Jackie Broon

No, it's like owning a leasehold house, but unlike leasehold house there are likely to be restrictions on the club's ability to sell and/or for the land to be used for anything else.

We don't own the land St. James' Park is on, it is leased from the council and likely has covenants on that would restrict other uses and/or sale.

I'd disagree based on the objective evidence of Man City's APT case, the biggest 'loophole' we have available is the inflationary nature of the APT rules, which the PL tried and failed to close. We can't do what Chelsea are doing because we don't have the assets, and it isn't sustainable anyway.

Maybe, but we're obviously going about it more cautiously and I think we have potential to grow more consistently than Villa. Although we might not feel they are using that advantage enough, we have the wealth and influence of a state behind us and so have more ability to keep increasing commercial revenue over time. The whole purpose of the changes to APT and FMV that the PL brought in, and were found to be unlawful, was that they were concerned that the current rules are inflationary, that they would allow APT deals to be increased over time. Also, the connections that our owners have mean that we have the potential to get better deals from some non-associated parties, for example our deal with Adidas is reportedly double what Villa get.

To some extent but it's sustained success over many years that is needed to really drive up revenues. Villa have got themselves into a position where they have a completely unsustainable wage bill and are reliant on getting into the CL every season, and/or selling assets, to avoid falling foul of PL PSR. Whilst they will just get a derisory fine this time, they seemingly have no way of complying with UEFA FFP in the foreseeable future and by their rules the punishments will get progressively more severe, eventually leading to a European ban. It just doesn't seem to be sustainable for them, I just can't see them having the kind on long term success to increase their revenue that much before it comes crashing down.

I wonder if that is part of the reason for keeping Goodison Park for the women's team?

That's only if the selling club needs the money for PSR this financial year, otherwise they're always going to be better off with the sale going through in the next financial year so the profit counts towards PSR for three years rather than two.

As has been pointed out before, doubling his wages will technically cost us nothing because of the reduction in amortisation cost of his transfer fee. There would be the risk of potential inflationary effect on other player's wage demands, but we could easily afford to pay him £300k per week.

For all we know, we might have already submitted a training ground sponsorship to the PL and they've rejected or delayed it.

I know a few Burnley fans and last year they were saying that, that he was a flapper on crosses / cornrrs. They're not saying that now though, seems he has come on a lot in that area, although, obviously it's easier to look good in the Championship, but then again it's a very physical league.

As good as the rest of Pope's game is the fact that he is so bad with his feet really affects our ability to retain possession. I think it is a priority to get a long term replacement who is more comfortable with the ball at thieir feet.

£60m seems about right given the season he's had a age.

Meanwhile Chelsea swoop in and buy the Arena site, then sell it back to themselves.

He did actually bring in a few youth players, time will tell whether they're any good but his reputation was mainly based on identifying talent at that level.

It will move us forward if it gives us more room to sign a top quality player for the right and better cover for Isak.

IIRC it only applies to the PL, the UEFA rules exclude sales of assets to sister companies from their calculation.

If someone offers us big money for him I think we should take it too, on his day he's fantastic but all too often he has had long periods of looking disinterested and wasteful. Also Barnes is now as, if not more, effective than him on the left, and we have decent cover there in Joelinton and Willock.

Here's what he actually said: "Should our scouting and recruitment be driven more extensively with a wider reaching net? It definitely should, because this is becoming a really nuanced space now, when you can't just capitally fund everything every year and buy loads of players at peak age and peak price. Of course it needs to be, and that's the responsibility of me, the scouting team and Eddie (Howe). "Is it fit for purpose? Not last winter gone, the winter before that. Is it fit for purpose in the modern game? Because other clubs that have adopted a different approach over time, with more intelligence, more data-informed than we are, actually prospered in this window. That's where we have to grow to be now." Firstly, he was specifically talking about our "scouting and recruitment" and clearly indicated that it was not intelligent or data informed enough. Secondly, in terms of strategy, we haven't been buying at peak age and price. Bruno, Isak, Botman, Gordon, Hall, Livramento, Minteh all bought at a young age with room to develop and all significantly increased in value Arguably Barnes could meet the peak age and price definition, but his form in the least few months might have changed that. Burn was possibly peak age and price but has made a massive contribution to us Targett is the only real first team signing that could be definitely be said of.

His comments that out recruitment hadn't been fit for purpose were ridiculous, our hit-rate with signings under Howe has been incredible.

I trust Howe to be the top of the tree, I think the director of football role is more important when the manager's position is more transient.

Getintivem!

We still sing about Isak scoring against them. As irrelevant as they are to us in reality, we'll all love beating them.

Yhe winner of this won't be battling not to be relegated, they'll be battling not to break Derby's reccord.

Lovely pass and finish.

They clearly are financially, there is still a financial gulf between the 6, including Spurs and everyone else. They're not on the pitch at the moment but that could quickly change with a better manager and a few good signings.