Jackie Broon

I just find it a bit strange that there has been nothing from them or the club on this yet, maybe it leaking has caught them unprepared, but you would have thought they would come out with a statement of some sort.

It could also be a personal, health and/or financial decision by them.

Isn't it pretty much accepted knowlege that Minteh and Harrison at least were signed on the behest of Ashworth?

Well, not nullified altogether if UEFA's FMV rules remain, but they seem to have a much more relaxed approach to FMV even though, on paper, the rules seem more stringent.

He must be delighted to be away from those Monaco slums.

This article suggests that the case is about the FMV requirement in general, not just the recent changes, even though it was submitted immediately following them https://www.theguardian.com/football/article/2024/jun/08/manchester-city-premier-league-legal-case

I actually don't think it's the PL board that are the issue, I get the impression we're quite pally with the hierarchy now but Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal and Spurs have enough of the others following them to push through changes unilaterally, sometimes against the advice of the board.

I think it was probably more a case of being realistic that if a club he wanted to go to had met his release clause we wouldn't have had any other option, rather than it being a preferred plan.

The documentary, which detailed the process of demonstrating FMV for the Sela deal, and the delay in stuff like the training kit sponsorship coming forward.

Without the pretty much unprecedented injury crisis we had in the past season we would have easily finished top 6. There's a very good chance we'll finish in the top 6 this season without the demands of European football. Our FMV is not hugely less than the top 6 now, the PL has allowed us to sign deals similar to what they get, it's just obviously taking a lot of time to justify each one so it will be a longer process than we would like.

Our revenue for 23/24 is likely to be in the mid 300 millions. If we continue to finish around the top 6 then eventually our FMV will be at the level of other top 6 clubs.

We still have the ability to inflate sponsorship deals, our Adidas deal is worth double that of Villa's. When I pointed that out before you essentially said us and Villa aren't in the same boat because we have more potential. We don't have the ability to inflate deals to the extent we would without the way the FMV rules are currently operated, but we are probably still be doing it and getting deals that we wouldn't get if we weren't state owned.

We are but the difference is we have the backing of a state behind us, and higher turnover and lower wage bil. We have the potential to find that revenue, they probably don't. We're some way from bridging the financial gap to the big 6, but we're pulling clear of everyone else.

I think it's been more a case of people willing him to develop into a top player because he's a local lad. There's been little evidence on the pitch that he would have ever become more than a squad player for us.

MGW - 6 goals 10 assists in 42 games, 1 goal every 588 mins Elanga - 5 goals 9 assists in 39 games, 1 goal every 535 mins Hudson-Odoi - 8 goals 2 assists in 34 games, 1 goal every 273 mins Jacob Murphy - 3 goals 8 assists in 28 games, 1 goal every 533 mins

Villa seem to be heading for an Everton-like situation in a year or two. They lost £116m 22/23, their turnover £50m lower than ours and their wage to turnover ratio is like 95%.

It's not rather, it's both percentage of turnover and allowable loses, mirroring the UEFA system.

It would be interesting to see the statistics for how far backwards Trippier has 'progressed' the ball. His point randomly and then pass it back to a central defender move has become almost like the Scott Parker spin.

In the PL Handbook: A.1.38. “Cash Losses” means aggregate Adjusted Earnings Before Tax after: (a) write back of: (i) amortisation and/or impairment of Players’ registrations up to a maximum of five years; and (ii) profit or loss on the transfer of Players’ registrations; and (b) inclusion of net cash flow in respect of transfers of Players’ registrations;

It doesn't work like that, for example Pope's fee will be amortised at £2m per year for 5 years beginning 21/22.

Yes because, like the current system, it would entrench the current hierarchy. There would never be an opportunity for other clubs to catch up with the big 6, the gap would just get wider and wider. If spending is capped it should be a level playing field where everyone can spend up to the same amount as the top club.

Yes, that was the January when we bought Trippier, Wood, Bruno and Burn. But it doesn't really work that way in terms of FFP because fees are spread over 5 years. More important for us is that our revenue increased by £76m in 22/23. These sales will also create more headroom.

The park as a whole is Grade 2 listed, but that's not the same as Leazes Terrace, which is Grade 1 listed. There is a massive difference in significance between Grade 1 and 2. Only around 2% of listed buildings are Grade 1. Grade 2 listed buildings/parks in particular aren't sacrosanct, they can be altered or completely demolished with adequate justification The loss of a corner of the park could potentially be justified against the public benefits of a new stadium and heritage benefits of improving the setting of Leazes Terrace.

We don't own the land St. James' Park is on, we can't sell the stadium. The PL have closed / severely slowed down the avenue of lots of partnership deals. Each deal would have to either be genuine or demonstrated to be FMV. There have been signs of us throwing spanners in the works from behind the scenes, such as the spending cap proposal.

It potentially would be if the Sela 'partnership' resulted in us getting a deal double that of Villa's. We just don't know what's going on behind the scenes, yes they aren't taking an outwardly aggressive approach, their approach seems to be more long term proxy war than direct conflict. Also, there's not much we can do in terms of direct conflict unless we're actually charged and have something to fight against. Chelsea have aggressively exploited loopholes but we just don't have access to those same loopholes, we don't have property worth tens/hundreds of millions and it's not clear yet whether they have been successful in exploiting those loopholes, it's a very high risk strategy. Anyway, isn't all the panic in this thread that we haven't been complying with the rules?