Jackie Broon

I'm not saying don't market but the performance of the team should be the No.1 priority, that is the most powerful marketing tool we have by a mile.

Doesn't mean we should follow that template. Winning matches in the league playing good football will do infinitely more for our profile than marketing people and overseas tours ever could.

The club should be laser focused on the team's best performance and doing everything to enable that. Not fucking off half way across the world to pick up a handful of new supporters and a few million quid in Australia and Japan, at the potential expense of our performance in the league. There is too much of a feel of marketing men justifying their own existence around the club at the moment.

From what has been reported City have specifically challenged the PLs new rules on fair market value (which put the burden of proof on clubs to prove that APTs are at fair market value), not the rules that existed before that. If UEFA are dismissing any property transaction made between suster companies, even at fair market value, that seems like a much more clear-cut case of being anti-competative.

That seems ripe for a legal challenge if Chelsea do get a propper punishment. It's one thing requiring transactions to be fair market value but if they're saying no transactions at all between sister companies that seems clearly anti-competative.

The whole team has looked sloppy and disjointed, he had a poor first half last night but improved significantly in the second. Let's not jump on the back of youngest player in the team.

Been thinking that too. I'm really not sure things like the Japan trip stack up. Clubs get big followings worldwide by being successful in the league and Europe, not by doing pre-season tours. If a pre-season tour to the other side of the world is counterproductive to our performance in real competition then I'm pretty sure it will lose us a lot more money in the long term than it gains us in the short term.

It's just like watching England.

Pitty the rest of our players can't string more than 3 passes together against Forest reserves.

The way it happened just looked like it could pnly be an impact injury rather than something serious.

Doesn't matter, whether we pay in one go or over 100 years it goes in the FFP accounts split over five years (or the length of the player's contract if less than 5 years).

The simple answer is no.

That's the FFP accounts but fees and wages are amortised over the length of the player's contract in the accounts. So, for example, a player that we signed 5 years ago for 50m would be 10m each year for 5 years. This year they would be £30m in the 3 year FFP accounts, the year after £20, the year after £10. It wouldn't actually be until 8 years after signing that their fee would be gone from the FFP accounts.

No, because spending is spresd over up to 5 years.

Almiron arguably would have made more difference given how short we were for wingers but we were willing to sell him.

It's hindsight for us but the club had a much clearer view of our FFP position and what was going on with him back then and his form had been off for months, his fall-out at Bournemouth was back in November and he hadn't been right before and since then. We were willing to sell Almiron at that time, which was an area of the team where are injury crisis was much more of an issue. It is more of an error in hindsight by even without hindsight it was an error.

With what the club will have known about our FFP position and possibly the rumors about his private life it was a huge error not to accept Bayern's offer for him in January. His head clearly hasn't been right since those rumors.

Could potentially be gathering evidence for legal action to try to get the container removed?

I think the idea was/is to be able to have our wingers run themselves into the ground for 45-60 minutes and be rotated, so we needed more depth in that area of the team than any other, especially for last season in the CL. Also, it wasn't obvious when we signed Barnes that Gordon would kick on to the extent he has and become the clear 1st choice.

More damaging for them than us if we walk away. Unless he has a stellar season he's at the peak of his value. Realistically, Palace are a club that will be seen as a stepping stone by players (as we probably are by the likes of Isak at the moment). If they are seen as a club that will do everything to hold onto players that want to move on to bigger and better things and act publicly and unreasonably in negotiations that might well mean agents of the type of players they want to sign will not see them favourably.

Legitimately could get done for sexual assault if reported to police.

Could be a 'non-surgical hair replacement system'.

If anything that emphasises the point that there is a massive premium on England players in their prime.

Yes but I think City's case specifically relates to the new more restrictive rules which came in earlier this year, rather than the rules at the time they are alleged to have breached.

Because that's the pond we've decided to fish in.