timeEd32

He honestly has one of the strangest resumes (sorry, CVs) out there and I don't even think that changes based on Sunday's result. England's relative (or actual) success over the last 8 years and whether they won because of him or in spite of him (or a bit of both + some luck) will be argued for decades.

I saw this an hour ago and I'm still chuckling.

That means nothing (if it's even true). Most of the players probably don't even know the specifics of the ownership structure and Amanda / Merhdad were cleary the most visible to them, so it would be surprising in that regard.

Have to hope they either help blow up the rules or continue to waste most of their money / chop and change managers without any real success.

A huge part of their power and leverage is the threat they could leave at any moment.

They look badass in the Adidas gear.

What @TheBrownBottle said is a huge factor. It's not like she/they only owned 5-10% but could comfortably afford that and could maybe throw in a bit more from time to time. In the car analogy think of it more like you found a rare car for your two wealthy friends. They paid you a nice finder's fee in the form of a small ownership stake (there was also a political aspect to this but nevermind that). Now it's time for you to turn that into real cash whether it's because you really need it, they don't really want you around anymore, or the quick value growth has been achieved and it's good timing (or maybe a bit of all three). It actually seems more straightforward in the car analogy because the complicating factor here is they seem to have fallen in love with NUFC and because of that, their stewardship, and their work in removing Ashley there is an emotional component to it.

Even if it's just for the rest of his amortisation amount and getting his wages off is pretty significant savings.

We got very unlucky with our group, but that was always possible being in pot 4. It’s a huge mistake if any of our summer business was based on reaching the knockout rounds, but I don’t know what to think anymore without more details from the accounts.

Qualifying for Europe wouldn’t have improved our 2023/24 accounts. It may have made things slightly worse if it had triggered some end of season bonuses.

The “we” is all of them / PIF. And it was inevitable because of the vast difference in resources between PCP and PIF, the nature of her role, and (possibly) her on-going legal losses.

The first half was so entertaining. Thanks Gareth.

Bad things happen every time the ball goes near Rice/Trippier.

No, I meant any other body part. It'd be obviously dangerous. It's the shooting foot follow through that makes it contentious.

If his foot hits him anywhere else like that it's an obvious pen. They just never give these.

I thought that was more in the corner until the one replay. Surely has to get more of a hand on that. Pope probably saves it with his elbow.

In the US we have to listen to Landon Donovan so spare me your commentary complaints.

Oh, that wasn't my angle. More just how supportive Staveley seems to have been. Though I just saw there was a huge signing today so maybe nothing to worry about there either.

I can understand being apprehensive about it, but it was an entirely predictable and expected outcome. It may be slightly accelerated due to investment plans or due to her own financial obligations. It actually has a higher chance of leading to positive things than negative, except for potentially the women's team. That's the one area where I could understand some real question marks in terms of commitment and ambition.

I'm sure they got around it with some accounting wizardry. But hopefully there's some truth in this because there'd be no quicker path to the rules being blown up.

PL only... Kepa - £72m Mustafi - £35m Mangala - £42m Cucurella - £62m Lo Celso - £30ishm Drinkwater - £32m Markovic - £20m Bakayoko - £40m Pepe - £72m Antony - £86m Lukaku (the last time) - £97m You need to inflation adjust some of these, but that feels suitably terrible. Also, "Chelsea" was a very appropriate answer.

Yeah, part of that FSG timeline was securing funding and a lot of Liverpool City Council negotiations related to development outside the ground. But our financial situation isn't as simple as PIF writing a £600m check either.

FSG bought Liverpool in October of 2010. Henry announced in early 2011 they wanted to stay at Anfield. It wasn't until April of 2014 that plans were released for the redevelopment of the Main Stand. Work began at the end of 2014. That's despite 1) an entire design and agreement for a new stadium being readily available (i.e. there was a known alternative); 2) FSG already having done this exact thing with Fenway Park in Boston; 3) Liverpool buying up land around the stadium beginning in 2000, a decade before FSG even showed up. Mike Ashley sat on his hands for 14 years. Actually, that's not true - he sold land around the stadium, actively making this more difficult. I don't even know what's real or fake angst in this thread anymore, but people really need some patience.

I was open to Gordon being used on the RW a year ago and kind of thought that might be the idea when we added Barnes. Obviously Barnes missed most of the season, so the sample is small but I feel like we would have seen more of Gordon on the right in the run-in if it was going to be a core part of our plan. I do think Eddie likes the idea of an interchangeable front three and we did see Gordon moving around at times in-game, but I don't think Barnes is equally as capable of that so you're pretty firmly planting Gordon at RW by playing Barnes at LW. The Barnes signing was opportunistic, but I think after the extent of our PSR issues last month it's fair to call it a mistake (financially and as a use of resources; not a comment on the player, who I like).

I don't think the solution to an inefficient use of resources at LW is to play one of our best players out of his best position.