companies with high debt and excessive leveraging simply can't afford instability. The problem is the more successful the premiership gets the more risk to those that fail. The more risk there is the more those at risk want to mitigate it. Eventually, the success of the Premiership will be its downfall it will create too much risk for the model that made it successful in the first place.

So, eventually the big 6 perhaps plus Aston Villa and Newcastle will break away they will have to. And what will be left are a number of billionaires with debt ridden football clubs who no longer have a place at the billionaires table. And you will have well run clubs like Norwich and then their will be clubs owned by local businessmen as they always have been.

And sat on a table alone in a category of one - will be us...!

[Vegas Claret]

Would it look silly? It’s just conjecture. To me it looks like Pace doesn’t have a plan and that is what the journalists are alluding to in my opinion.

so the guy, who managed to buy a Premier League club by setting up multiple complicated deals doesn't have a plan

[Newcastleclaret93]

so the guy, who managed to buy a Premier League club by setting up multiple complicated deals doesn't have a plan

Well we will soon see won’t we. Let’s hope they have a successful plan