Jackie Broon

The simple answer is no.

That's the FFP accounts but fees and wages are amortised over the length of the player's contract in the accounts. So, for example, a player that we signed 5 years ago for 50m would be 10m each year for 5 years. This year they would be £30m in the 3 year FFP accounts, the year after £20, the year after £10. It wouldn't actually be until 8 years after signing that their fee would be gone from the FFP accounts.

No, because spending is spresd over up to 5 years.

Almiron arguably would have made more difference given how short we were for wingers but we were willing to sell him.

It's hindsight for us but the club had a much clearer view of our FFP position and what was going on with him back then and his form had been off for months, his fall-out at Bournemouth was back in November and he hadn't been right before and since then. We were willing to sell Almiron at that time, which was an area of the team where are injury crisis was much more of an issue. It is more of an error in hindsight by even without hindsight it was an error.

With what the club will have known about our FFP position and possibly the rumors about his private life it was a huge error not to accept Bayern's offer for him in January. His head clearly hasn't been right since those rumors.

Could potentially be gathering evidence for legal action to try to get the container removed?

I think the idea was/is to be able to have our wingers run themselves into the ground for 45-60 minutes and be rotated, so we needed more depth in that area of the team than any other, especially for last season in the CL. Also, it wasn't obvious when we signed Barnes that Gordon would kick on to the extent he has and become the clear 1st choice.

More damaging for them than us if we walk away. Unless he has a stellar season he's at the peak of his value. Realistically, Palace are a club that will be seen as a stepping stone by players (as we probably are by the likes of Isak at the moment). If they are seen as a club that will do everything to hold onto players that want to move on to bigger and better things and act publicly and unreasonably in negotiations that might well mean agents of the type of players they want to sign will not see them favourably.

Legitimately could get done for sexual assault if reported to police.

Could be a 'non-surgical hair replacement system'.

If anything that emphasises the point that there is a massive premium on England players in their prime.

Yes but I think City's case specifically relates to the new more restrictive rules which came in earlier this year, rather than the rules at the time they are alleged to have breached.

Because that's the pond we've decided to fish in.

The last England international central defender in their prime to move after successful tournament cost £80m.

But that's the price of going after an England intranational with their prime years ahead of them off the back of a successful tournament. It's always going to be silly money in that circumstance.

To be fair, a club can't go after a now first choice England international in his prime off the back of a great showing in a major tournament and not expect to pay a massive premium for that. It's the kind of signing where it's got to be a bit of an open chequebook and being prepared to get rinsed a bit if the club is serious about it. If we're looking for good value for money, this was never where that was.

There clearly isn't the desire to even have a vote on it let alone enough clubs that would vote for it to be public.

Because they generally won't want to have their disputes in public. As said above, it's entirely within the power of the 20 clubs to have a vote to make the arbitration process public. We lobbied for that during the takeover arbitration and clearly didn't get support from the other clubs.

Man City and the PL jointly appealed to the Court of Appeal against the High Court decision to publish the judgment of Man City's High Court appeal over them being required to disclose documents by the PL. It's probably generally in clubs' interests to keep disputes private.

Maybe.

The PL will be just as in the dark about the arbitration panel's judgement until it is made.

It's just not the way judicial processes work. It might be that he's heard from City's side that they are confident but I very much doubt he's heard anything from the arbitration panel.

It's one thing knowing that, which a lot of people on both sides and working where the hearing was being held would know, and quite another knowing the intentions of three judges.

I doubt they would know anything about the outcome until the arbitration judgment is made.