Are Newcastle United still a selling club? | OneFootball

First it was Chris Waddle, then Peter Beardsley. before finally Paul Gascoigne.

What did they have in common?

Well, apart from having talent and ability in spades, they were all offloaded by previous owners, a combination of the McKeags, Seymours and Westwoods whose stranglehold on Newcastle United dominated most of the Twentieth Century.

Those sales, in three short years between 1985 and 1988 still rankle now. Just like Mike Ashley, those who presided over Newcastle United back then, were past masters in understanding the price of everything and the value of nothing.

Pedro did return and even in the twilight of his career, was a tremendous servant, successfully linking up with a certain Andy Cole, himself offloaded after scoring 68 goals in 84 matches.

It’s arguable that the £7 million received from selling Cole was invested well, most of it being used to attract Sir Les Ferdinand to Gallowgate, with the residue seeing Keith Gillespie join Newcastle United as Cole headed off in the opposite direction to Old Trafford.

The money received for Chris Waddle, Peter Beardsley and Paul Gascoigne was not invested wisely. For starters, the payments that Spurs, Liverpool and Spurs (again) parted with, at £590,000, £1.9m and £2.2m respectfully, represented better value to the buying clubs than to Newcastle United, even though the sale of Beardsley represented a British record at the time.

Some of the money was put into bricks and mortar, the West Stand was raised to the ground and rebuilt, renamed in honour of our then record goalscorer Jackie Milburn. The rest went on a variety of prospects, none of whom set the heather alight, although we saw glimpses of magic from the Brazilian Mirandhina, whose exploits earned us a famous win at Anfield against Beardsley and against the odds.

To illustrate the lamentable way in which this money was squandered, in 1989 we were relegated to the old second division whilst Waddle, Beardsley and Gascoigne went close to winning the World Cup for Bobby Robson at Italia ’90.

In the past fortnight, Newcastle United’s accounts for 2022/23 were published, the ownership reporting pre-tax losses of £73m which in today’s obsession with profit and sustainability, looks ominous.

FFP / PSR (Profit and Sustainability Rules) are there to ensure Premier League clubs don’t rack up losses that exceed £105m over a three year period. Many clubs see that as a limit to find all manner of accounting wheezes that prevent them from busting through, whereas its true purpose is to (ED: Supposedly) ensure football clubs become and remain sustainable entities, by not allowing them to spend beyond their means.

Whether that properly captures the circumstances that Newcastle United operate in, backed as it is by Saudi Arabia PIF, the rules are rigorously applied. Just ask Everton and Nottingham Forest if you don’t believe me, although it seems Manchester City might be immune to all this.

In publishing its financial results, Newcastle United opened itself up to the inevitable speculation that one or other of its prized assets might need to be offloaded.

Guimaraes, Isak and Botman have all been cited as potential fodder, but this weekend, that speculation has crystalised, albeit those being touted around various social media platforms would not command the greatest sale value.

First, we had rumours of Trippier off to the Allianz. Next, it was Wilson, potentially departing for the Metropolitana, the place Trippier called his home before coming to St James just over two years ago.

What is perhaps more perturbing is that amongst this, there is no real sense of who might be coming to Newcastle United, if anyone. Various rumours have been circulating for sure, but all of them lack substance, a lack of money, or an inability to spend it more like, being more of a stumbling block than anything.

Trippier’s tenure at Gallowgate has slightly less longevity than that of the current owners. It’s only a couple of months over two years since the Saudi Arabia PIF acquired Newcastle United. Purportedly, the richest club on the planet, the question must be asked, “Are Newcastle United still a selling club”?

To a point, most clubs are.

We’ve even seen Manchester City offload Cole Palmer to Chelsea and like him or loathe him, his stats are what has helped a mini revival at Stamford Bridge after a calamitous 18 months. I’m pretty sure that Pep would have rather retained the services of young Cole Palmer, but needs must and even the player who scored the late equaliser that saw then Man City win on penalties in the European Super Cup, has a price it would seem.

In a world where we’ve all become accustomed to technical accounting language, amortisation is the buzz word. Whilst depreciation measures the amount an asset loses in value over time, amortisation is a method for decreasing an asset’s cost over time. Splitting hairs? Maybe, but considering Wilson and Trippier, whilst their book value has decreased since they both signed, they are still both worth something in today’s market.

Whatever we might potentially raise for Wilson, a £20m summer capture from Bournemouth in 2020, a good chunk of it would be available for reinvestment. Trippier’s book value, relative to what we paid to prise him from Madrid, will still be sizeable.

In this respect, and notwithstanding recent form and injuries, I doubt whether selling either of them would be that worthwhile, certainly at this juncture, unless ludicrous sums of money were involved.

It’s therefore heartening to read on The Mag on Sunday that The Telegraph has reported “Senior figures at St James’ Park have informed Telegraph Sport that both players are staying and neither are agitating to leave. As far as Newcastle are concerned, that is the end of the matter and all future bids for two of their most senior players will be rejected”.

Whether the same will apply when the wolves come knocking for any one of Bruno, Alex or Sven, I’m not so sure that the response will be as emphatic.

In today’s world, we might still have to sell a Pedro or a Gazza, but the key issue is whether our owners will use the proceeds more wisely than their counterparts did in the 1980s.