Cronky

Well it seems to be that the task of the Premier League is to amend the rules so that they now are lawful in their entirety. That doesn't mean that every rule has to change - only the ones identified by the tribunal. What City seem to be doing is threatening to prolong this legal battle, and perhaps also to make some sort of compensation claim that covers the duration of the APT rules. Unfortunately I would imagine that other clubs could do the same. The point of the Tribunal was to settle this dispute - City seem determined to keep the pot boiling for their own ends.

City are saying that because the APT rules were found to be illegal on certain grounds, everything has to change, and not just the grounds that were found to be suspect. That sounds absurd to me. They seem to be threatening further legal action to try and prevent the Premiership from making the particular changes that the tribunal pointed out are needed. The likes of Martin Samuel seem to hail City's arrival on the scene as a way of opening up competition and liberating the clubs from the tyranny of a cartel. In practice, it's nothing of the sort. They are out to destroy the competition and establish a dominant position. Through all the years of investigation that that have taken place, they have been unco-operative, aggressive and selfish. Jumping on their bandwagon in the hope that somehow we will benefit is to invite further chaos.

Now that makes sense, thank you. The rule about interest in relation to infrastructure projects still seems a bit unfair. The clubs with the wealthier owners wouldn't need to provide the money in the form of a loan.

I assume because it would have been in breach of PSR. But it's confusing if that is the reason. The tribunal's intervention implies that these loans have been used for PSR type issues such as transfers. If they had only been used for infrastructure projects, then that is out of the scope of PSR.

Yeah, the loan thing intrigues me. The big question for me is - have these shareholder interest-free loans been used solely on infrastructure projects, which are exempt from PSR? Or have they been used to bolster spending in the transfer market? If the latter is the case, then surely they should always have been taken into account for PSR. An interest-free loan from an owner with no obligation to repay is effectively a spend, at least for the duration of that owner's tenure.

I think we were just unlucky. We created a number of chances but the ball just didn't fall for us.

I'm not sure about that. We need to take advantage of his pace and play him either out wide or on the last line of defence.

I don't think his pen was any worse than the one that he scored from last week. It's just that on this occasion, the keeper went the right way. Neither were great penalties. But apart from that and his miss near the end, I think that's the best game I've ever seen him play. He was great.

We look so much fitter than them. As the game has been going on, that's become more and more evident. Gordon has been brilliant - shame about the penalty miss. The penalty against City wasn't particularly good either - the keeper just went the wrong way. Is he really the best pen taker around at the moment, or is he just the most eager? Discuss.

We tried to get through by playing intricate passes around the edge of their box, but that's not really our game. Gordon wasted a couple of good situations by being a bit greedy, I thought. He also doesn't look to link with Hall as much as he could. Hall often makes an overlap but Gordon never tries to play him in.

I think the slip meant that he wasn't going to be able to bring Maddison down with a normal trip. Instead, he hurt him by deliberately scraping his foot down his leg. That's what the ref spotted and that was why it was a red rather than a yellow.

I don't like agreeing with Jamie Redknapp, but if you start looking to replace the manager, that's a point of no return. You can't then turn to the guy and say, effectively, we can't find anyone better so you'll do. I think a manager with authority would have stopped Fernandez from being interviewed after the game. That didn't feel right. But got to say - what a good player Garnacho is. He looks dangerous every time he's on the ball. He's wasted in that side at the moment.

No, I agree with you. He deliberately dragged his foot down Maddison's leg to make sure he brought him down.

The Big Joe one was more of a penalty than the Gordon one. A lot of decisions seem to go by convention. If a keeper dives at a striker's feet and doesn't get the ball, then it tends to get given even if the striker is deliberately dangling their trailing leg to make contact. On the other hand, if a defender clatters into a striker to bring them down, rather than trips them up, then it usually gets seen as a fair challenge. I'm not complaining. Both decisions are consistent with how the game is refereed at the moment.

I think the whole media thing kicked off because Eddie gave that interview hinting that he might not stay if the changes at the club didn't allow him to work in the way that he was accustomed to. It needed the parties to get together again, and for Mitchell to give an interview reassuring the supporters that they were working together now. Yes of course the media stirred things up, but there's no point in denying that the relationship between Mitchell and Howe got off to a bad start. The two men strike me as having different personalities, with Howe quite reserved and Mitchell more in your face. That doesn't mean that they can't work together, though it'll need some mutual adjustment. If it doesn't work out in the end, then it's Mitchell who will have to go.

Getting to the byline and cutting the ball back is football's most dangerous move.

I think we actually invented it.

Neville is going on about Arsenal not leaving one man up top, but unless you can get support to that one man, it's no outlet at all.

It looks like Trossard has kicked the game away. I can't see Arsenal holding out with 10 men. That melodramatic gesture of the wide open eyes, hands on each side of the head, and crouching open-mouthed in horrified disbelief is the clearest sign of guilt you can get.

I think it's significant that we only have three players now who other clubs seem to want - Isak, Gordon and Bruno. Of those, I think Isak is the only one who by sheer talent alone could be described as world class. Gordon is a decent player who Eddie is getting to play at his max. When we bought him, he couldn't get a game for Everton and was nowhere near the England squad. Bruno has been great for us, partly because the team has been built around him and his particular gifts. If either player was to move to another club, I think they'd struggle to reach their current standard. Eddie's coaching and drive has lifted them to another level. A club that is seeking to improve would be looking to trade up on their less important players, but no-one seems to want to spend significant money on Targett, Murphy, Almiron, Longstaff, Willock etc Trippier has been linked, but we wouldn't get a fee for him. I would say that it's a shame that we couldn't bring in just one player this window who was already of top Premiership standard. Apart from anything else, a signing like that can give the squad a lift. Maybe it was a question of chasing two hares and catching neither, as the saying goes. And just a word on yesterday - the player that I was disappointed to see in the starting XI was Willock. He shows no enthusiasm for defending and it was no surprise to me that he got hooked at half time when we were 2-0 down.

Excellent post, if I may say. Villa's academy has been way, way more productive than ours. We have some catching up to do.

Firstly, I apologise for my initial response, which wasn't very constructive. Your comment - 'The PL - outside the top three - isn’t all that great atm' did get me going, though I think I disagreed with pretty much all the points you were making. If you were to hypothetically measure the quality of all the Premiership squads, ours would be in the bottom half IMO.

You're off your rocker, man.

Eddie's big problem is that by taking the club to fourth place, he has created an expectation which is at complete variance with the standard of players that are at his disposal. He manages to get peak performances from ordinary players week on week and it's not his fault that they come up short in certain situations. Eddie is a brilliant manager and the idea of replacing him is complete lunacy. If pressure from the fan base leads to him going then we will deserve to fail. Fortunately, I sense that our owners know the value of who we have, and will continue to back him.

I think the current regs are outdated. I don’t have the financial nous to judge whether the new regs will allow more flexibility. Personally I’d have increased the three year allowance but perhaps that’s a reflection of my limited financial knowledge. But either way, I don’t think a free for all is the answer. Apart from the risk of establishing a one club monopoly, it’s not fair on the smaller clubs.