Jackie Broon

I doubt the charges will stick, the PL's profit and sustainability rules were clearly badly drafted and full of holes, and the charges relate to before the amendments were brought in after our takeover to strengthen the disclosure and control over related party transactions.

I don't think the PL will be in a position to sign off on any deals until new rules are in place. There might well be a number of deals the PL are just sitting on.

No one knows for sure, including Man City's or the PL's legal teams, until the tribunal makes it's final decision and/or it's played out in other challenges.

That takes into account the cost of building a larger stadium, in theory that is not an issue for us. Depending on how PIF actually see us we might only be looking to maximise revenue with the cost not really being a factor. I understand that there'd also be an element of scarcity driving demand, with a point where the balance tips and more availability could actually result in less demand. But I think that could probably be overcome to a large extent with big variations in pricing.

"Credit to Steve Bruce"

They're in a catch 22, apply it retrospectively and it'll probably be unenforceable for similar reasons to the Leicester case, don't apply it retrospectively and FMV/PSR is probably still unlawful because there'll be 2-3 years in the PSR calculations where those clubs haven't had FMV applied to their loans. Probably the only way around it is to restart the PSR cycle from scratch.

To be fair, looks like he's acknowledged that he was going out too much when he was at Burnley "I was still going out when I was younger – drinking – and I wasn't looking after myself properly. He (Dyche) came in and sorted it all out. My career has totally changed. Burnley helped me get to where I am and I'll never forget that."

Yeah, unless they do it retrospectively over the past three years, which the clubs with shareholder loans will never vote for, they have what the tribunal has ruled is an unfair advantage baked in for the next three years.

We had up to £70m available to spend on Guehi, I can't believe we offered that if it would potentially leave us with another PSR deadline day scramble to sell players. The stuff about Gordon's contract changing things doesn't add up, as spoken about above.

Personally I think that messaging is counter-productive, there's a growing feeling of malaise around the club and I think that's possibly feeding into the on pitch performances. Players who have signed for us have said they were sold on a project, the chairman has indicated that we would be competing for titles within the length of their contracts. Now that has been reset to not even being likely to compete within the length of their careers. It's not surprising them losing motivation when all they here is how restricted by PSR we are. Maybe there is a 'Newcastle tax' or maybe we're just going after a small pool of players that other clubs are reluctant to sell and 'Newcastle tax' is a convenient excuse for failings in our scouting and transfer policy. Even if there is, three years of briefing that we're restricted by PSR and a PSR deadline day scramble to sell players doesn't seem to have changed that. The club desperately needs some positivity.

I know it's been said before and then we obviously did have a big issue with PSR in the summer, but, I think the club are deliberately playing up the restricted by PSR stuff. The hierarchy at the club clearly think there has been a 'Newcastle tax' and will do whatever they can to play down our ability to spend. Our position was dragged down significantly by the first year after the takeover, where we still had Ashley level revenue, that season's low revenue has now dropped off the books and been replaced by a season with significantly higher revenue. Clearly we are limited by PSR but I think we probably have more to spend than they are letting on.

Amortisation is over the lesser of length of a player's contract or five years. He was on a 3.5 year contract so his fee was being amortised over 3.5 years, I think extending his contract will increase that to 5 years so we will be amortising a smaller proportion of his fee each season from now on, so the wage rise could actually have a pretty neutral impact on PSR.

I think it's probably a non starter because any transaction like that would be subject to a FMV assessment. Chelsea had existing assets and sold them to their parent company at what was probably fair market value. The issue we have is we don't really have anything to sell that is worth anything. What they do seem to possibly have got away with is the management contract which means they still get all of the profits from the hotel, but it's hard to see how we could do something similar that would make us enough money to be worthwhile.

It's as good, if not far better, than many of the other reasons for people being knighted.

Also he was a replacement for ASM who didn't fit into Howe's style of play / was our only saleable asset we were wiling to part with for PSR purposes.

Provided you haven't got caught taking bungs, taking England to the semi-final of a major tournament = an automatic knighting.

The ten Hag / Overmars dream team we all wanted after the takeover will be available from the 10th of January

No chance of finding the quote but I took point he was making to be that in the modern game, or how he wants his teams to play, he wants midfield players who offer more than just sitting and covering the defense. Rodri is probably the prime example of the type of midfielder he wants. The counter argument would be that we can’t afford a Rodri and so maybe need to compromise.

There was another conference around the same time when he basically said he didn't believe in defensive midfield players in the modern game.

Isak just looks so isolated in our system. With the way we play I think we need a striker who is comfortable being very isolated and holding up the ball.

All I'm saying is that the issues that we have with being too easy to play through were apparent to me when I was watching that match. That doesn't mean I'm saying we didn't play well, but that fundamental systematic issue it's pretty much universally acknowledged (outside of Eddie's office) we have now was also apparent back then, with essentially the same personnel, hardly controversial take. Why do you think so many people were calling us to sign a natural No.6 in that transfer window and the one before even? This is not a new issue.

Of course I'm not saying there haven't been matches and spells where we've played really well in the past year, but the issues with our midfield have been apparent since the start of last season. Even before that everyone was calling for us to sign a proper 6.

They waltzed through us time after time, we just didn't get punished and ruthlessly exploited their high line. Momentum and confidence covered over the issues at the start of last season (other than against Brighton) but they were definitely there.

Yes, even against Villa.

He'll be gone if we don't qualify for Europe.