Jackie Broon

That isn't true at all.

It's Historic England, not English Heritage. Love it when Stiffy get's all Dunning-Kruger about planning.

From the listing that doesn't seem to be the case, and it seems that only the base of bandstand is original, the rest is a modern replacement. The pavilion seems to be of more significance.

We're in the fortunate position of there being huge swaiths of undeveloped land next to the city centre owned by the freemen or council, that are both likely to be inclined to help the club. We won't be moving out of central Newcastle.

Most of the main moor we probably couldn't due to restrictive planning designations, but there are parts of it we possibly could. Castle Leazes, Hunters Moor, Nuns Moor and the moorland next to Exhibition Park all have a planning designation that allows for sports buildings.

With the added benefit of taking that revenue stream away from the mackems.

Hunters Moor is a potential alternative option, walkable from he city centre, the same planning designation as Castle Leazes (which allows for sports development) with more space and without the issue of the listed Leazes Park.

We can't a) they have to signed off by the PL first b) the PL could just not take that income into account in the PSR calculation.

Awful news, wishing him and his family all the best

Don't mind at all, you probably should.

Nope, I won't risk identifying anyone. There's nothing explicit by the way, so I could well have just jumped to wrong conclusions.

I don't want to take that chance, most of the hints are out there if you look for them though. Eddie's 'slip' added to that.

It never reached a conclusion, the Council were likely to approve it but the club abandoned the application when it was called in by the government to be determined by inquiry. That shouldn't be confused with the likes of the Covid public inquiry, planning inquiries are commonplace. These every chance it could have been successful and could have run alongside the application for expansion, the club just threw in the towel.

I think any stadium development would have to involve at least part of Leazes Park. I doubt there's enough room on there alone for an Etihad Campus. I just want to stress, I don't know anything definitinve, it's just an educated guess.

I won't say exactly what, but, putting a few things together, I have a strong feeling that a decision has been made to go for a new stadium at Castle Leazes and the process of working towalds that is underway. Not really ITK by the way, just putting together a few things I've heard and picked up,. I might be completely wrong.

I suppose it depends what those proposed changes were and they could just as well been pulled because there isn't an outcome of the case yet.

Seems like he has jumped the gun, put 2 + 2 together, assumed that stuff would come out after the meeting and he'd look like he was the first to break it.

It's possible that the outcome could be that the concept of APT could be judged to be unlawful, but the case was brought in relation to the changes that were made late last year and UEFA's APT rules would still be in place unless they are also challenged or they decide to take into account the legal precedent set in the UK. Like you say, it depends on the outcome but the APT rules being completely swept aside would be a very significant victory.

I haven't seen anything that suggest the case goes further than the current fair market value rules which were brought in late last year, this article it indicates that Man City's case is in part that the PL's rules are more restrictive than UEFA's FMV rules, which implies that they are happy with the UEFA rules. https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jul/08/manchester-city-claim-premier-league-analysis-commercial-income-unfair

This probably doesn't sweep the PSR and APT rules aside, it probably just takes the APT rules back to where they were a year ago, with the onus of the PL to prove that associated party transactions are not fair market value rather than on the clubs to prove they are.

Affected clubs, like Man City and us, would probably be able to apply for an injunction or something.

Yeah, that's how I read it too. A meeting is much more likely to indicate Man City have won and the rules need to be changed, which can only be done with the agreement of the clubs, otherwise it would just be business as usual.

Dream scenario would be an Etihad campus style facility at Castle Leazes, the existing St. James site and maybe Hunters Moor if more land is needed.

Newcastle needs a new indoor arena, the Sage site is in doubt now, if an arena could be incorporated that could bring in a decent amount of additional revenue.