Unbelievable

Did Hall deserve to start the season as left back? Did he? Has he proven it to be the right choice? I “piped” up when you were sprouting shit in August before a competitive game of football had even been played. I didn’t need convincing the kid is special and ready, you did.

WTF. I told you Hall deserved his place last season and would therefore get his chance to keep it this, which he evidently has. You told us that Kelly would take his place because he's a better defender and Lewis would have to be patient.

Alright then, let's talk...

Damn, that deserved a goal

Unless they’ve changed the rules again, isn’t he onside when the ball is played into him?

Fuck this season

Poor from Pope that

Isak fucked

This ref

Get in!

That is offside sadly

Please be onside

Beilliant goal

Not a pen, but def a foul

Ffs ref

Ffs

Something tells me you don’t understand the interest free owner loans excluded from PSR situation. It’s not a loophole we could have exploited.

Did he not feature quite heavily before the team started struggling, and doing quite well at that? Think he just suffered with being overplayed, like most others, and especially excusable since he’s not physically the finished product yet.

Serves the PL right for bending over backwards for a bunch of snakes I suppose.

You can’t make something that is unlawful go away by making a deal with one affected party. Other clubs including us would sue next.

Meaning now is the perfect time to tighten the scews on the PL and propose some (more) big sponsorships for ratification. If the PL turn them down or stall them (even pointing towards their own rules being found unlawful) that nicely sets the PL up for even more damage payment liability.

Our own actions evidently ate not (entirely) dependent on City’s. If the rules are declared void, we may claim for damages for any deals we may have had turned down or kicked down the road even if City don’t. Equally we may push through sponsorship deals even if City don’t. It will be fascinating to see how we operate over the next few weeks and months while this unfolds. We’ve been compliant so far, but I hope we are as ruthless as the PL has been at stopping us when their house of cards crumbles.

Silverstone just a few months ago referred to it not making sense to make short term deals that hurt the club’s ling term prospects. His exact words: ”“Our job is to make sure we now maximise the value and future value of Newcastle United. We don’t want to do deals now that in one to two years — when we get closer to our ambitions — are undervalued. It’s a fine balance but we need to find the right partners at the right value”

How do you know which companies the club’s commercial department are having talks with? What we do know is that the PL has out a regulatory framework in place that was specifically designed to prevent us (and any other club in our situation) from doing commercial deals with companies if they deem the value of said deal a threat to clubs with current bigger commercial deals. How is that not preventing us from growing organically? Edit: I guess you may be using a very narrow definition of “organic growth”. For me non-organic growth would be growth subsidised directly by a club’s owners. These rules however, through loosely defined “associated parties” and non-transparancy combined with non-accountability of the vetting process, also prohibit indirect investment, which is madness. Of course any prospective sponsor of a football club associates with the club and its owners, or they would sponsor generic events or any other club. At grassroots level it is often local businesses that sponsor events, be they sports, cultural or whatever. They have an association of some sort, often geographical, but also in terms of personal preference of the sponsors’ leadership, company strategy, etc. If you decline any entity sponsorship from parties that hold an interest in them and only allow sponsorship from companies that might as well sponsor a rivalling entity, then clearly you are clipping that entities’ wings.

In an industry where commercial success largely follows (sustained) sporting success, how ever is a club going to catch up if some regulator says one club cannot have a sponsor (with any association to its ownership even if logically commercial interest would be higher from those regional parties thanks to its association with the owners’ interest, with burden of proof on the club side to prove otherwise and without any argumentative justification required for rejection upon ratification no less) that is more than a quarter or half the value of another club’s sponsor due specifically to their existing differences in revenue? That is a self sustaining/defeating principle if ever I saw one.