Jackie Broon

He's been playing as a wingback for Forest hasn't he?

In a waffle house on wearside...

It's sensible to go for Eriksen on a free as first choice in that position but if we don't get him I'm sure Paqueta will be somewhere on the list of other options. We're not going to spaff our whole FFP allowance in two windows but I doubt there is a fixed budget.

They're very unlikely to be buying a football club, or starting a golf tournament paying hundreds of millions out, for solely financial reasons, there are much better ways to invest their money than that. There might be an elements of MBS and/or Al-Rumayyan being big sports fans and friendly or not so friendly competition with other Arab states, but image is likely to be a big part of it. Saudi Arabia can't just stop being and oppressive regime, they're in an incredibly unstable region, look at what has happened in other middle eastern countries that have risen up against oppressive regimes or where there has been an attempt at introducing western democracy... The Arab Spring and resulting conflict and instability in previously relatively stable and prosperous nations, the removal of Saddam Hussein's oppressive but stabilising regime in Iraq. The Saudi leadership will see their actions as completely necessary to maintain control and stability in their country, and they probably are, but they will also want to present a different image to the rest of the world and that almost certainty is at least an element of their reason for investment in sport.

Kevin Keegan, I was only 6 when he played for us, and didn’t really get into football until my teens but I loved Kevin Keegan. I think partly because I’d gone to Mrs Keegan’s nursery in Jesmond and though she was his mum

There were similar stories about Malcolm Langstaff, often seen around Jesmond in just cowboy boots on playing his guitar and shouting at passing traffic in the 80s and 90s, struggling with his mental health after losing his wife and kid in a car accident. I don't think that was actually true.

Andy Woodman bumped into Ashley in As You Like It and after a bit of power drinking Ashley said he was going to give him an 8 year contract. He went in the next day and Pardew told him he couldn't accept because it would piss off the rest of the coaching team, so he went to Ashley to turn it down and his response was to give Pardew and all of his coaching staff 8 year contracts. In a way it makes Ashley seem like a good lad, but set against all his penny-pinching everywhere else

The story of how the entire coaching staff ended up with eight year contracts

Jeff Vetere was the other.

Not really, he said: "Juan Sartori and I remain wholeheartedly committed to Sunderland AFC and our collective focus is on preparing for the upcoming Championship season. "Neither I nor any employee from SAFC has had any dialogue with the cryptocurrency group 'The Fans Together' and although a timely conclusion to this matter is preferable, any transfer of shares must not compromise the club's integrity. All shareholders must also be qualified to take the club forward in line with EFL Governance and have alignment with the values and principles of SAFC and its supporters, as well as our long-term strategy." He's only denying that he's spoken to them, very clear from that that he's not speaking for The Don and Methvan and it's unlikely he'd come out with that if they haven't been.

thanks. Some have thought I'm just a fan of Tarantino.

Otherwise know as Shrodinger's black cat theory.

Maybe, but I can't see what's going to change, there is no incentive for the government to allow it and it would be massively unpopular with people they want to appeal to. We still don't have 3pm Saturday televised matches, they're not going to suddenly let PL clubs sell their own TV rights.

I can’t see that happening, the government shat themselves at the level of reaction against it when they tried and it’s clear that they will legislate to prevent English clubs from joining a ESL if they need to, and there is no viable ESL without the English clubs.

It's incredibly short-sighted by the clubs who are pushing for it, the more stringent the owners and directors and FFP rules they force through the more likely it is that they'll be challenged as anti-competitive and it'll all come crashing down.

Might be wrong but I get the impression it's actually Lille who are holding out with Milan, for them to match our transfer offer, rather than him.

Btw, not quite all systems a-okay, there's still need to submit a tree survey, a invasive plant species survey / eradication plan (if they want to avoid a pre-commencement condition for that) and wait until at least 21st June for responses from the other landowner/s, but the potential major stumbling blocks all seem to have been dealt with.

The bat survey is now online and concludes that there are no bat roosts within the building.

I don't think they even did that at the time. From what I can gather the club was previously incorporated as FC Red Bull Salzburg and Red Bull had rights to appoint and remove members of the board of the club. Then in 2016, before the UEFA investigation, they created a new holding company FC Red Bull Salzburg GmbH and Red Bull didn't directly have rights to appoint and remove members of the board through that company. The article below details that and changes that were made to satisfy UEFA, which didn't include 'relinquishing ownership'. According to the article, and the linked UEFA decision, they were satisfied with the existing ownership arrangement subject to some changes to management and sponsorship. It seems that the whole 'relinquishing ownership' thing was based on those arrangements already put in place a couple of years before. https://www.asser.nl/SportsLaw/Blog/post/multi-club-ownership-in-european-football-part-ii-the-concept-of-decisive-influence-in-the-red-bull-case-by-tomas-grell

But from what I can find they just transferred the ownership to another company owned by them, in the way that we're owned by St James Holdings Ltd, which is owned by the consortium.

That's what was said but everything seems to suggest that they are still owned by Red Bull.

The rules are essentially the same for UEFA competitions but UEFA have taken a lenient position on them, allowing Red Bull Salzberg and Red Bull Leipzig to compete, and play each other, in the Europa League after they were satisfied that there was sufficient separation between their management structures. That is despite two clubs in the same ownership competing in the same competition being pretty clearly contrary to the letter of their rules: 5.01 c. No individual or legal entity may have control or influence over more than one club participating in a UEFA club competition, such control or influence being defined in this context as: i. holding a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights; ii. having the right to appoint or remove a majority of the members of the administrative, management or supervisory body of the club; ii. being a shareholder and alone controlling a majority of the shareholders’ voting rights pursuant to an agreement entered into with other shareholders of the club; or iv. being able to exercise by any means a decisive influence in the decision-making of the club.

It'll be the Ameobi chant I reckon.