Jackie Broon

Unless it's the CL the additional revenue probably only just covers the additional cost of bonus for European qualification. Even then, we didn't actually make that much from the CL because it's fixed to pay out more to the regular CL qualifiers.

I think it's more that our form has dropped off a cliff since we made the final, just like it did last time, and in the post match interviews after the second semi Burn and Tripper pretty much confirmed that was down to the players being distracted by approaching final and everything around it.

To be fair, it took months of them underperforming to finally lose their automatic place in the team.

I agree with a lot of that too but there are always going to be one or two of the big 6 who underperform and one or two clubs outside of the big 6 that overperform. It happens pretty much every season. We have every chance of getting 5th from our position, I still think Forest will drop off and we'll finish ahead of them. If they don't drop off, good on them, they'll deserve it. If we finish 5th it will be a good achievement but the expectation for this season shouldn't be more than just qualifying for Europe imo.

I've been disappointed with aspects of Eddie's management this season, how slow he is to make changes when things obviously need changing and our lack of consistency and intensity against teams we should be beating. But, top 5 is an unrealistic and unfair expectation given the financial gulf between us and the big 6. European qualification is a realistic expectation, and we are on course for that. We will probably have more money to spend to refresh the squad in the summer and push on, he has more than earned the chance to do that, if we don't push on from that with Eddie then that's the time to say he's not the man to do it.

Sick of him just looking to draw free kicks in unthreatening areas every time he gets the ball. It just breaks up our play and puts us in danger when he doesn't get them

Eddie's game management is shocking against anyone but Arsenal. Just so slow to make changes.

You'd think they'd know better than anyone.

Assuming it is supported by the planners there are three main things that could potentially significantly slow down the planning process: 1: It isn't supported by councilors. This seems unlikely, even if there were another similar Friends of Leazes Park campaign against an application, councilors are still likely to support it, as they reportedly did in 97. 2: It gets called-in by the Secretary of State. Possible, because it was in 97, but seems less likely given this government's pro-development stance. 3: It gets approved but that is legally challenged. This seems fairly unlikely. Firstly, to bring a legal challenge there need to be grounds, a challenge can only be brought on a point of law, not just because someone disagrees with a decision. Secondly, it is very expensive to legally challenge a planning permission, tens of thousands of pounds, the Friends of Leazes Park probably don't have that kind of money.

I said to be seen to be playing by the rules, I don't think they were ever going to come in a throw in a £100m stadium sponsor deal through some company that they could say wasn't a related party, even if they could have at the time, and possibly could now. But, what the PL tried to prevent with the unlawful amendments last year was the gradual inflation of associated party deals. The rules as they stand now give us more room to do that.

I don't thimk there was ever an intention to put in massive sponsorships deals, Staveley talked about working within FFP in hrr day one interview. I think they have always wanted to be seen to be playing by the rules.

Space is the issue more than traffic, that is generally less of an issue in city centres given the established public transport links to them. There just isn't the amount of developable space within or close to city centres usually. Newcastle is pretty unique in that with the moors.

It is (although that describes most of Liverpool outside of the centre) and about a half hour walk to anything.

Yeah, really the PL's rules should just exactly align with UEFA's rather than tying themselves in knots desperately trying to restrict us when we would be restricted enough to stop us running away with everything by the UEFA rules anyway.

The public interest test would be something to be argued out in court / tribunals though, and has to an extent in Man City's APT case with the tribunal finding that in principle it is in the public interest for their to be such controls over football clubs finances.