NSG

No doubt they’ll want first refusal on Bruno

It’s either a change in formation or play Hall as LCM. Change of formation it is then.

Deal supposedly off and in the squad for tomorrow.

In which case, selling players for nominal fees now makes no sense. Can totally understand why they’d want to keep their powder dry until they know how the rules are going to look longer term.

Could be. De Gea also in talks.

https://x.com/alshababsaudifc/status/1751727629474951403?s=46&t=El8GynjsImMyo-gea2gO0A

No bigger story. Klopp wants out and Arteta will want Barca. Nowt more than that.

Would love the lowest ranked team, at home, please. Gut feeling is telling me Leicester away.

Surprised we haven’t absolutely gone to town on the club owned channel and digital content side of things. Seems such an easy money maker across the globe.

Never thought I’d see the day when I was delighted to have him back but, hey, here we are. If we can keep him, Barnes and Willock relatively fit for the rest of the season then we’ll be a different side.

Let’s hope it’s the precursor to VAR being ditched.

I mean the last time he said we weren’t close, Harvey Barnes was in the room behind him doing his NUFCTV interview

Xavi Alonso nailed on

No, he said we stepped away for financial reasons. My view of that was that it didn’t represent value for money.

We’re not all guessing though. The numbers aren’t they difficult to work through in terms of where we lie. From what I’ve worked out we could get through this year without selling. It would also be massively incompetent of the club to need a sale in the last couple of weeks of January to balance the books. Got to remember the guys at the club will know to the penny where we need to be, and the strict message to the finance team will be our absolute priority is to not break PSR. We won’t take any chances. The position we’re in is that we’re fine for PSR as it stands but if we want to bring someone in (and pay decent money) then we’ll probably need to sell. My gut feeling is we’ll actually have a fairly busy last week of the window. I think Wilson and/or Miggy will go and we’ll bring in a couple. Maybe one permanent and one on loan.

Whatever man

https://x.com/nufcflights1892/status/1750777152524493226?s=46&t=El8GynjsImMyo-gea2gO0A A billion private jets landing today including this one

Rumours abound that we’ve said uncle Mike can’t sell the new adidas stuff in Sporty D.

Summit happening.

They’ve somehow managed to create a T shirt that shows off moobs before it’s even put on.

That German gadgie saying Bayern have walked away from negotiations.

Yeah I understand how the whole thing works and why they’ve done it how they have - however my personal view though is that under IFRS15 I’d be expecting the contract to be shown in 22/23 as the substance of the transaction is that it’s a permanent deal because all of the criteria have been met for the permanent transfer before the year is out (customer is known, value of income is known, income is guaranteed, club can’t back out of sale and all performance obligations have been satisfied). The only way out of it I could see is if all the performance criteria haven’t been met/we had a get out clause that we were likely to invoke or there is another standard which trumps IFRS15 that I’m unaware of Like you say it’s a fudge which would make me extremely uncomfortable if I was auditing the accounts.

Depends on the criteria of the sale. Substance over form would suggest that if he’s gone, hit all the criteria of the sale and the income is guaranteed, then it could/should be recognised. Would be an interesting discussion with the external auditor as you could probably argue either way.

That’s incorrect. Say they owe us cash from that deal. If it’s the full £15m (no idea if it is) but we would have accrued the full £15m income into last years accounts. If we therefore “wrote off” that income, the accrual would reverse into 23/24 and we’d have an in year hit of £15m (net neutral over the 2 years but when 23/24 cycle is included in FFP and 22/23 isn’t in two years time, it would actually show as a pressure). If we reduced the MGW fee by £15m to “offset this”, what actually would happen would be we’d see a c£3m reduction in spend each year (£1.5m in 23/24 as only a half year - based on a 5 year contract) but would also have to show the £15m hit, so we’d be c£13.5m worse off in year) by completing the transaction that way. If we were going to transact the deal we’d be far better off just leaving the Wood deal as it is and paying the correct fee for MGW. Cash transactions are an absolute red herring when it comes to FFP. Offsetting cash from deals may help cash flow etc but it has nothing to do with FFP compliance (same with how you structure payments etc).

That’s just from an opinion piece on their site.