timeEd32

Ha, yes. It’s a fucking outrageous narrative.

Trippier, Burn, Wood, Pope, Gordon, Hall, Tino, McTominay, Barnes, Phillips, Solanke, and Gallagher obviously all pushed by Howe. Bruno, Botman, Carlos, Isak, Tonali, Barella, Diomande, and Dragusin all found by Nickson/Ashworth. Howe’s xenophobic transfer dealings are tearing the St. James’ Park backroom apart to the point that any foreign player has to be discussed covertly. (The funny thing is the ones we actually signed in the first group have largely worked out well and provided good value)

This idea that Tino has been pushed aside recently is a myth. Trippier has been in and out since Burn came back so there’s a few games where we don’t know who would have started at LB. We know he was suffering from muscle fatigue for Luton / Forest so he got some rest. He had started eight straight before then (in less than a month). He then started v Liverpool, rested vs the mackems (could be to get Burn in the derby and/or minutes reasons), and then he was ill for City. Maybe he will be second choice on both sides, but we really don’t have evidence either way.

I don’t hate the idea of using a partially lost season to see if we can get above market fees for aging players. But it is a lot of goals + assists to replace by August. The pressure would be on to find the right mix of players to push us forward. Loans make no sense to me unless we’re seriously close to the limit. That could only be put down to some questionable planning. If we’re not getting decent fees I’d prefer to keep them for a Europe push / FA Cup run.

It is kind of concerning that they are likely going to become better run over the next couple years. But far better that it's with personnel from other clubs.

That's not true. We don't know if we're good and, based on all the noises from the club, how we structured Hall, etc., it's obviously pretty tight. We know we need to be profitable in the 2023/24 accounts. We also don't know where we're going to finish in the PL, which can be a decent amount of revenue. The difference between 6th and 10th is almost £9m. But let's say we are good right now and on track for a £15m profit. If we were to do something that increases that to, say, £30m then it gives us an extra £15m buffer (for losses) in 2024/25 and 2025/26.

If there’s any year where we may need to bring in more money it’s the current one. Also, there’s not really a thing as unnecessary profit. Even if it’s not needed for the current three year period, it’s granting future flexibility on losses. More details here:

You do. If he leaves we still paid (or owe) Atletico the fee. The books have to match actual cash outgoings. The remaining balance gets deducted from the incoming fee and that is the “profit.”* * Note: you can sell a player at a loss but it can still be booked as profit in the current accounting year if enough of the initial sum has been paid down via amortization (eg Chris Wood).

I don’t know why everyone ignores @Shadow Puppets . His info on Tino was accurate.

Arsenal bringing on Martinelli just because makes me sad for the state of our season / bench.

Sorry, but not a word of this is remotely accurate.

He is the CEO of the club, not the kit man. He’s quite important and, by all accounts, good at his job.

Caulkin’s style and tone was perfect for the Ashley years. It reminded people of the passion the football club lost. It reminded people things weren’t always this way and didn’t have to be this way. In our present state I’m far more interested in behind the scenes insights, and there doesn’t seem to really be anyone with that access.

Yes, in the sense that I've been half-expecting us to extend his contract and would be fine with it, whereas Shelvey just had to go. But if we sell him then I assume either he's indicated he'll be moving on for more playing time or we're planning on a big CB purchase in the summer (Schar competition / successor), in which case it would make sense. Though I'd be pretty surprised if Besiktas is the best/only option. Seems like he could do a decent job for anyone in the bottom half of the PL through the top half of the Championship.

Saving almost £1m on half a season's wages will be beneficial enough.

Oh, I know. It all adds up and it's among the single biggest opportunities left, but it's not an FFP panacea.

Stadium naming rights generally generate a lot less than you may think. The headline figures can be big as they are usually multi-decade deals and it's nice, consistent revenue, but it likely wouldn't be a game changer for us. The stadium naming rights for Spotify Camp Nou are apparently worth roughly €5m per season. The Emirates deal is shockingly low at around £4m/year for the stadium portion. The Etihad is around £20m/year (and likely inflated). The NFL's Kansas City Chiefs did something we may look at as they didn't want to lose the Arrowhead Stadium name, so for $4m per year it's GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium. New York's MetLife stadium (home of the Giants and Jets) is $16m/year, the same as baseball's New York Mets Citi Field. Both were new stadiums at the time, which is more attractive to the sponsor. One of the biggest deals is SoFi Stadium (also new), home of the NFL's LA Rams and Chargers, for $30m per season (20 year deal). LA is also home to what I think is the biggest deal in the world, Crypto.com arena (home of the Lakers and, for now, Clippers) for $35m/year. My guess is anything above £4-8m would get pushback (maybe £10-15m if we built a new stadium). It's a new squad player, not a shopping bonanza.

I think we would have seen this team a lot with Gordon at RW.

I think I agree. He would have allowed us to find ways to rotate Gordon, Miggy, Joelinton, Longstaff, and Miley. But, even ignoring the secondary effects of his absence, he offers things our other players don't. Even if he had only been available for 20 minute sub appearances we'd probably have a couple more wins/draws than we do.

Isn't it Carrick's brother?

Yeah, it'd be nice for sure. I just don't know what to make of this:

Even if this is true (and it seems to be very much up in the air) we're talking about 30% of, say, 30%. So best case we're probably looking at £7-9m.

Just a small £120M or so problem with that idea.

Pretty sure if you pulled each of them aside you'd hear that the Premier League already has too much parity (City's dominance notwithstanding) and they'd point to Spain, France, and Germany as comparisons. Six spots for four places already puts a huge part of the business model at risk. They desperately want to pull up the drawbridge before that number expands to 7 or 8.

I don't disagree about some additional rotation and/or earlier subs in some games. I don't think Bruno, Wilson, or Trippier should have come on in the Man United cup game up 3-0. Subs could have been made earlier against Sheffield United, Palace, Villa (though it was the first game), Burnley, and possibly Chelsea with little or no risk to the result. But there's a couple problems looking at this in hindsight (even for those who were saying it for certain games): 1) There is a natural bias based on the results. It's easy now to say we should have rested against Luton or Spurs or Everton or Bournemouth because we came away with nothing. Do people wish we played kids against Arsenal, Chelsea, Man United, or Fulham? Maybe, but it's not being said as much because then 3 points are at risk. The last week we looked anything like ourselves was Chelsea > PSG > Man United. 6 points and minutes away from a massive CL result. That week also destroyed what the players had left. Should we have given one of those up for the sake of December? Maybe in hindsight, though there weren't many complaints at the time. I also would have rotated more for Luton or Forest, but which one do you pick? The home game that is in theory easier or the away game because it's got short rest on either side? The common answer now would likely be 'either' but that's strongly influenced by the outcomes we now know. 2) The second XI for at least two months has been woefully short of PL quality. Personally (and I thought this at the time) I think we should have effectively conceded Spurs away. We had two days of rest after Everton, where the final 10 minutes showed us the state of things, and we had Milan coming up days later. But I think if we had rested for that game we would have been on the end of a genuinely embarrassing scoreline. Like potential PL record scoreline given their quality and the memory of what we did to them in April. I'm certain some on Eddie's back now would have also been furious at that. It may have been the difference against Milan, but we don't know for sure.