Boey_Jarton

It's up there but that honour belongs to Papiss Cisse

Probably one for the unpopular opinions thread but I've agreed with nearly all of his insights tonight

Couldn't agree more with this article. In the first half, Summerville occupied the pocket between our midfielders and defence and all it took was one vertical pass to take out the entire midfield. We were neither pressing, nor forming a low block. Our four midfielders held a flat line and ball watched as they were bypassed.

On a lighter note, the ref's biceps deserve some credit

Burn's positioning for the goal is dreadful. Neither here nor there. It happens 2-3 times a game when he plays left back. Not even blaming him as I love the guy but it leaves us so exposed

This is one of my football pet hates - watching games where you want both teams to lose

Shareholder loans and/or debt restructuring/capital repayments have nothing to do with PSR. These are balance sheets matters which are important to a clubs liquidity and solvency but are not considered by PSR. PSR is driven by qualifying income less qualifying costs over a rolling 3 year period. A club could be technically insolvent but stay within PSR constraints whilst another club could have Net Assets of £1 trillion due to a shareholder injection making it the most financially solvent company on earth and it could still fail PSR.

Always litigate against those with the deepest pockets

His straight passes into midfield off either foot are beautiful.

Gordon wing play giving me Gillespie Barca vibes

Not one to peddle corruption claims but the refereeing in the Barca game has reached a point where it's absolutely comical.

Sky Sports panning to another game every 2 minutes whilst I miss the actual game I have tuned in to watch

Ref is a complete joke at this stage. Non contact sport

Osula will step up and do the business we are fine lads

Stating the obvious here but Wolt's holdup play is insanely good

Elanga has this full back bricking it

Isak semi-regularly put in non existent performances for us but got away with it as he had a team built around him supplying him with regular tap ins and penalties. The scrutiny at Liverpool is 10 x bigger than what he got with us, particularly with Ekitike being an outstanding other option. I can't take too much pleasure in his short term failings mind, when we have an injured Wissa, and the inevitability of him eventually coming good given his talent.

Pretty much this. Finishing a game with 4 centre backs and barely stringing two passes together , we get what we deserve.

Any minor deflection is irrelevant if as a defender you do this. It's a penalty.

Was it Gabriel who did the theatrical arched back nonsense when Joelinton scored?

Trossard has one of the most punchable faces in football

It's the fact popes touch decisively stops the ball being under Gyokeres' control that makes the difference.

Yes I agree with that but my understanding is that interest payments directly attributable to an excluded cost (e.g. infrastructure) would not be subject to that ruling. As ever with the premier League, these things are not crystal clear. The only public information is the premier league handbook which is not particularly detailed and does not reflect any case law / precedents set from previous cases and decisions.

Section E page 306 of premier league handbook outlines the methodology for calculating Adjusted Earning Before Tax. I agree that whilst investment infrastructure is explicitly mentioned, there is no direct reference to interest payments being an add back in the calculation of adjusted earnings. However my reading of the Everton case and reports from leading legal firms on this matter indicates that clubs are highly likely to be successful in justifying an exclusion if the interest is directly attributable to an excluded infrastructure investment. This would follow the 'substance over form' override as there is no interest without the new stadium. Of course, if it is not excluded, the interest payments could potentially run into the tens of millions each year, and would be eating into PSR headroom, and this would completely change my view on what the best source of financing is for any new stadium.

There are a lot of misunderstanding about the relative merits of using either debt or equity to fund an infrastructure project. Debt acts as leverage for PIF as it frees up their own capital to maximise the required returns for their wealth fund, which are likely to be a lot higher (CPI + 5%) than the cost of a loan. All private equity arms of pension funds and sovereign wealth funds use debt in this way. There are potential tax benefits from using debt and it avoids any dilution of equity, which is likely to be important given the Reuben brothers are minority shareholders Infrastructure related interest costs are excluded from PSR so it is neutral from that perspective. Put simply, using debt alongside share capital is an investment decision by our owners, which they are likely to think is in their best interests. I don't see a problem with that providing it is mutually beneficial for the club.