Jackie Broon

I was thinking the same, it perfectly clears the way for them not to gazump us on Ekitike.

I've just looked at what is on companies house. Probably only way to confirm it would be when the club's accounts for the last year to July are released.

It went under the radar a bit but last month the control of Newcastle United Football Club Projects Limited was transferred from the club to PZ Newco Holdings Ltd. Newcastle United Football Club Projects Limited was the company the club used for STACK. That seems to suggest that we might have sold STACK to ourselves.

I wasn't complaining about them not doing more, just speculating about PIF's motivation for investing in us.

On the pitch I think we're roughly where I hoped we'd be, I think we're on course to possibly be challenging for the title in the next 5 years with a slice of luck. Off the pitch I would have expected things to move faster, particularly the training ground, stadium and sponsorship deals.

As has been discussed many times, the sums just don't add up for us being a financial investment. One possibility that doesn't really seem to get mentioned is that we're a hobby project of Yasir Al Rumayyan's that he can do because it feeds into PIF's Vision 2030 objectives.

We clearly just being used by the agent to motivate Liverpool and Chelsea to make their bids.

Or maybe they will finally start using the loan loophole that wasn't closed.

It does seem strange to offload him for so little when it will mean that we are another homegrown player short for our CL squad.

Or even Trafford and Schar as a double pivot.

We wouldn't be where we are without him, we would have gone down in Bruce's last full season and the takeover probably wouldn't have happened. Thany you Callum.

I doubt we'll be compliant with UEFA rules next season to be fair.

Wilson isn't slow, he had a few runs in the time he played last season where he still looked plenty quick. It seems to be his reactions, touch and confidence that have gone rather than his pace.

Just awful, goes beyond football but what a player he was, RIP

I'm just interested to try to understand your opinion, because you haven't really explained it.

Yes, I understand that, but that doesn't affect what happens going forward, which is what we are discussing regarding your view that the club are waiting for the outcome before making new sponsorship deals. Also, the decision probably isn't going to come out until early 2026 at least so we're going to have a pretty long wait.

How do you think it will change things going forward? The rules as they are have basically reverted to the pre-Feb 24 rules (which the Sela deal was assessed under btw), they were implicitly found to be lawful in principle by APT1 other than the shareholder loans issue. Yes there may be an opportunity for us to claim compensation for the reduction or blocking of deals in the past (although that's not going to be open and shut case), but going forward I can't see how it will change the rules to our advantage in any way.

Stefan Borson, who knows better than probably anyone outside of the case, seems to think that City are fighting the case just for the sake of making life difficult for the PL and it won't really change much even if they win.

Either way, the outcome of the case probably has no real potential impact on us going forward and it doesn't seem likely to be a reason for us holding off on sponsorship deals.

Whilst the case relates to the APT and FMV elements of the PSR rules the, whole basis of the case is that some clubs have had an unfair PSR advantage because shareholder loans have not have FMV applied to them in the PSR calculation (which has already been found to be unlawful) and still have that advantage because the changes rules do not correct that retrospectively for the whole of the current three year PSR cycle. If the PL lose the APT2 case it seems to me that the only ways for the PL to rectify it are to either apply FMV to shareholder loans retrospectively for the past three years, or to start the cycle again from when they started applying FMV to shareholder loans. You seem to think that the club are waiting for the outcome of that case before deciding what to do, but the outcome of that case is unlikely to change anything for us in relation to new deals. Other than the shareholder loans issue the APT and FMV rules as they were before the February 2024 changes, and as they are now, have been implicitly found to be lawful. I just don't see how the APT2 case makes waiting for the outcome desirable to us, quite the opposite in fact.

If the PL lose the APT2 it will just be a case of them changing the rules to comply, that would to be likely to involve a complete reset of the psr cycle from when they started including shareholder loans (or include them retrospectively, which would never be agreed). It might mean that we would able to claim compensation for any deals that they have already blocked or required to be reduced under the unlawful rules, but it seems to me that it's very unlikely to result in any free for all, at least not for anything other than the time it takes to vote in new rules, which could also potentially include retrospective controls and it's unlikely to result in any fundamental change to the PSR rules. I'm definitely no expert, but that aligns with what experts like Stefan Borson have been saying I think.

Why are you pinning that on Staveley when Darren Eales was CEO from July 22 and from what we know PIF had final sign-off on all big financial decisions? Staveley probably had to leave because of her own finances rather than the club's.

PIF actually have a financial interest in Chelsea, they have billions invested in Clearlake Capital which owns 60% of Chelsea.

Burnley have probably agreed to let us speak to him, otherwise it would very much be against the PL's rules.

It depends on the covenants of the lease.