I'm assuming it's this Michael gray

[media]https://youtu.be/N3kkNfH4yco[/media]

I’m assuming it’s Michael Gray who used to play for Sunderland, but I refuse to listen to TalkSport so I could be wrong.

I don't have a clue who Micky Gray is.

Micky Gray focusing on us again today on TS...

It's a pointless thing to discuss really, when it seems as though any potential takeover is on life support itself. I'm not local to Newcastle and am a supporter for different reasons, and clearly wouldn't claim to speak for anyone else. But so far as I am concerned I don't expect us to challenge for the top 6, even with a take over. Ten to fifteen years is a long time, and a lot can happen in football. Look at Leeds, Portsmouth - to some extent Liverpool. We don't need a takeover to compete at the elite level, we need a takeover just to compete in general. Ashley has been good for the balance sheet, but he was never here for football reasons. He needs to sell up, and with any luck we will get someone who will allow us to compete. Not asking for the world, just a chance to try and exist on an even keel with everyone else.

There is no guarantee that a new owner would have the necessary funds to achieve that period, or the willingness to spend it. The whole discussion is based upon a heap of assumptions that make it a pointless exercise. He could have just as easily said it would take three seasons to see us relegated to league one and we would have just as much to go on and it would be just as pointless.

Yeah we're talking City/PSG money if we're gonna win anything within 5 years.

[quote=Colly post_id=853959 time=1548347789 user_id=125]
That's where I don't get it though, you either get the crazy money and shortcut there in 5 years, or you don't. This 10-15 year thing isn't a projection it's just nonsense based on nothing remotely empirical.
[/quote]
I mean, Spurs aren't outrageous big spenders, but instead had to edge their way into consistent top 4 territory. We're even seeing clubs like Chelsea slow their spending (relative to the past), so I could see how over time with consistent investment a club could move into that group. It's difficult for those clubs to sustain the type of spending they go in spells of.

That's where I don't get it though, you either get the crazy money and shortcut there in 5 years, or you don't. This 10-15 year thing isn't a projection it's just nonsense based on nothing remotely empirical.

If we got an obscenely rich owner then we could get into the top six, but that would require massive ongoing expenditure Man C style. Other than that it’s not really likely to happen.

[quote=overseasTOON post_id=853928 time=1548336504 user_id=86]
We're light years behind the established top 6 at present.

Should we get a new owner who invests a lot of money in the club we'd still need one of the established top 6 to stop or seriously slow their own investment to allow us to replace them and that most likely won't happen.

We have to have some semblance of self funding so the club itself off the pitch needs a major overhaul to start generating enough money to make a tilt and then sustain it to challenge the top 6 so if our new owner doesn't have the resources of a sovereign nation at his disposal; it's going to take a lot longer to generate that annual income.

In light of this the 10 to 15 year projection is unfortunately quite reasonable.
[/quote]
Agreed. And I'd add, times are different now compared to when City got their big investment. All of the clubs in the league are now sitting on greater revenues and are willing to spend to a degree completely different from when they came on the scene. So not only do you need to have the top 6 significantly slip, you also have another dozen clubs trying to make a jump. That isn't to say a club can't pop into that rung for a season or two, Leicester demonstrated that, and so did we, but sustaining that is a whole other story.

We're light years behind the established top 6 at present.

Should we get a new owner who invests a lot of money in the club we'd still need one of the established top 6 to stop or seriously slow their own investment to allow us to replace them and that most likely won't happen.

We have to have some semblance of self funding so the club itself off the pitch needs a major overhaul to start generating enough money to make a tilt and then sustain it to challenge the top 6 so if our new owner doesn't have the resources of a sovereign nation at his disposal; it's going to take a lot longer to generate that annual income.

In light of this the 10 to 15 year projection is unfortunately quite reasonable.

Yeah, it took 3 years from the Man City purchase (2008) to them winning the FA Cup and qualifying for the CL (2011). With bottomless funding, we could easily do the same. As always in this sport, money talks the loudest.

Micky Gray last night on Talksport saying if a new owner came in " it'd still be 10 -15 years " before we would be a regular top six club.

We all know we're on life-support as a club, that we need massive investment in the ground and all our facilities as well as the team , but surely , [b]IF an owner ever came in who was serious about rebuilding the club and had the finances to back his or her ambitions[/b], top six, and the ability to stay there, would be easily achieveable within two or three years ?

It'd take a longer time to break that Top 4, and longer again to become a regular feature at the right end of the table, but 15 years ?

Give your head a wobble, you Twot <fist>