Boey_Jarton

We benefit a lot from having another midfielder with technical ability and composure in the centre of park.

I remember it feeling very important and a hell of a relief at the time The John Carver Era - what a time to be alive

Not going to criticise this guy because he is a top bloke and it is not really fair on him that he is playing at this level at this stage of his career.

Eddie clearly deserves some slack given the ridiculous circumstances but the decision to put Matt Ritchie on when it was 0-0 and all to play for does not make any sense to me. It is clear his legs are gone and I cannot see many scenarios where his introduction (rather than Tino, or pushing Hall into midfield) can help a situation where we are being overrun by an athletic team. Admittedly, any decision he would have made would be suboptimal but he could have opted for the least worse option. He was also clearly let down by some terrible performances by a number of senior players.

Don't jokingly suggest that it feels like Steve Bruce is in charge whatever you do!!

It was tongue in cheek I wasn't honestly comparing Howe with Bruce

This feels like Steve Bruce is in charge

This is a complete shambles.

I think that is right because the new rules that Hope alluded to ('multiple offers of similar value') would not stand up in any court because they make no economic sense. I don't think this is one to worry about at all. It can be argued that the loan ruling is also on dodgy grounds (although this one is less clear as the loan of players is very specific to football). It is highly unusual to restrict trade between two willing parties conducting normal and legal business activity (e.g. the loan of a player). It is even more unusual for a market participant to create the particular rules that restrict the trading activity of the competition (and potentially benefit from that restriction). I imagine the club have employed lawyers to debate this point and their initial tactic might be to suggest that any temporary ban is illegal, and Newcastle will seek redress if implemented. They could push the premier league to postpone any rule changes until the summer, at which point, I might expect the club to lobby for the rule to restrict loans between connected clubs, only if they do not represent fair value. Of course, the fair value of a loan is very difficult to prove (much more so than a permanent transfer) and is also an easier way to circumvent FFP, which is why this is (with some justification to be fair) a contentious issue for other clubs.

"Clubs will have to show multiple offers of similar value" This is not how business works. A sponsorship deal to one party does not necessarily have the same intangible value that it does to another party. It is comparing apples with pears. A Saudi firm may see a lot of value in associating it's brand with a team that is Saudi owned and so will benefit from that exposure. Ryan Reynolds various brands benefit from the synergies created from sponsoring Wrexham. At the risk of being an accountancy bore, the value of an intangible asset is the incremental cashflows that it may generate to your company and has nothing to do with what another company might be willing to pay for it.

My original thought was that it is a temporary thing until they get some rules in place that say loans need to be at fair value. Although that has difficulty as fair value is impossible to assess, particularly with loans when it can be about reducing wage bills or getting people game time. I cannot imagine it would be legal to have a permanent restriction on two entities (connected or otherwise) entering into a transaction on a basis that could be proved to represent 'arms length' value.

This means absolutely nothing but the lad has a gangly but athletic stature that makes me think that he will be a top footballer

Rebound FC

Dortmund have free reign to tactically foul all night as there is no chance of a yellow

It was absolutely obvious that it hadn't gone out. Refs and linesmen need to go on some sort of course to understand how a sphere works.

Understand the media love in for this guy and don't get why people are against it. Enjoying having a positive and likeable manager is completely understandable from a Spurs perspective, when they have had a series of bellends in recent years.

Total lack of nuance or reasoned discussion on the goal by both Arteta and the post match media If you think it's a disgrace, let's critically work through the three potential reasons why it might have been disallowed and assess each issue against the rules of football and the scenarios in which VAR overrules an on field decision within the EPL. When you do that, it is completely justifiable that the goal stood. The free kick might have been given but as we have seen time and time again , VAR tends to not get involved in those decisions (same for all teams). As others have hinted, the fact there are three different checks for an infringement, does not strengthen the individual argument of each potential infringement. Of course, Arteta did not bother getting into any of that (and for some reason wasn't pushed on it by reporters). It is easier for him to vaguely rant about the issues to distract the media and his fanbase.

Sometimes Bruno cares more about winning a foul rather than easily releasing the ball and it's infuriating

Trippier costing us a goal so inevitable

Trippier been on the crack pipe

Of course. It's an away win in Europe.

Targett did not put a foot wrong from the moment he came on

Not sure I agree with Dortmund being excellent given that second half like. Thought they were quite poor, very open on the left hand side and let us have a number of good chances. Definitely a good first half display though, looked good on break. Draw would have been fair.

Same as Bruno's in same competition last year