Jackie Broon

Even if Everton lose on Wednesday I still think they'll be safe. Burnley worry me, particularly with us playing them away on the last day. A Burnley win on Wednesday would throw relegation wide open again and bring us and Leeds back into it. If they win on Wednesday they'd only need to pick up 4 more points than us before they play us to potentially make that a relegation decider and they have a much easier set of fixtures on paper.

I don't think stadium costs are included in that loss figure, they're not included in the FFP calculation anyway and every club got a year off FFP for 19/20. So, yeah, absolute joke if no action is taken, the 18th placed club at the end of the season will rightly feel aggrieved that they were allowed to continue to sign players in January while the PL knew knowing they were already way over the FFP limit. Particularly in the context of it being at the same time as tightening the rules to limit us. If Everton had been challenging the big 6 for a Champions League place they 100% would be docked points.

Unless that includes infrastructure spending that's the more than the allowed losses under FFP over three seasons in just one year Makes a mockery of FFP if they don't get punished for it. I expect there will be legal challenges from the relegated clubs if they don't.

Given that our main deals will almost certainly be related parties there won't really be much 'negotiation' to do, the issue is probably going to be getting them approved by the PL, which might be the reason we don't have any new major sponsors yet.

The loan is probably secured against some or all of their ownership so it does have something to do with the club. Highly unlikely but worst case scenario Ashley could possibly take possession of their share of the club.

The point is that it's not backed up by legislation, for example the way the NHS trust fit and proper directors test is. It was made pretty obvious in the ESL debacle that at least some of the PL's rules wouldn't stand up in court, which is why the government had to threaten legislation in order to stop PL clubs from joining the ESL.

VAR only ask the ref to look again if they think there has been a clear and obvious error between the ref's description and what they see.

He does hold onto the ball too much, but there is also an issue of other player just kicking the ball in his general direction and standing back expecting him to make something happen. Classic example was Joelinton last night, ASM drew a defender away and passed to him on the edge of the penalty area, he had the opportunity to drive into the box, but he just passed it straight back to ASM who had a man on him wasn't in a position to do anything.

Sorry, two wins and a draw. Unlikely they'll pick up 7 more points than us in their 10 fixtures before they play us, but on the other hand they have more winnable looking matches than us and a better record of getting points against teams towards the top of the table. I still think we're very likely to pick up enough points to be safe before that last match but I think we've possibly got a bit carried away and complacent about our position, and there were signs last night that the players have too. We're still in danger.

They don't have to win on the bounce, Leeds and Everton need to win just two of their remaining 9/11 matches respectively to pass us in the circumstance you're talking about. The difference is that we're got the most difficult run-in of any of the clubs down there and a terrible record against the top half. We could easily not win another match.

Everton, Leeds and Brentford are easily going to do enough to pass us if that happens, then it just needs to be one from Burnley and Watford. Burnley only need two more wins than us to make our match with them a relegation decider in that circumstance. We have a really tough run-in and we're not out of danger yet.

He knew he was taking the man and not the ball and it was reckless at that pace in that way, he can't complain about being sent off. But, I just can't see how this is overturned by VAR, the ref had a perfect view of it, I can't see what he could've said different that would make it a clear and obvious error. It's a judgement call that could've gone either way and it seems it's just a case of the ref changing his mind, which we've been told VAR doesn't allow. They really should be reporting what was said by the ref in these cases.

Yep, when he comes on lare in a game the rest of the team just desperately look to get the ball to him all the time and he just tries to win the match single handed. He's much more part of the team when he starts.

Yeah. The way you can tell what the judges are going to decide just by looking at them, nothing to do with the actual evidence, purely their political persuasion. America is fucked up.

I'd recommend it, it's fascinating and terrifying, it would change your mind on the reliability of the justice system. Particularly in the US, but I imagine we have the same issues here with police deciding someone is guilty because it's convenient and twisting, or completely fabricating, the evidence to fit rather than actually trying to find the real perpetrator.

Someone who hasn't watched Making a Murderer.

In reality he is still the owner, he could decide not to sell, but eventually the club would become worthless under the sanctions and potential penalties from the PL for not removing a banned director. Yeah, Howe isn't in the same position because the owners of the club are acceptable in the eyes of the government and PL, if there are questions to be asked they should be of them rather than Howe. But Tuchel is continuing to manage a club whose owner has close ties with Putin and whose supporters continue to chant the name of, he does not deserve sympathetic press.

Abramovich still owns Chelsea, he hasn't been kicked out, he probably has no option but to agree to the club being sold but he is still the owner for now.

How is a governing body meant to make assessments like that? How are they meant to gather enough evidence to prove that Abramovich came by his money in such a way that would make him fail their test? Ultimately it is not the place of a governing body to scrutinise those issues, it's the place of government. As far as I'm aware, other than football, there is no other circumstance in the UK where prospective owners of a business have to go through an owners and directors test. The only other is for directors of NHS trusts and that is enshrined in law, unlike the football owners and directors test. Why should owning a football club be different to owning any other business or sporting club? If it decided that football is so important to us culturally that who can own clubs should be specially restricted, the test should be enshrined in law and independently assessed by a government body.

The sports media have completely bought into / pushed that narrative though, 'the fans and staff are innocent victims', 'isn't Tuchel so noble for saying he'll drive a minibus if he needs to' etc. All the while seemingly expecting us to stop supporting our club and our manager to quit because we're owned by the sovereign wealth fund of a nation that our government is a firm ally of.

It's mad that Abramovich has had the club as a plaything for 19 years, ploughed enough money into them for them to win every major trophy available in that time, has no option but to sell, yet it is still looking likely to be sold at a profit of somewhere in the region of £1 billion over the £1.65 billion he spent buying and financing the club.

The separation stuff was due to the KSA/MBS not wanting to be subject to the PL O&D test. They probably would've passed the O&D test, irrespective of the piracy stuff, but they were clearly never going to agree to be subject to it. However, it was probably because of the piracy that the PL insisted that the KSA should be disclosed as a director, knowing the they would never agree rather than it being something they would be disqualified on.

Or just say 'I meant the Chelsea fans, everyone knows the 12th man refers to a home crowd, why would you think I meant anything else?'

The US also executes hundreds of 'terrorists' each year, without trial, by drone strike.

Aye, it's clear as day that the big six are refereed and judged by VAR differently to every other team, whether that's unconscious bias or the PL seeing it as advantageous to their product for the big six to win but there's clearly something not right.