Jackie Broon

The takeover was September 2008, the Etihad Campus planning application was submitted September 2011.

Also, you can't compare when Ashley bought to now. That's like buying bitcoin now and expecting it to increase in value like it did in the past. Unless PSR disappears I can't see any way our value significantly increases without massive front and back door investment, likely well beyond any increase in value.

It's not something that would be likely to be made public, we'd be daft not to be throwing in as many sponsorship deals as possible for approval right now.

It would probably be more sensible for us to submit them to the PL for approval, which would put the PL in a very difficult situation of being potentially liable to pay us damages if they refuse or delay them.

The Bloomberg 'valuation' is just what was paid by PIF for Staveley's shares multiplied by the percentage she owned, it's not a true valuation of the club. No one is paying £1bn for us as things stand. They could just about break even on the £700m so far. We make absolutely no sense as a financial investment.

Al-Rumayyan said the plan was for us to be No.1, Staveley suggested that we would be challenging for the league in 5 years. Them buying us just to be a sustainable club makes no sense. Firstly, we're never going to be sustainable, they've officially put in £400m already, we run at a massive loss. Secondly, what would that offer Saudi Arabia? They almost certainly want a top club that will win things and everything that comes with that.

They tried and failed to buy Liverpool before moving on to us because Staveley persuaded them it was a good investment to buy us and build us into a top club. It's naive to think that, with it looking a much more difficult and long term task than they originally envisaged (or possibly impossible) to turn us into a top club, there is no chance they could recalculate if a top 6 club were to be avalible. To be realistic, we haven't been able to push-on on or off the pitch in the way they probably expected and it doesn't seem we've really caught on in Saudi the way they probably hoped. I'm not saying that they're going to move on but it's naive to think that it's not a possibility.

@ECP123

It wasn't just Staveley, it was in the PL's letter to the club that was released in the High Court decision. It was the state of Saudi Arabia not MBS that they said should be a director.

It wasn't actually MBS who the PL regarded as a director, it was the state of Saudi Arabia. In the letter released in the court case it was actually the state of Saudi Arabia they were saying should be subject to the owners and directors test, not MBS. And it wasn't that there was a rule against states owning clubs, the state of Saudi Arabia refused to make themselves subject to the owners and directors test so there was a stand-off over that. In the end, the PL dropped that subject to unknown "legally binding assurances". It's a non-story as you say because MBS in his role as chairman of PIF is bound to have input into PIF's decision making around Newcastle.

Bainbridge's

Nothing compared to Daley Thompson's Decathlon on rubber spectrum keys.

It doesn't make any difference, owners can only put £105m over 3 years in to cover losses on the PSR balance sheet, loans aren't a way around FFP. Our owners have been putting in money by issuing shares, around £400m so far. This is effectively giving the club money that can only be got back if they sell the club for £400m more than they bought it. Other owners have done the same by giving interest free loas to the club. Which the club could be made to pay back at some point, like what happened to Portsmouth.

In that case I think we could argue that we paid above FMV interest on his loans in kind through free sponsorships, worth possibly £100m+.

I think that was his point to be fair.

It only relates to the powers the tribunal have to amend the rules in their final decision. The PL can amend them however they like (subject to a vote and risk of furgher challenge, obviously).

Unless they completely wipe the PSR slate clean for everyone I don't see how they can avoid doing it retrospectively, PSR is retrospective over the previous 3 years. If they don't take into account FMV interest on shareholder loans retrospectively over that period the clubs with them would have an unfair and unlawful advantage for the next three years. But then if they do that they'll run into a situation similar to the Leicester case. So I think they will probably have to start again with a clean slate for everyone.

They have been voting in their interest, PSR maintains the gulf between the promoted clubs and the mid-table clubs as well as pulling up the ladder to clubs wanting to break away from them into the top 6.

The Vlachodimos - Anderson deal etc.

Possibly, but that's probably not the best way to go about it because that would put us at potential risk of consequences if we're wrong, and submitting deals for ratification puts the PL is a very sticky position that if they do try to block or delay them we could potentially claim damages.

The thing is that as they stand the APT rules are possibly void, which means as if they never existed, which means a free for all until they bring in something new (although still subject to the UEFA rules).

The answer to expanding St. James' Park has been sitting under our noses since 1991:

Man City are claiming for damages as part of the arbitration.

I think the change in the APT rules that resulted in Man City bringing the arbitration were proposed and pushed through by a group of clubs, rather than the board, and the board advised against those changes. Masters is an easy scapegoat but he's not really the problem.

So they've rejected three of Man City's sponsorship deals in the past 12 months, but you're betting that they haven't rejected any from us, the club the changes were actually designed to restrict?