So many clubs have been fudging their accounts by selling assets to themselves to generate income, and Newcastle United has finally got in on the game.
Chelsea have been the masters of selling their own assets to different branches of their own business to help back them out of any financial corners they’ve got themselves into.
Many Newcastle fans have been wondering for years why the PIF hasn’t done the same thing to help them increase revenue before the stadium development can be completed. Well, finally, they have.
As revealed by David Hopkinson at a discussion with journalists on Monday, the club have also sold the St James’ Park lease for £172.1m to a subsidiary company controlled by the ownership.
Newcastle made a £34.7m profit last year
This has boosted the club’s revenue and actually put the accounts into profit for last year. Newcastle also revealed a record turnover of £335.3m, up £15m on 2023/24, and saw commercial revenue growth go up by 44%.
Despite this, however, Hopkinson was careful to mention that this won’t translate into a huge spend this summer.
“Because of the consequence of the profit calculated on the sale, it gives us a significant amount of PSR headroom.
“The ability to deploy that PSR headroom is very limited because we have to comply with UEFA rules and because the PSR regime is coming to an end, so that profit does not roll forward into squad cost.
“In a very narrow window, yes (it gives us more scope to spend on players), but we are very constrained in how we can use that.”
🚨BREAKING: NUFC’s 2024/25 financial results👇
📈Record turnover: £335.3m, up £15m on 2023/24.
🛍️44% commercial revenue growth w/ Adidas & Carabao Cup success.
🏟️£34.7m profit boosted by £133.2m in property reorganisation, including sale and leaseback of St James’ Park. pic.twitter.com/KDi3GTMR5a
— Dominic Scurr (@DomScurr) March 31, 2026
We’re richer than ever, but still skint
We aren’t financial wizards here at NUFCBlog, but this is how we understand this: Newcastle generated record revenues, sold a £172.1m asset to boost the accounts into a £34.7m profit, but because of PSR, we’re still skint. Is that what he’s saying?
The accounts are based on last year’s numbers, so there was no Champions League money, so we should expect more growth next year. In that respect, the club has done well, and that shouldn’t be ignored.
However, while it all shows exciting growth, and the fact that the club is now using financial magic tricks to boost its bottom line shows a bit of ambition, at least. It’s hard to see the silver lining in truth, especially when this revenue growth can’t be directly translated into squad improvements.
It’s worth noting that the annual accounts, PSR and UEFA FFP accounts are all different.
A club can look good/bad in the annual accounts and have the opposite outlook in PSR and FFP.
They aren’t a simple 1 for 1 comparison
Hazz(Quote)
This is why I wrote in late January that we have a remaining PSR balance (previous year + Isak money balance – in PSR terms) that we won’t be able to use in July due to the switch to SCR which is an annualised system instead of a 3 year rolling one and ergo we should use up the leftover money to get players even if they won’t become regulars on the field until the summer. I’d suggested we buy really good U21 players & loan them back to parent club (if necessary – though we were injury ravaged back then so might even have kept them with the squad & they could’ve added to our UCL squad where we were limited to 21 senior players) so they continue to get game time like Kees Smit or Kevin Danois or others.
Some of it will be available in the summer (since 80% of last year – ie 2025-26 UCL season revenue = transfer+wages budget) but this PY (previous year) profit is unusable now. Utilising this to the max was Hopkinson + Wilson responsibility NOT Howe’s. Like Mitchell, we’re yet to see anything but words from the new duo.
P(Quote)
There is a question in there: “because of PSR, we’re still skint. Is that what he’s saying?”
In the year to June 2025, we were operating under Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR) which allowed us to make losses up to a limit (£105 million over 3 years). The sale and leaseback gave flexibility for that season and the current season. We could afford the £250 million or so that was spent last summer, along with the sale of Isak.
Next season, we change to Squad Cost Ratio (SCR). In short, this will allow us to spend 85% of revenues on the cost of the squad, which is defined as wages, amortisation and agents’ fees. If we qualify for Europe, UEFA impose a 70% limit.
Taking figures from the accounts for last season, revenue was £335 million but we can add in profit on sales of players, in that year about £20 million for Almiron and Kelly.
The club does not identifies wage costs for the club as a whole, not specifically for the squad but that figure was £215 million across an average of 614 employees (plus NI and pension costs taking it to £245. Amortisation was around £100 million, going up by about £50 million from last summer but losing some from expired contracts and Isak’s sale, in broad terms, a net £40 million. Agents’ fees are merged in with other costs.
Put simply, we are not so much “skint” as having to be careful with what we spend to comply with limits, especially if we are in Europe next season.
Just to balance that, we will have the Adidas figures for a full year. The Stack is now operating for a full year. There have been other commercial deals.
Nevertheless, if we want to spend, we need a healthy margin. If anything, what has not been said out loud is a hint that we will have to expect the sale of a significant player or two to generate funds.
I hope that helps and am happy to take any questions.
RexN(Quote)