Unbelievable

Wasn't there talk of a Chelsea clause coming into effect after the first game of the season? That would make any deal look even less appealing. Think we'll look elsewhere. Hope so too for the fee mentioned.

Sure will. Why were you watching if you hate watching them?

Because they have supremely good technical players in all positions, which is perhaps mainly noticeable in defense with the likes of Gvardiol and Ruben Dias, and they have a system that works supremely well and gets the best out of their individual talent. They’re very clinical and their dominance might bore some I suppose, but I just enjoy watching masters at work and they are masters of football, similar to Real Madrid.

He dives a lot..?

Love watching them play me

Check last year's Madison's thread, or this year's Guehi thread for evidence of the contrary. At least Minteh was actually ours.

WTF

And that’s not a booking. These are hitting out players in the face with impunity yet we get booked for your typical shirt holding

Not funny mate

He didn’t pull him down and he hadn’t run past him, was just the holding a shirt you see dozens of time each game with not so much as a foul given. Soft as hell

Soft as hell booking imo

Offside, lucky escape

Ref’s lost the plot

Big Joe

Wut

WTF ref

A belated howay the lads Nervy start to the game

I'm sorry, but we've been overbidding the last two bids. Time to move on. There's better players to be had for much less. Just gotta hope our alternative options haven't moved elsewhere while we were fannying around with Steve fucking Parish

https://www.football.london/womens-football/todd-boehlys-blueco-made-chelsea-29532000

Another great post, fully agree, especially about the bit in bold. I'd rather be frustrated trying to understand the rules and how much they limit the club than frustrated at the perception the club isn't doing enough and should just spend more as our owners can easily afford it. I've done the best part of a decade doing the latter, so I enjoy trusting the current custodians to do the best they can with the club's interest at heart even in the face of the PL and the competition throwing up new obstacles every opportunity they get.

I will refer to this earlier post in this thread about what I think our current strategy is. However, if the circumstances change I very much doubt that would not then induce a massive rethink of our approach.

I disagree. "Fair value" simply means you can have party related commercial deals in line with your current standing as a club. So Man U and Liverpool can have their 150m per year shirt sponsor because they have 800m revenue, but because Newcastle United only have 300m revenue we don't think a shirt sponsor from Saudi or in any way related to PIF or the Ruebens should bring Newcastle more than lets say 50m. Same for all other forms of sponsorship. We'd be chasing shadows forever more, because that is by its very definition a self sustaining handicapping of up and coming clubs with the funding behind them to bridge the gap. We'd be kept at arms length forever. I think it does make sense for PIF to move up a gear or two if these restrictions are lifted, because to them it is worth more to invest sponsorship money in their Saudi Arabia promotion vehicle than in other clubs, and ultimately they will see it as failure if by the time 2030 and especially 2034 come around, Newcastle United and their own league are still seen as also rans. Our chairman made clear last year the objective of PIF is to become "number one". There is no way if these restrictions were lifted they wouldn't then proceed to accelerate our development plans.

I was just watching a Man City fan podcast thingy on those APR and 115 hearings just now, and they're on about Newcastle going mad if APR gets scrapped and no other club has a chance of competing with us with surprisingly little self awareness :

From Man City's perspective I suppose the outcome of the first hearing will be of significant impact on their chances of winning the second one. If related party restrictions get lifted or relaxed for being anti-competitive, that undermines the PL's case against them massively.

Ok cheers, so the first one is of particular interest to us and the second one not so much..?