Colos Short and Curlies

Being more pedantic we signed him on loan in September and perm in January

I doubt Burnley get another point so if Fulham do something crazy it will be them who drop

'dark forces'....

We made £34m profit in the 2018/19 season, would be fair to expect a drop in income to show in 2019/20 and then no matchday revenue for 2020/21 (roughly £25m). Unless the Premier League want to demonstrate that they expect clubs to spend more than they earn then it would be quite easy to suggest that we 'can't' afford the additional expenditure needed in both manager and player

So Mike Ashley is basically going to bring English Football crashing down

Wasn't it said at the very onset that the club were approaching this from a number of avenues? I don't see it as a last throw of the dice, its bringing option b to the table now to support option a

A pathway you say?

I'll admit that my corporate law knowledge is a little dated, but surely you would need to prove anti-competitive behaviour in order to stand a chance of winning such a case? A very plausable outcome of the arbitration is that the PL are found to have been unduly influenced and the whole O&Ds process has been flawed/compromised but the ruling stops short of saying that PIF must be approved. We then have the anti-competitive slant to take this to an alternative route where MA can go for a ruling that confirms the behaviour existed and therefore a remedy is required. This could be to pass the test as it stood (especially if we have 'proof' that the ink was being prepped) or to pay damages. The damages wouldn't be restricted by the sales price, but it could/would be argued that if the sale had gone through then MA would have been looking at buying Topman etc. Even if the test had been failed rather than stalled there may even have been a second buyer that he has lost a sale to. It's only a 51% certainty bar to pass as well - on balance of probabiliites If arbitration was lost then surely there would be no case of any improper behaviour? Or certainly much harder to prove Or maybe I've watched too many US legal dramas!

Positive? We've won the arbitration case and now he's got the avenue to sue would be my guess

Anyone else notice the glaring innacurracies in that tweet?

It is, but then the summer of 95 when the signings came through one after another was fun

I think they would have. Man Utd will always be Man Utd, Old Trafford will always be Old Trafford. With a City or a PSG UAE and Qatar have been able to quickly build a global brand in the image that they want. The images of the City owners celebrating when they won the Premier League wouldn't have happened had it been Man Utd as the story isn't there. Of course the club would have had greater global exposure more quickly if they had bought Man Utd or even Liverpool but UAE got exposure more quickly with it being Man City, the club and location of ownership are one, wouldn't be the case in buying one of the established elite clubs

Of course it doesn't force them to buy us, but it makes the process to have the takeover of another club prohibitive, and financially it would bring down the premier league

Any attempted takeover of any other PL club by PIF would get caught up in so many legal challenges that it's a non starter. MA would rightly sue the Premier League for more than the £350m and it would not be inconceivable for the government to get involved under anti-competition law. There is too much floating around in terms of big 6 interference, and partner blocking through the piracy challenge / MBS link for any challenge by us to not cause enough strife for it not to be worth the hassle. You've also got the 'side hustle' on the city development and what this will also mean for Saudi Arabia. Manchester is already tied up with Gulf money, it's just not an attractive option at the price with all of the baggage involved

Similar to what they did in F1 a few years ago for development, introduce a budget for teams (this would exclude youth development) that has to cover all aspects of running the club. I'd have this as a fixed amount and not a % of revenue, and it wouldn't be prohibitive to the current largest clubs - say something like the average of the top 6 clubs budgets over the past 5 years (detail obv. tbc). Clubs then have to manage transfer fees and wages from this as well as having a minimum standard for stadia, facilities, community work. This will naturally either deflate fees or allow the other clubs to catch up. Ideally this would be Europe wide, but as the Premier League has the highest wages now anyway such a cap still keeps it competitive for the best players. 3 years to implement, any contracts signed before the beginning of this season carry a subsidy for a further 2 years so as not to unfairly penalise anyone. I'd love to get rid of transfer fees but that isn't going to happen and a wage cap is problematic. A total budget just helps manage this. 25% of all TV deals that involve UK broadcasting or competitions to be paid into a football league trust. 10% of club profits to also be paid into the trust. My hope for the trust is that it not only helps clubs out but also provides a platform for players to have a career outside of football. Any payments by clubs to the trust are tax deductible as a charitable donation Complete reform of the pyramid and youth football. I'd love a form of the US college sport/uni structure and little league idea. I don't know how it would work in the ?UK but anything that can bring education and sport together is a good thing, take some pressure of kids and help support the lower leagues. Completely against B teams in the current league structure and I get that this idea takes away the potential for teams to go from the 9th tier through to the Premier League and it needs more thought, just my starter for 10 on structure. In all of this I don't care if owners want to make millions from the clubs, I don't care how much sponsorship clubs and players can generate but expenditure is capped which gives weight to the fans for TV subscriptions, season ticket prices etc.

Not going to happen. The legal ramifications would be huge. I do find it quite amusing that the false values that the likes of the Arsenal and Spurs boards have built around the clubs would make selling them problematic.

There's definite logic to have a sub keeper who is used to that type of role. Take 2 first choice keepers and a third sub specialist

Thinking on this with Arsenal visiting tomorrow, but what clubs go on to have continued or greater success after spunking millions on a new stadium or big expansion. We're obviously an example of it going wrong, as are Arsenal and I expect Spurs to be the same. City were given their stadium so wouldn't include them, Chelsea maybe?

Did not remember Darlow playing that season, thought he was out on loan

plus half time isn't it?

Isn't that Roger Thames? Backing narrative sorted there

Dunno, whack on a goatee, glasses and suit and you have Hollywood Rafa right there

Luckily for us we'd have Talkshite on the case. Clickbait radio they may be but (a) they love talking about us, (b) they currently love talking about how bad the ESL would be, (c) despite his wummery Adrian Durham hosts one of their flagship shows and would go to town on this. Sky would be a lost cause but it won't get shrugged off in all media forms

Kane

Back to the near misses, even in 2012-13 we really should have knocked Benfica out in the QF of the UEFA, then it would have been Fenerbache in the semis and Chelsea in the final. One off game, who knows and we did beat them that season