Raconteur

If I ever have to hear Bruce say once more “I don’t want to make excuses, but I’ve got this excuse handy, and this other one if I need it”... Actually, if Bruce is doing press conferences after today, I won’t hear about it.

There is some evidence that the actions of the CCP satisfy the conditions of a person or entity of “control” that has influence over Wolves. Not saying there’s a strong argument, but you can’t say there’s no argument.

Isn’t it more a case of who was willing to take a punt on his stability?

Merit to this - calling “mine” is a yellow card in Australia, right from Under 7s to, I’m pretty sure, semi-pro level (at least) EDIT Actually, it’s only a free kick until U11s, because little kids don’t get cards here... Does that rule apply to everyone, even if they're going for the ball themselves? When I did my ref's training (in 1998 so a while back) it was only a yellow card for ungentlemanly conduct if you were stood behind an opponent and said it dishonestly to make them leave it. Packed reffing in a couple years later so not up to date with the nuances in the rules. I'd also add that even in the 90s every coach of every youth team, even those that just seemed to coach the kids to cheat rather than play football, was telling their players to "put a name on it" rather than shouting "mine." Sorry if that's a daft question. Yep, no one can call “mine”, at all, ever. If that’s weird, try this one - in U7-U11, a “goal kick” is in fact three short passes at the back before “play on”. Part of the FFA’s attempt to impose a tactical discipline on grassroots football.

There’s something really depressing about a meaningless final match when a hiding is on the cards. Just be over, damn it!

Merit to this - calling “mine” is a yellow card in Australia, right from Under 7s to, I’m pretty sure, semi-pro level (at least) EDIT Actually, it’s only a free kick until U11s, because little kids don’t get cards here...

When I played in goals, “away” was shorthand for “Get it the fuck away from me and my goal.” And no, keepers don’t trust defenders to know exactly what to do. Some might suggest defenders are the drummers of a football team.

Should be a sackable offence in and of itself. Fails any basic competency test.

That was fantastic - and possibly ended with the funniest one

Hasn’t Manquillo played at centre half for us? Not well, of course, but I’m sure it happened. A back five of Ritchie - Rose - Fernandez - Manquillo - Yedlin is a real possibility. Against, potentially Mane - Firmino - Salah. Have fun Steve

Just heard Bruce is in the dugout next season...

Would be very bittersweet to see him become the next Jason Sancho. ? Gosh, all I meant was virtually unknown English kid goes to Germany and develops better than he (probably) would in England. Like that Bellingham kid - good on them both. They’ve got a better chance of flourishing in the Bundesliga than the PL... Edit - just realised you’re mocking my autocorrect. Mea culpa.

Would be very bittersweet to see him become the next Jason Sancho. It would be peak NUFC to let him walk for free, then buy him back in four years for £50m Pogba-style (after a takeover, obviously)

Does that mean we’ll be the only club without some sort of pattern or theme within the colours? Because that would make this kit, boring as it may be, the best in the league. Kudos to Puma for bucking a really ugly fad

I disagree - the important part was the words immediately following the bold. It's also why I included f 1.5 in my initial response: F.1.6 in the reasonable opinion of the Board, he has engaged in conduct outside the United Kingdom that would constitute an offence of the sort described in Rules F.1.5.2 or F.1.5.3, if such conduct had taken place in the United Kingdom, whether or not such conduct resulted in a Conviction; For reference: F. 1 . 5 . 2 .in respect of any offence involving any act which could reasonably be considered to be dishonest (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed); or F. 1 . 5 . 3 .in respect of an offence set out in Appendix 1 (Schedule of Offences) or a directly analogous offence in a foreign jurisdiction (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed); Therefore, all the PL has to do is reasonably establish that anyone with any "control" over the club has engaged in a "dishonest offence". The findings in the WTO report establish dishonest conduct and it is a very small step to say established dishonest conduct, while different from a dishonest offence, will be enough to reasonably say "no".

Awesome reading skills exhibited by yourself, too. You initially said asked to be shown evidence that PIF is directly implicated to piracy. I said that’s immaterial. You acknowledge that they haven’t (or hadn’t) done enough to stop piracy. You correctly state that is different from being directly responsible from piracy, but that is also immaterial. Rule F 1.6 is where the PIF can fall foul of the O&D test. The bolder part is referred to in F 1.6, and I included it for clarity. I don’t know how thinking otherwise could be considered reasonable. If you think a civil court or international tribunal would think otherwise, then I’d love to hear why. Because the appellate would have to prove the PL was being unreasonable in forming their opinion and, again, I don’t know how someone could reasonably think that (according to the rules and the facts as we understand them). So its going to fail. When do we form blockades at St James and not allow journalists or Sky into the stadium..........revolution brothers! What I've said, and what I've said for a while, is that the PL have grounds to fail the test. The fact that they haven't tells me they don't want to fail it.

Bebeto was the first Deportivo la Coruna star I remember. And what a star

Awesome reading skills exhibited by yourself, too. You initially said asked to be shown evidence that PIF is directly implicated to piracy. I said that’s immaterial. You acknowledge that they haven’t (or hadn’t) done enough to stop piracy. You correctly state that is different from being directly responsible from piracy, but that is also immaterial. Rule F 1.6 is where the PIF can fall foul of the O&D test. The bolder part is referred to in F 1.6, and I included it for clarity. I don’t know how thinking otherwise could be considered reasonable. If you think a civil court or international tribunal would think otherwise, then I’d love to hear why. Because the appellate would have to prove the PL was being unreasonable in forming their opinion and, again, I don’t know how someone could reasonably think that (according to the rules and the facts as we understand them).

I don't believe you when you say you have read the test. If you had, you would know the bolded part is immaterial. Firstly, this fixation that PIF need to be directly tied to piracy is fallacious. The O&D Director test applies to not just PIF/PCP/RB directorial nominees, it applies to anyone whom the PL believes can exert influence (direct or indirect) over the club. Like so: (from the PL handbook linked above) I can appreciate that is very dense legalese, but there's no way the separation between PIF and the Saudi government can survive that definition. And it doesn't even need to be proven - just "reasonable opinion". Sure, they need to provide written explanations, and certainly they can try their luck in civil courts and international tribunals. But, reading back, it seems that's what you're hanging your hat on. I can only shake my head in disbelief that you have any faith in those institutions. There's also the incredibly broad and nebulous disqualification clause that similarly requires only reasonable belief. So I come back to my belief that while the PL could (and probably should) reject it according to its own rules. That they haven't indicates to me that they want to approve it, but there's a lot of massaging their aggravated half-billion pound commercial partner before that can happen.

By the way, I think I have found a definitive answer to the answer about "What happens if the bid is rejected?" Well, the first phase... The Premier League Handbook lists all the "rules" of the league. It's fascinating reading - and can be found here https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e4c2e3b55f49e2eb34df4d9/t/5ed50a94aba8826769043841/1591020239522/PL+Handbook+-+27+May+2020.pdf Page 67 of that pdf (pages 125-126 of the handbook) lists the appeal process for someone who is disqualified from being a director (and elsewhere it confirms that "disqualification" means "failed on initial application", not just existing directors)

In his simple mind he thinks so, let's say the takeover is knocked back; there will be an appeal and then a court case to follow before any bid can be even agreed. Not very bright is Mr Edwards, unless he actually thinks the Saudi bid will win (somehow I don't think he does) What evidence is there to suggest that there'd be a court case ? Would there even be grounds for taking it to court? It's the PL's O&D test, it's not British law to the best of my knowledge. If the buyers fail it,and then are unsuccessful with their appeal, then it's basically tough s*** isn't it ? Do you know how many civil cases are taken to court by businesses each year? If the consortium feel (rightly) that they have evidence to show that they have been disqualified due to something outside the remit of the O&D test then they most certainly can and will. Have you read the O&D test recently? It seems pretty obvious that the PIF/PCP/RB bid can (and possibly should) fail the O&D test as written. It seems equally obvious that the PL don't want to do that - because if they did, they would have done it four months ago. The consortium is being given the opportunity to rectify the issues related to piracy. Whether the take that opportunity or not remains to be seen.

I agree but on a basic level they play the same positions so I guess it can be classed as such, god forbid more than one player of quality is available for a position. I think I’ll have posted a fair bit on this, for me this season was never going to be the issue - I didn’t think we’d go down, next season who knows but as I posted earlier I certainly couldn’t tell you (non takeover) what the plans are because there doesn’t seem to have been any. See, I absolutely thought we were certain to go down - which is why it's hard to argue with the notion that Bruce has done "okay", when I personally expected to break Derby's lowest points total. That said, getting 2 goals out of Joelinton over a whole season is just not good enough. He was significantly more productive last season, and while he's in a newer and (arguably) tougher league, he's still producing far short of what he has in the past. Bruce's entire "success" is based on a Hail Mary signing that came with a (clearly undeserved) reputation of being more selfish and troublesome than HBA. If nothing else, he made ASM a certain starter, giving him a level of confidence he'd never had previously. Should Bruce be given credit for that?

Just watched Rose's post-match interview, and he made a great deal about him playing at centre-half against Brighton. Said he'd asked Poch to play there last season, that Robertson getting 26 assists inspired him to change positions, that he really enjoyed the different perspective after bollocking centre-halves his whole career. Didn't say that he's so physically and tactically lacking to make his playing there anything but an absolute last resort...

It was done a long time ago but isn't approved? Not sure how that works. It really isn't done like. It was done a long time ago, contracts exchanged, Ashley sold to the Reubens/PIF/Staveley, but the governing body of the sport needs to 'approve' the commercially already done deal, before our owners can play football in their league. That is why approval was always definite, as the PL cannot change history, but they are extracting as much as they can from the deal, while they have this period of 'leverage'. That's an incredible spin on it like. It's wrong though. The "commercially already done deal" is dependent on the PL signing it off. If they don't sign it off, the deal doesn't happen. That's nothing to do with changing history. It's not 'spin' its is simple fact. The deal has been done, which is why it has taken the Premier League (because they KNOW the deal is done) so very long to issue their approval, as it is their one and only opportunity to get what they feel they need from the deal. This reality will be made clear, no doubt, in the "post approval" announcements. I'm trying to follow your logic here, so bear with me. You seem to be suggesting the deal for Mike Ashley to sell NUFC to the PIF/PCP/RB consortium has been finalised. You also seem to be rejecting the notion that that deal is "subject to PL approval". By that logic, why have an O&D test? Just sign the contracts, and the PL can't do anything? Alternatively, if the deal is not subject to PL approval, and the PL rejects the PIF/PCP/RB takeover, then wouldn't the consortium be obligated to complete the purchase of NUFC, but not be given approval to play in the Premier League? They would have shelled out for nothing more than the registration of the players, and the training ground

Like fuck am I waking up at 3am to watch this.