Jackie Broon

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.

I think the point of PL's arbitration with Man City over disclosure was that the leaked emails were inadmissible, so the PL were requring them to be disclosed and Man City were resisting that.

That doesn't exclude clubs from bringing a case against the PL through the CAT, like we did. Part of the PL's defence was that the CAT didn't have jurisdiction but it was pretty clear from the hearing that they were going to lose that argument. Also, the PL's arbitration process is governed by the Arbitration Act, the High Court have jurisdiction over disputes and there is the ability to appeal an arbitration decision on a point of law in an arbitration case under the Act.

Our published accounts are actually made up to 30th June (although I think we could possibly change that before they need to be submitrted to the PL on 31st March next year if we needed to), but not all clubs seem to use that date, I've only looked up Villa's but they're to the 31st of May.

As far as I can tell there is no 'FFP date' set by the PL, clubs' accounts can run from any date between 31 May and 31 July. A.1.1. “Accounting Reference Period” means the period in respect of which Annual Accounts are prepared; A.1.14. “Annual Accounts” means: (a) the accounts which each Club’s directors are required to prepare pursuant to section 394 of the Act; or (b) if the Club considers it appropriate or the Board so requests, the Group Accounts of the Group of which the Club is a member and which it is required to prepare pursuant to section 399 of the Act, or which it is required to deliver to the Registrar of Companies pursuant to section 400(2)(e) or section 401(2)(f) of the Act, provided that in either case the accounts are prepared to an accounting reference date (as defined in section 391 of the Act) which falls between 31 May and 31 July inclusive. If the accounting reference date falls at any other time, separate accounts for the Club or the Group (as appropriate) must be prepared for a period of 12 months ending on a date between 31 May and 31 July inclusive, and in such a case “Annual Accounts” means those accounts. A.1.236. “T” means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period ending in the year in which assessment pursuant to Rules E.49 to E.54 takes place, and: (a) “T-1” means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately preceding T; (b) “T-2” means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately preceding T-1; (c) “T+1” means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately following T; and (d) “T+2” means the Club’s Accounting Reference Period immediately following T+1; Annual Accounts must be prepared and audited in accordance with all legal and regulatory requirements applicable to accounts prepared pursuant to section 394 of the Act;

Isak Barnes Big Jo Willock Gordon Mbeumo Bruno Tonali Botman Schär Mamardashvili Happy?

Yeah, I think that was the plan for this season, to rotate the forwards so they could run themselves into the ground, and why the injuries hit us so hard.

I could see us playing something like this occasionally Isak Barnes Gordon RW Bruno Tonali

I used to live just round the corner from The Diggers in Edinburgh, which is renowned for its McEwan's 80 Shilling, great pub and pint.

Speaking to a couple of Burnley supporters today, they don't rate him at all. Say he's a decent shot stopper but has no command of his area and is a "flapper".

I don't think we need that at all, we have so many options that can play in the wide positions (although could do with better for the right side), what we're really crying out for is more of a traditonal No.9 who is good in the air and at holding the ball up so we have a different option to Isak.

Even a stopped clock tells the right time twice a day. Talksport presenters clearly just toss a coin for which opposing side they're going to take, they're bound to get it right occasionally, doesn't mean that's their actual view.