Jackie Broon

All of the reports have been that PIF are very hands on, possibly excessively so, that every financial decision has to be run past them causing unnecessary delays.

We got a deal with Adidas double the value of the deal Aston Villa got, while at the same time there was an announcement of a 'partnership' is announced between Adidas and Sela. Just because attempts at PSR circumvention haven't been obvious doesn't mean they aren't happening. We just don't make sense for PIF as a financial investment, they essentially spent £1.1bn to buy us and have invested another £400m+ since then. Even discounting the cost of solving the BeoutQ issue it's a very high financial risk, high reputational risk, low return investment if they're just looking to build our value and then flip.

Because he was a Dan Ashworth signing that Howe doesn't fancy and we've decided to cash out to free up funds to spend on players that Howe actually wants

My mistake, looks like what has to be submitted by 31st March is estimated accounts for the current season.

25/26 would be the next season, the PSR caculation isn't submitted until 31st March.

And we won't actually know anything until at least March, which is when this year's accounts are submitted to the PL. Any punishment probably wont come until 25/26.

They will, but that definitely wouldn't involve giving us any leeway.

All of these reporters have been talking about June 30th as a deadline, now he's saying 'well they can declare a near miss deal', which there isn't any provision for in the rules (although I don't lnow if it the income could be put into the previous year in accounting terms?) Seem like he's setting it up so if sales don't happen by Sunday he's not shown to be wrong.

What Eales was talking about was about sales of players releasing future increases in income, speculating to accumulate rather than plugging a ffp hole (although I realise that he wouldn't say that). The Trippier rumours seemed to be driven by unexpected interest from Bayern rather than us trying to sell. Trying to move on Miggy seemed to be connected to us trying to release funds to spend in January rather than plug a ffp hole. Maybe we are in that much FFP trouble, but I think it's unlikely.

I just can't see us putting ourselves in that position, obviously the club would have been fully aware of our position in relation to FFP since August (or December accounting for CL income), there have been no surprises or changes, I just can't see that we got ourselves into a £30m hole last summer and have done nothing about it for 10 months. And there's just no way the club would let anyone outside of the club know our financial position or that we need to sell, this is probably just educated guesswork by someone who makes a living from educated guesswork to give the impression of insider knowledge.

The Castle Leazes development included part of the Leaezes Park being built on. Yes it seems unlikely that we'd get permission to completely obliterate the park, but loss of part of the park with compensation on the existing site of St James' Park, with benefits to the setting of Leazes Terrace together with the public benefits of a new stadium, seems likely to have a good case to offset the impact of that.

Planning applications are approved against huge opposition all of the time, pretty much every major application has public opposition and the level of opposition is not a material consideration. Dolly Potter didn't stop the Castle Leazes development, John Prescott calling it in for determination by public inquiry and then John Hall withdrawing the application did. There would have been nothing to stop the club continuing with the Castle Leazes application alongside the St James' expansion application.

As a dyslexic person whoes language processing is a bit slow readng the new thread title was a propper rollercoaster of emotions, I read it as '£100M release clause activated' at first glance, then had a wave of relieif as I realised it was about it expiring, then a wave of anxiety at having to wait until midnight for it to expire

Looked offside anyway.

I don't think that's true, he's good with the ball as his feet, the question marks are over his fitness and finishing, but holding up the ball is his biggest strength and something we're really missing as an option.

The club is obviously very cognisant of our ffp position, it seems very unlikely that we've actually got ourselves into a ffp hole for this season, no apparent movement on outgoing transfers (other than paid-up contracts) 12 days before our accounting period ends suggest there is no concern at the club.

Hate watching England, same match with the same issues over and over.

He left Spain because his family couldn't settle, I can't see him moving abroad again.

My post was in the context of people saying that Minteh should be given an opportunity next season and mustn’t be sold, reacting to the rumours that Howe isn't interested in him and we could cash in. Personally, I'd like to see him in our squad next season, but that is ultimately the choice of our management. Good stats in the Eredivisie don't always mean that a player will be a success in the Premier League, that's not being critical or condescending towards the Eredivisie. Our management will be looking at more than just the stats. If they come to the conclusion that they don't fancy him then I trust them to make that decision.

It's not like he's alone, there's a long list of players who have looked world beaters in the Dutch league and gone on to do nothing. Hopefully Minteh will be an exception to that (if we keep him) but statistics from the Dutch league have to be taken in the context of how weak most of the league is.

It might also be that there is an arbitration case ongoing that hasn't been made public. According to their rules at the time the PL only had 5 working days to confirm our takeover.

As far as I'm aware the PL haven't approved the transaction yet. All law, regulations, contracts etc. is open to interpretation and that interpretation is a matter for the PL > arbitration panel > courts if it can come to that. Unless and until it has been signed off it's not certain that they have been successful in their workaround.

I've had a quick skim over the transcript and our case was that SJHL wasn't bound by the PL's rules but also that, even if it were, the claim was outside of the scope of the PL arbitration. The CAT obviously didn't get a chance to rule on jurisdiction because the the PL allowed the takeover a week later.

The case was also that the claim that SJHL were bringing was outside of the scope of the arbitration process. Either something is within the scope of the PL arbitration process, and that allows for appeal to the High Court on points of law, or it is not, which would possibly allow any relevent claim to be made to the CAT. Which I'm sure the PL would challenge the juridriction of but that would be something argued out by both sides and decsided on by the tribunal. It's probably not open and shut either way and either way.