Boey_Jarton

He is clearly limited but a useful sub as he covers both full back and RCB. Slightly prefer him at RCB as it hides his weakness of being exposed to tricky/pacey wingers. Can't fault the blokes attitude either

The fact he will miss the best part of four games, 10 percent of the season , purely because of the decision of an opponent to perform theatrics, is utterly absurd

As soon as both players decide to put their heads forward, which they stupidly did, either player has the ability to get the other one sent off by theatrically throwing themselves to the ground. In fact, and at the risk of defending Brereton, theatrically throwing yourself to the ground is the best defence against being sent off once you have got yourself into that situation.

It's how the refs interpret violent conduct. I don't agree with it. Having seen another angle I can see Brereton appears to instigate it as much as Schar. Whether that helps his cause in terms of an appeal I very much doubt.

I don't like the Schar red because it's an example of the decision being dependent on an opponent's reaction. It's these decisions that promote cheating. That said, Schar is brainless and the ref has no choice under the referee guidelines.

Is Parkinson that bad like? Not disagreeing with you just I've barely seen him play so this felt a little harsh!

RTG levels of mental gymnastics here. Forums are about expressing opinions and we all sometimes get it wrong. I once thought Jason Koumas had the potential to be a champions league player. I was wrong. Just own it instead of this nonsense.

The injection of equity into subsidiary would increase the book value of the investment on NUFC's balance sheet and the subsequent sale to PZ Newco would factor this 'cost' into the profit on disposal. I.e. there would be not profit arising from the £2Bn. In any case, profit on sale to a direct holding company is eliminated on consolidation and I am positive this will already be factored into PSR, otherwise group restructures could simply crystalise PSR profit. That said, there is clearly a loophole of building up the women's team within the corporate structure (not subject to PSR regs) and selling it to an affiliated company outside the immediate corporate group. The premier league has got itself in a right mess because by turning football into an accountancy game , it needs to adjudicate on the fair value of assets on club's balance sheets - be that hotels, women's football teams, commercial ventures. So long as revenue is factored into PSR, they can never fully close all these loopholes because there is an infinite amount of commercial possibilities and there is no 'right answer' as to their fair value.

Howe would appear a good fit for the FA. English, clean image, professional, PR friendly. From Eddie's perspective, you cannot pick and choose when opportunities like this come up.

Spain are the masters in finishing out a one goal lead. Ball was in play for about 30 seconds of the four minutes added on Not an excuse like as they were by miles the better team

Have we completed a pass yet?

My thoughts exactly because, despite the executive team being in place , the ownership group cannot fully delegate the responsibility of being the custodian of the club.

Inevitable really as PCP do not have the resources to underwrite the necessary capital into the club and so her shareholding would increasingly become diluted to the extent it was pointless. This, combined with the appointment of the new executive team, means that PCP's role was going to end up in a place where it was almost ceremonial. That said, her role in the takeover, and the great job PCP did post takeover, should put her down as one the most important figures in NUFC history. Her warmth and passion is genuine and it would be a real shame if she lost all connections to the club.

Agree but I'd always want at least one fit left footed full back in the squad.

Would not have been the worst call to have put him in the England squad. Left footed full back that could potentially adapt to multiple positions mid game if you need to reshuffle. Unfortunately the tournament came too early for him. Either way, Southgate's decision to take Luke Shaw is utterly baffling.

Maguire is always absolutely spot on when he talks about FFP and PSR. If you want a better set of rules for PSR, you must start by defining the problem you are trying to solve. The current rules were designed to placate a small set of clubs from forming a breakaway league, they were not designed to promote fairness or sustainability.

Toney has been excellent since coming on

For what it's worth, wearing my accountancy hat, I guarantee that within a few weeks or months there will be a motion that says that for PSR purposes, all deals done between the same two clubs within a finite period must be netted off against each other for purposes of the PSR calculations. E.g. if Anderson is £35 and this keeper is £25m and both sales happen in the same transfer window, then the only transaction recorded in the PSR ledger is a net purchase of 10 million by Forest and there is no profit on disposal of £35m recorded in NUFC's accounts. Of course , the clubs can get round this motion through various loopholes and the whole process will repeat itself. PSR is a farce.

I am lost with this comment. This is clearly a PSR driven deal. PSR headroom is one of the most important assets this club can buy. View this deal in that context.

Yep. I've said it before and I'll say it again .... If the premier league want to turn football into a game of accountancy, then the teams are within their rights to play that game It's a complete nonsense but the premier league have took us here. The more they try to close various loopholes the more they will tie themselves in knots

It has nothing to do with protecting against clubs going broke. The tests are completely ambivalent to the financial strength of a club's balance sheet.

The fact that a football board is starting to discuss Financial Reporting Standards 102, Section 23 Revenue Recognition, demonstrates the complete nonsense that the premier league has got itself into.

It doesn't objectively meet any definition of fairness as it leads to clubs with higher revenues (generated pre PSR) having budgets that are many multiples bigger than clubs that just so happened to have lower revenues at the arbitrary time of PSR implementation. To compound matters, these clubs have little hope of growing their revenue meaningfully to compensate because that requires investment in the playing squad which they can't do because that would break PSR rules. I.e. the ladder by which others ascended has been kicked down.

RAWK makes interesting reading right now. They have convinced themselves that PSR is at the heart of fairness and any transactions not involving them are cheating. Whilst at the same time salivating at picking up rival club players on the cheap.

If we do want to sell a player before 30 June it would make absolute sense to have as many options open to us as is possible, even if some of the potential departures are not likely or wanted to be sold by the club. Having options strengthens out negotiating position for players we do want to sell and it also allows us to understand the relative merits of selling different players. This 'process driven' cliche the club bang on about will involve assessing all available options for selling players before determining the best available option. That said, selling Gordon would likely be a disaster in both PR terms and on the pitch.