Jackie Broon

Yes, which suggests that they have a final ruling which has found that the APT rules were void.

I don't think so, this is clearly to deal with the question of whether the amendments to the rules are sufficient to address what the previous tribunal found made them unlawful. One interesting point from the PL's letter is "Manchester City FC seeks a declaration that the amendments approved by clubs in November (and therefore the current APT rules in force) are unlawful and void." That suggests that it has now been established that the previous APT rules were void, which is not something that the PL accepted before.

Probably more that it isn't within the remit of the existing arbitration case to determine the lawfulness of the amended rules. If the prem had actually won on that point there would be nothing to arbitrate against.

Realistically I think Real Madrid is the only club that would be willing to pay what he would cost and he would potentially want to go to, PSG could afford him but I don't think he'd want to play there, Man City could afford him but I can't see them being in the market for him while they have Haaland. He's played himself way out of Arsenal's league.

I suppose they would say that it's about preventing a situation where clubs need to spend beyond their means to keep up with the bankrolled clubs, and the potential inflationary effect of bankrolled clubs increasing tranfer fees and wages across the board.

In relation to the arbitration rather than the 115 charges, apparently they've just had another round of hearings on the remaining issues.

The people involved will be guessing too, with more information, but still mostly educated guesswork.

I agree, although it seems less likely to end up getting called-in by the SoS under this government.

I don't think that's right because the losses in our accounts won't be the actual PSR position, there would be additional deductions for youth, women's team and infrastructure spending. I think a ballpark figure of £10m per season. To work out what we needed to be within the £105m threshold in 23/24 it's probably more accurate to look at 20/21, because we have those accounts and the profit we made in 20/21 was enough for us to be within the £105 threshold together with 21/22 and 22/23, so the same profit in 23/24 must also put us within the £105 threshold. 20/21 Profit (loss) = (£13.7m) Covid allowances = £25.9m Other allowances = £10m Deduction for extension of accounting period = (£12.7m) = £9.5m PSR profit So, unless I've got something completely wrong from our 20/21 accounts (which is quite possible) a £9.5m profit in 23/24 should have seen us safe. There were stories last week that we'd made a £27m profit in 23/24 (which would be more like £37m for PSR with allowances), so from that it seems that we didn't actually need all of the money from Minteh and Anderson to meet the £105m threshold, although one or the other might not have been quite enough, or we might just have set up both deals just in case and decided to go through with both?

We are almost certainly not significantly restricted by PSR this window, I just think the right players at the right price haven't been avalible and we're setting ourselves up for a squad refresh in the summer.

Italians really do do bureaucracy like no one else, it took 2 years for my wife to get her Italian passport renewed and we're currently stuck in a Kafkaesque nightmare of trying to sort out inhering her late Dad's house.

It's not difficult to estimate, of course no one can know exactly, but the accounts for 21/22 and 22/23 are available, Swiss Ramble and Deloitte have produced probably reasonably accurate estimates for 23/24, from that a reasonable guesstimate can be made for 24/25. Our PSR position is dragged down hugely by 21/22 and 22/23, we will be in a far better position once they are off the books.

It has significantly changed this season because 21/22 has dropped off the PSR books. That was a season where we had a turnover of only £180m and costs before player trading of £226m, where we lost £70m after player trading and our owners had to inject £168m into the club. We are in a significantly better financial position this season, by my estimation we probably have around £30-50m of PSR headroom. Next season even better, by my estimation we could have £100m+ headroom. Squad cost rules could change that, but we don't know what they will be yet or even i they will definitely come in.

New contracts are generally neutral, or even a beneficial, in terms of yearly cost. Isak's amortisation currently costs the club around £12m per year and his wages are around £6m. If he signs a new 5 year contract now his yearly amortisation cost will drop to £6m, so we could double his wages without any additional yearly cost.

I was responding to you saying they are "passive investors". Of course the CEO runs the club day to day, but PIF having meetings to decide on transfer targets and negotiations, as was seen in the documentary, are not the actions of "passive investors".

That's clearly not the case from what we've heard and seen in the documentary, PIF are heavily involved and have final say on everything.

And Edwards' entire MO is to just say things aren't going to happen, knowing that he'll 'right' at least half of the time.

Hardly, there's only about two streets that aren't full student houses now.

IIRC he posted that Staveley and Jamie Reuben were on their way up to Newcastle just before the takeover news broke or something?

Could it be that he's talking about a new stadium on Castle Leazes that wouldn't creep into Leazes Park as much as he thought?

It's bollocks, as discussed in the PSR thread there is no chance that we are in any PSR trouble this season. It is beneficial in PSR terms, but it's definitely not necessary for us to sell this season.

We simply can't be breaching PSR this season. We know that we were compliant for the period 21/22, 22/23, 23/24 so we have to be compliant for the period 22/23, 23/24, 24/25 if 24/25 is not a larger loss than 21/22 and there is no way that we are running at a £70m+ loss this season.

I was saying that in relation to your post saying "Same calculations by others show we still need to sell." I don't know how much we are able to spend but it's just common sense that we do not need to sell to comply with PSR this year unless our losses this year are more than 21/22, which is vanishingly unlikely.

That is actually very basic and plain though, we didn't fail PSR last year, 21/22 has dropped off the calculation so our headroom for losses this season is at least what we lost in 21/22, which was around £70m.

We'd have to be making a loss larger than we did 21/22 to need to sell this season. That simply doesn't add up.