Jackie Broon

The definition of official is: A.1.174. “Official” means: (a) any director, employee or representative of a Club, excluding any Player, Intermediary or auditor; and (b) any employee of any Associated Undertaking, Fellow Subsidiary Undertaking, Group Undertaking or Parent Undertaking of that Club who spends (or is to spend) at least 50% of their annual working time undertaking activity for or on behalf of the Club; So it covers pretty much all staff apart from players. The tapping up rules for players are covered sepperately in section T, they've probably just stuck it in J as well for clarity.

Not like Luke to be wrong but, unfortunatly, I don't think the PL's tapping up rules apply to directors of football: J.3. Save as otherwise permitted by these Rules, no Club shall directly or indirectly induce or attempt to induce any Player, Manager, assistant manager, head coach or other senior first team football coach of another Club (or Football League club) to terminate a contract of employment with that other Club (or Football League club) (whether or not by breach of that contract) or directly or indirectly approach any such employee with a view to offering employment without the consent of that other Club (or Football League club).

Dunno, I'm just going off the contract details on nufc.com

We don't really have much dead wood to clear out. Dummett, Richie and Hendrick’s contracts expire next month. Fraser will probably get a move in the summer, or go on loan again until his contract expires next year. Hayden and Lewis will probably go on loan again until their contracts expire next year. Targett is possibly heading that way but he has just been unfortunate with injuries, there's no one else that could be described as dead wood.

And only one of them ever got banned for doping.

I'm all for giving Eddie credit but his recent spell in the team has probably had more to do with injuries to Targett, Botman, Lascelles, Trippier and Tino, and Dummett being shit, than any managerial masterplan.

A lot of shades of 94/95 about this season, hopefully a good omen for next season.

Every bit counts and I'm not saying a stadium expansion or new stadium isn't worthwile, but it probably isn't going to be the differnce between us breaking into the top tier finacially or not.

Matchday revenue is only a small proportion of Premier League clubs' revenue, less than 15% on average. Our stadium isn't going to make the difference between us competeing at the top level or not.

1977 we were 5th and they were 6th in the old 1st Division.

I don't think that's necessarily the case, Villa aren't a threat to us long term, they don't have the capacity to increase their revenue like we do as a state owned club. They've had a great season but we will leave them behind financially, we are the only club with any chance of closing the financial gap to the top 6. We need to be looking ahead, not behind.

Have they? They still seem to get caught playing out from from defence a lot, they did against Man U last week, against Brighton they passed it into their own net pissing about at the back. They will gift us at least one goal today.

I think they'll probably be able to argue that the points deduction they'll be facing and increased threat of relegation results is them suffering loss before that actually happens.

Leicester might be the most likely to bring a challenge.

Recalling how terrible his performance was against Brighton.

The thread seems to completely missunderstand that the spending cap is in additiion to the profit and sustainability rules, not instead of them. And the PL are replacing the current profit and sustainability rules with rules that are aligned with UEFA's. No clue why Villa would vote against the spending cap, I can't see how it's anything but good for any club other than Man City, Chelsea and possibly Man U because they're the only clubs that are anywhere near the spanding cap limit.

It's good because it limits the spending at the very top without limiting us, we're a long way off being able to inflate our income to the point where it becomes an issue for us. It gives us more of a chance to catch up.

Southampton got £103.6m last season.

I think it'll be the same as the FFP calcluation which is essentially wages, transfers and agent's fees.

Bottom club PL TV money x 5.

It went through by a narrow margin and there was talk that some clubs had got cold feet on it and were willing to vote to change it back, don't know if that was part of today's proposal.

Aye, yet UEFA aren't handing out lots of FFP breach charges like the PL are under what are, on paper, currently more lenient rules.

I doubt it because of the influence the likles of PSG and Real Madrid and it limits top PL's clubs spending rather thna giving them any advantage. In terms of FMV it seems that UEFA have been less strict than the PL in scrutinising deals. And the PL were planning to bring a new FMV rule that would switch the burden of proof from the PL to the clubs to prove that deals are fair market value rather than the PL prove that they are not. That possibly would have been a killer for us.

@The College Dropout I'm not sure I'd go round making accusations of fraud on a public forum. Man City and the indaviduals involved haven't been charged with any criminal offence, there's no suggestion that there is any criminal investigation, the only accusations relate to breaching the PL's rules.

I don't think that's true, they haven't been charged with criminal offences, only breaching the PL's rules.