Jackie Broon

Personally I think that messaging is counter-productive, there's a growing feeling of malaise around the club and I think that's possibly feeding into the on pitch performances. Players who have signed for us have said they were sold on a project, the chairman has indicated that we would be competing for titles within the length of their contracts. Now that has been reset to not even being likely to compete within the length of their careers. It's not surprising them losing motivation when all they here is how restricted by PSR we are. Maybe there is a 'Newcastle tax' or maybe we're just going after a small pool of players that other clubs are reluctant to sell and 'Newcastle tax' is a convenient excuse for failings in our scouting and transfer policy. Even if there is, three years of briefing that we're restricted by PSR and a PSR deadline day scramble to sell players doesn't seem to have changed that. The club desperately needs some positivity.

I know it's been said before and then we obviously did have a big issue with PSR in the summer, but, I think the club are deliberately playing up the restricted by PSR stuff. The hierarchy at the club clearly think there has been a 'Newcastle tax' and will do whatever they can to play down our ability to spend. Our position was dragged down significantly by the first year after the takeover, where we still had Ashley level revenue, that season's low revenue has now dropped off the books and been replaced by a season with significantly higher revenue. Clearly we are limited by PSR but I think we probably have more to spend than they are letting on.

Amortisation is over the lesser of length of a player's contract or five years. He was on a 3.5 year contract so his fee was being amortised over 3.5 years, I think extending his contract will increase that to 5 years so we will be amortising a smaller proportion of his fee each season from now on, so the wage rise could actually have a pretty neutral impact on PSR.

I think it's probably a non starter because any transaction like that would be subject to a FMV assessment. Chelsea had existing assets and sold them to their parent company at what was probably fair market value. The issue we have is we don't really have anything to sell that is worth anything. What they do seem to possibly have got away with is the management contract which means they still get all of the profits from the hotel, but it's hard to see how we could do something similar that would make us enough money to be worthwhile.

It's as good, if not far better, than many of the other reasons for people being knighted.

Also he was a replacement for ASM who didn't fit into Howe's style of play / was our only saleable asset we were wiling to part with for PSR purposes.

Provided you haven't got caught taking bungs, taking England to the semi-final of a major tournament = an automatic knighting.

The ten Hag / Overmars dream team we all wanted after the takeover will be available from the 10th of January

No chance of finding the quote but I took point he was making to be that in the modern game, or how he wants his teams to play, he wants midfield players who offer more than just sitting and covering the defense. Rodri is probably the prime example of the type of midfielder he wants. The counter argument would be that we can’t afford a Rodri and so maybe need to compromise.

There was another conference around the same time when he basically said he didn't believe in defensive midfield players in the modern game.

Isak just looks so isolated in our system. With the way we play I think we need a striker who is comfortable being very isolated and holding up the ball.

All I'm saying is that the issues that we have with being too easy to play through were apparent to me when I was watching that match. That doesn't mean I'm saying we didn't play well, but that fundamental systematic issue it's pretty much universally acknowledged (outside of Eddie's office) we have now was also apparent back then, with essentially the same personnel, hardly controversial take. Why do you think so many people were calling us to sign a natural No.6 in that transfer window and the one before even? This is not a new issue.

Of course I'm not saying there haven't been matches and spells where we've played really well in the past year, but the issues with our midfield have been apparent since the start of last season. Even before that everyone was calling for us to sign a proper 6.

They waltzed through us time after time, we just didn't get punished and ruthlessly exploited their high line. Momentum and confidence covered over the issues at the start of last season (other than against Brighton) but they were definitely there.

Yes, even against Villa.

He'll be gone if we don't qualify for Europe.

I agree, if we don't have the players to play how we are we need to find a different way. Bruno is becoming a liability, we need to find a way to allow him to do what he does best without leaving a huge space behind him.

If it were just this season then I don't think people would be so concerned, but there have been glaring tactical issues since the beginning of last season. We're just too easy to play through and lack creativity in midfield.

Mitchell needs to bring in a set piece coach, whether Eddie likes it ot not.

He did take a while to get going at Chelsea iirc.

433. The evidence revealed that Nielsen has a very high profile in the field of football club sponsorship deals. Indeed, MCFC has itself instructed Nielsen to provide advice on valuation. It must also have been known to the clubs that Nielsen had a confidential proprietary database. The evidence revealed that it is called SponsorGlobe and that clubs may, by the payment of a fee, obtain access to SponsorGlobe, as MCFC apparently did. 437. We are persuaded that the system as a whole is fair. In particular the club will have received a copy of Nielsen’s report with the Board’s Provisional Determination and have had an opportunity to comment on it. Thus, in the particular circumstances of this case, it is not unfair that a club is deprived of access to, and therefore the ability to comment upon, the detail of the transactions assessed by Nielsen to be relevant and comparable.

I get where you're coming from, but the PL would say that they're an established company with a wealth of experience and knowledge in that field and that's likely to be accepted without much question by any court, as it was by the arbitration tribunal in relation to their assessment of sponsorship deals from UAE businesses.

They don't, they outsource the assessments to Nielsen.

And that's one instance where there is a distinct whiff of us playing the system, with an Adidas / Sela 'partnership' announced alongside us getting a deal double that of Aston Villa.

What about the theory of the sunk cost fallacy?