Boey_Jarton

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.

You need to consider the opportunity cost of purchasing Barnes. If we had not purchased Barnes at that fee and those were wages , we would have purchased another player or players that would have e contributed in different ways.

He is an excellent football finance analyst

Turgid second half but honestly think Serbia are a decent outfit. Well organised and talented players.

Superb use of the term gay abandon. Bravo.

A lack of two decent keepers probably cost us 10 points + last season , so perhaps so there may be some logic in allocating reasonable budget to a GK

Was amazed they put the article out in the first place. Unless they had validated it with CFOs (why would they do that?) or had water tight projections of pending rolling three year results (impossible without insider sources), it felt awfully risky to push it out into the public domain and potentially influence the market. I imagine sky have received a string of strongly worded letters from the legal teams of each club.

At this stage I think everyone has forgot about what the rules are actually trying to achieve? Is it fairness? Or is it sustainability? If it is the latter, the current rules are completely flawed, because a club could put £1 Billion into a ring fenced escrow to secure the clubs future for the next decade, but they still might be forced to sell a bright young talent to a rival.

The social media reaction to the Man City story is very interesting. Every fan base is opining on the issue from the sole perspective of their club but under the guise that their opinion is driven by altruistic reasons. Man United and Liverpool fans passionately believe that FFP and APT rules are a fair means of ensuring teams only prosper through honest sporting success like they allegedly did. Newcastle fans passionately believe that FFP and APT is anti competitive. Here lies the problem. Trying to solve the issue of fairness is impossible because their is no common definition of fairness that all clubs will agree on. All clubs (and fans) view fairness though their particular lens. On this basis, I think that the least worst solution is to either (1) Scrap FFP entirely, or (2) Introduce rules capping amortisation and wages on a rolling 3/5 year basis such that a fixed cap equally applies to all clubs. Both solutions are not perfect, but the world is not perfect.

Yep On related party transactions - I was assuming that, under the current conditions, the only party willing to provide a commercial deal on a parity with the existing big six would be one that is part of the same corporate group and can therefore share a long term vision which is as bold as catching up with the 'elite' Of course, the very presence of FFP means that ambitious owners cannot invest their own capital into the club freely, which in turn would make ambitious clubs more attractive to Non related third party commercial deals because such entities would be more willing to pay higher commercial rates if they are also leveraging the benefits of the owners investment.

Last point is a catch 22 for an aspiring club. Revenue can increase to allow higher wages but to increase revenue you need either: (1) better players with higher wages, or (2) Improved commercial deals that cannot pass FMV test because you are not yet a top team with the best players on high wages.

I disagree and think he is a highly competent modern day keeper. Not sure this discussion is going anywhere so happy to leave it at that

Pickford is a top goalkeeper. Proficient at nearly all aspects, including playing it with his feet and distribution. I quite respect that that he winds up our fans when we play them, he is just giving as good as he gets.

Didn't watch man united closely enough to comment on their injuries but some of the man united fans comments about Newcastle's situation demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge and understanding of what happened here.

If you want to compare relative investment in squads between man united and Newcastle, I suggest you look at rolling 3/5 year averages of combined wages plus amortisation. Newcastle will eventually close gap on those metrics but they are light years apart at present. Drawing conclusions on the relative transfer value of the starting 11s in one particular game is utter nonsense

Could be worse. I cast my mind back to... Spurs missing out on champions league finishing fourth, or Everton qualifying for champions league after finishing 4th, but getting knocked out in the qualifying round, and at same time rivals Liverpool qualifying for CL despite finishing 5th due to a retrospective rule change which granted qualification due to them winning the CL.

Clutching but perhaps today's outcome resharpens minds on the transfer front. Both ins and outs.

Did you have this opinion before today's game? If not, has your opinion on Howe changed due to a result he had no control over?

Beggars can't be choosers pal! I'd take any trophy with the possible exception of the pizza one the mackems won

Yep - that's my point