Jackie Broon

Not as a result of the football regulator, even if they got rid the the PL's FFP rules clubs in europe would still be subject to UEFA's. The only way would be is if there's a successful challenge of the FFP rules which affects both the PL and UEFA rules. Even then, it would probably result in them changing the rules so they allow more scope to allow clubs to catch-up than it being a free-for-all.

Is this what you're referring to, at 8:50? She was responding to a question about where she wants to see us long term, Keith Downie says 5-10 years but she clearly isn't putting a timescale on it in her response. Across the whole interview she's actually pretty measured and talks about it being a long term investment, the need for patience and to work within FFP.

That's kind of my original point, I was replying to a suggestion that NDM being involved means we're dictating it from the background. Which it doesn't, Forest have just engaged one of the best from a very small pool.

It applies to all areas of law that barristers practice in as far as I'm aware. It's the other way around, the club can engage whoever they want but a barrister has to accept if they are free and it's within their knowledge and expertise.

Maybe, but NDM being involved doesn't mean anything specifically. There'll be a very limited pool of sport's law specialist barristers and the cab rank rule means they don't get to choose who appoints them.

They have a massive advantage from being in London. Also, timing is everything, if it hadn't been for us being terribly run post stock market floatation there would be a big 7 rather than a big 6, catching up now is a very different prospect.

But there is absolutely no indication that's the case. Even if we sell Bruno for £100m in the summer we're pretty unlikely to find another £100m player for £40m. Every other club is competing in the same market with the same aim, there's no way to guarantee that a club makes a profit from transfers on the scale that would be needed (possibly other than through the academy as Chelsea have, but there's not much indication that we're going down that route in a big way). Eales has talked about possibly selling to free up FFP headroom, but that is a temporary measure that essentially brings forward future revenue growth, not something to grow revenue itself. Being realistic the only way our commercial income will continue to increase is if it is inflated in some way. We're not going to catch up just by being a well run club, there needs to be some way for PIF to get around FFP. The Adidas / Sela partnership smells of that, but if that is going on in the background it most of it won't be that visible. If not we'll just be a much better run club than we were under Ashley and be at the top of the pack of also-rans, and that's fine.

How would we do that with player trading? Will we be able to bridge the gap by growing commercial income? I don't know, but we won't really have a proper indication of that until the next few sets of accounts are published. We all agree the FFP rules are just there to protect the established order, there's fuck all we can do about it so there's no point calling people bots out of frustration at that

There's nothing to suggest that player trading will be our growth model, we might benefit from selling players in the short term but that would essentially be a way of bringing forward future revenue growth, not a growth model in itself. Everything suggests the plan is to increase our commercial income.

Related party sponsors are not our only way, would we have got a £40m per season deal with Adidas without the 'strategic partnership' with Sela? Spurs' Nike deal is apparently £30m per season (although might have increased since they signed it in 2019) and Villa's Adidas deal is reported to be £12m.

This discussion seems to assume that the Freemen would stand in the way of a stadium on part of the Town Moor. The Freemen supported the Castle Leazes proposal in 1997, so there's nothing to suggest they wouldn't again, or on a different part of the Town Moor.

Nope.

We'll be budgeting to be compliant with both the UEFA and EPL rules anyway, so it's probably better if they are just completely aligned.

The town moor is absolutely unique. How many other major cities have an expanse of agricultural land with grazing cattle in the heart of the city? The cost of turning 400 hectares of land into parkland and managing it would be astronomical, and it would be likely to become a massive headache in terms of rough sleeping and crime without the natural visual surveillance the open nature of it allows.

If anyone is interested in finding out what pre-application discussions there might have been with the council about redevelopment on St. James' Park or developing Castle Leazes or the arena site, there has been a recent judgment that pre-application planning advice is not exempt from freedom of information requests.

This isn't being driven by the PL board, it's being driven by the 'big 6' (minus Man City) with the other clubs tagging along. The PL board have accidentally been advising against some of the changes.

There were no deals of significance between 2021/22 and 2022/23 but we still managed to increase comercial income by 66%.

We have more potential to do that than the likes of Villa because our owners have the resources to be able to increase our income in a way rich individuals can't (provided that don't leave an email trail à la Man City). If we keep increasing revenue at the rate we have been we'll be within the top six in terms of revenue by 26/27.

On the pitch, definitely Fenton. Off the pitch, the decision to float the club on the stock market.

Unfortunately, I think tapping up rules only apply to players, managers and senior coaching staff.

"That's not the way the UK works or the law works" I think it very much is if that's what contract he signed requires, Jim.

Weren't they meant to be doing that with Ralf Rangnick, who was considered amongst best sporting directors in the world when they appointed him, then knee-jerked his reputation into the bin.

But most of those 14 are perfectly happy to be also-rans and keep the drawbridge up for any club with more ambition.

Yeah, that doesn't seem likely to be directly relevant to Everton's case, but its all under the same profit and sustainability section of the PL's rules.

I don't think it'll be any surprise if they lose their appeal, the appeal can only consider the case on the basis of the PL's rules. If they lose the appeal it likely not to be the end of it, it's possible / likely they'll then challenge the lawfulness of the PLs FFP rules through the Competition Appeals Tribunal, which is when it'll get interesting! Particularly if they're in the regulation places with the deduction. The case would be be unlikely to be concluded before the start of next season but they could theoretically get an injunction to prevent them from being relegated while the case is ongoing, and leave the whole system of promotion and relegation in limbo.