Boey_Jarton

I think the difference with sovereign ownership is the control and influence that comes with it, and that is beyond just wealth. I completely agree that it's impossible to draw the line though, and the only reason that Liverpool fans want to draw the line now, is to kick others down the ladder that they themselves ascended.

You've just reminded me of the Pools Man knocking at our door to get my Dad's coupon and money. What a time to be alive.

Many Liverpool fans have an interesting definition of cheating and fairness when it comes to football ownership. As an honest Newcastle fan, I will admit that it isn't in the spirit of football to have sovereign nations connected with football ownership. That ship has sailed unfortunately and you can argue that the fairest system is one where any club, from around the world, is able to have unrestricted investment to help it grow. Their definition of fairness is that every club should lock into the wealth and revenues they have now (which is a function of historical success and whether the club has been run sensibly) and that should never be able to change for eternity. All clubs should respect their place in the pecking order and no investment should be allowed to change that.

RAWK forum is worth a read. Some are proposing a new British Superleague that involves handpicked 'non-cheating' teams (i.e. no man city and Newcastle) but does involve the likes of Celtic, Shamrock Rovers Glentoran, themselves (of course), Arsenal and Villa. In fairness, many of the Liverpool fans have called it out as a batshit crazy idea and suggested that it might be better to just regroup and try again next season.

If the deal can be proven to demonstrate fair value then the fact it is with a related party is entirely irrelevant. There are no rules prohibiting related party transactions and in many cases such transactions make perfect commercial sense and bring synergies - e.g. Ryan Reynolds using his other businesses to sponsor Wrexham. The fact Reynolds has control of both companies has value and is why the sponsorship deal makes sense i.e. 'win-win'. In fact, it's what (partly) commercially justified the acquisition of Wrexham in the first place. His article suggests that they have experts employed to test 'fair value' but what Delaney won't know is that demonstrating the value of an intangible asset like sponsorship is difficult if not impossible. They can (and will) reference other club's deals, and in this context our deal looks fine. However, you can only take that so far since you end up with a circular argument whereby no club can ever do a deal that contradicts other deals. Moreover, the true value of an intangible asset is the long term discounted incremental cash flows attributed to it. It would not be at all difficult for a Saudi firm, controlled by PIF, to create a financial model that demonstrates that premier league exposure has a lot of value to a young and growing Saudi population. Having said all that, I don't contest that part of the rationale behind PIF's acquisition and the future sponsorships of Newcastle is to create a brand that supports Saudi's image (aka sports washing). However, that argument is largely irrelevant in the context of valuing sponsorship deals.

Hinchcliffe desperate for a red card

What have we done to annoy hinchcliffe? Thought he was the commentator that loved us in the championship?

For all the pre match talk of Brighton being a terrible stylistic match up for us , the first half played out in the exact opposite fashion. Fair play Eddie Howe

Not a penalty but if that's Salah at Anfield we all know the result

Always assumed the predictor sites were just implied betting odds. Or at least based on the same logic - i.e. stochastic simulations

Klopp is detestable

Ref not giving fouls suits Everton's version of the press (i.e. clattering into opponents at 100mph)

Terrible display. Akin to Man united's against us. Villa, as well as being far better than us, have performed superb game management. The second they lose control of ball or make a mistake they immediately look to buy a free kick. Also get their body in between ball and man every time. Fair play.

I thought 10 yellows in premier League games before the 32nd game it led to a 2 match ban but this type of suspension (i.e an accumulation of yellows) did not apply to cup games

Commentator (Goodman?) been smoking crack

Proper footballer. Fizzes his passes and direct. Looks very suited to our style.

I doubt it. That was ASMs chance. Fully expect Gordon to start next game.

Aguerd and Rice were both very good for West Ham.

Decent backup. Plays both flanks, reasonable defender, gets forward ok and has pace. Only positive from a shitshow

Manquillo? Really?

Any deal to sell NUFC would almost certainly be structured so that any owner loan would be eliminated on completion as part of any agreed purchase price. The substance of what you say here is correct but the way I would describe it is NUFC are being sold for their market value of circa £300m and Ashley is using circa £100m of that receipt to repay loans to himself - i.e. Market Value = Debt plus Equity

An interest free loan from the 100 percent shareholder is very much different to third party debt. From a buyer's perspective, the fact that Ashley has chose to inject his funds as debt rather than equity makes no fundamental difference to the transaction.

Longstaff challenge epitomises my life as an Nufc fan

My entire life watching Newcastle United summed up in 10 seconds

Aye, the FA are relying on MotD for their decisions They definitely react to things more if pundits highlight it. .