Jackie Broon

As damning as it gets would be for the tribunal to find that the concept of restricting APTs is unlawful as a whole, they didn't find that, only that excluding shareholder loans, the changes to the burden of proof last year were unlawful, and there was procedural unfairness with delays and lack of access to data, but that the APT rules would otherwise be lawful.

That used to be the case, but now the rules require that any associated party deals are signed off by the PL before they are agreed. There law doesn't blanket ban restraint of trade, it can be acceptable where it is in the public interest. In the Man City tribunal some elements of the FMV rules were found to be anti-competitive but lawful due to the public interest of having controls over football club's finances.

Mike tickled a lot of people, allegedly.

Aye, ultimately it's only worth what someone will pay for it, how many buyers are they likely to be willing to pay 2/3s of a billion for a club that is losing tens of millions of pounds a year, needs massive investment in infrastructure and is completely hamstrung by PSR even with the richest owners in football? I just do not buy that PIF see us as a financial investment, it makes absolutely no sense.

That was based on what PIF paid Staveley for her shares, it wasn't a true valuation. We still need massive investment in stuff like stadium, academy and training facilities to move forward and are running at a significant loss. Everton have just been sold for £400m, okay they are behind us on the pitch but ahead of us in many ways off it. £645m seems about right.

It's actually £442m they have put in to date (together with the Reubens), so they'd need to sell for £747m just to break even. Forbes Value us at £645m. https://www.forbes.com/lists/soccer-valuations/

Because we're a shit investment. If they're lucky they'd maybe just about break even if they sold us tomorrow (not taking into account ehat they're put in with related party sponsorships) and it's going to take many more years of significant front and back door investment to have any hope of closing financial gap to the big 6 and us comparable in value.

I get that argument, but I'm not sure that's what would happen in reality. It's not like the current situation has prevented cost inflation. At the moment all that is happening it that the transfer market has stalled rather than player costs coming down. More clubs competing at the top and more money coming into the game can probably only be a good thing (well, other than for those clubs already at the top).

Missed Joelinton, I've added him in now. Our latest published accounts from 2023 have it at £89m. The accounts have a breakdown of the costs per year: Since then we've signed: Tonali - £12m (amortisation per year) Barnes - £7.6m Livramento - £6.2m Vlachodimos - £4m Hall - £5.6m Osula - £3m Total 38.4m Contract renewals that have reduced yearly amortisation: Bruno - 7.8 to 4.4 = -3.4m Burn - 5.2 to 2.2 = -3m Gordon 12.9 to 4.7 = -8.2m Total -£14.6m edit, I forgot to add sales since our last published accounts: ASM -£3.3m Minteh -£1.2m That works out at £90.7m for 2024/25 so my estimate is not far off.

I need to get a life I know but I decided to put together a spreadsheet estimating our current squad amortisation costs if it's of interest to anyone but me:

And just look at the long term success of that other midlands based club that footballed its way to brief success.

A nitpicnic?

What was it 80 said about nicpickers. Yes, I understand that there is always a continuing amortisation cost when a player signs a new contract before the end of their current contract, but for Joelinton and Miggy it will be so negligible it is not worth mentioning.

The sale itself is fine IMO, they can't stop clubs selling property that they own provided that it's at market value, which it seems it probably was. The issue is the management contract which it has been reported means they still get all the profits from the hotel going forward. They shouldn't need to change the rules, it's clear as day that a management contract giving them full profits from a hotel they no longer own is not fair market value.