Jackie Broon

I think that's probably likely, unless the clubs meet before then to change the rules. The current rules are: E.46 The Board shall determine whether consideration included in the Club’s Earnings Before Tax arising from a Related Party Transaction is recorded in the Club’s Annual Accounts at a Fair Market Value. If it is not, the Board shall restate it to Fair Market Value. E.47. The Board shall not exercise its power set out in Rule E.46 without first having given the Club reasonable opportunity to make submissions as to: E.47.1. whether the said consideration should be restated; and/or E.47.2. what constitutes its Fair Market Value.

I don't think that's how it works. The rules allow the PL to adjust the FFP calculation to reduce what is taken into account from related party transactions to fair market value. The club only has to submit accounts for FFP once per season. The current situation is that the PL have temporarily banned all new related party transactions until 30th November.

simple mistake or unconscious bias

In FM terms, something like this I reckon

I just can't see it being something that would appeal to him. He clearly loves being on the training pitch, working with the players every day, I don't think he'd be interested in international management at this stage in his career.

I'd laugh my cock off if Nicolson pursues this, Keith would be screwed. For someone who claims so much familiarity with the legal system he seems incredibly naive about it. He doesn't seem to realise he is legally responsible for the content of a retweet and he would be a much easier target for a defamation action than someone in America. In such a case the responsibility would be on him to prove the truth of the claim he retweeted, and it's incredibly unlikely that he could do that.

Isn't virtually every other thread on that forum basically filled with people arguing against moral positions there is general agreement on?? Such as taking the knee, the duty of wealthy nations to offer safe haven to refugees, whether it's wrong to throw homosexuals from the top of tall buildings...

I agree with all of that, but I guarantee that the PL won't. They will make us fight for every penny.

I think that will probably be one of the legal battles, the PL will probably say our fair market value for shirt sponsorship is something like £7-10m.

I think some kind of financial control is necessary for the game but the current controls are just designed to keep the status quo of the big six. How is anyone out of the big six ever going to be able to consistently compete with them when their sponsorship deals are 5-10x that of the any club outside of the big six. Despite their success Leicester still get nowhere near what the big six get in sponsorship at 'fair market value'.

I doubt it, but their rules allow them to reduce the figure taken into account in the FFP calculation from any related party sponsorship to a fair market value. Determining what is a fair market value and/or related party is probably going to be a legal minefield for them.

He didn't actually refuse to play as such, his Bournemouth contract expired in June. He was offered a contract to play the rest of extended season and turned it down.

There is actually more genetic diversity between different African populations than there is between the rest of humanity. Western Europeans are more closely related to Australian Aboriginal people than people from western Africa are to those from eastern Africa. That we bundle all black people into one race is actually the result of racism.

Fraser was also a key plyer for Howe when Bournemouth were doing well.

Although it could just be a case of philosophy, his philosophy is that attack is the best form of defence, a mid/lower table team with that approach is always going to look a bit shaky at the back. That doesn't necessarily mean that the defensive coaching is poor.

The challenge for now is taking over a club in a relegation battle with League One/Two level facilities and building from ground up. He does have relevant experience of that.

Bruce was 9th choice but crowd didn't really turn on him en masse until his last match, and that was just a few rounds of 'we want Brucey out'.

Same, impressed by what I've seen and from what I can tell Bournemouth were very unlucky in his final season with injuries and big signings not working out, seems like the supporters generally didn't blame him for it, wished him well and thought he would go on to better things. It's a rare thing for a manager to leave on good terms with the supporters like that and I think it says a lot.

Isn't this all just coming from Balague, who is notoriously inaccurate and the bits regarding doubts about the vision and Howe are clearly just speculation about what he thinks the issue might be?

Yes, the FFP calculations are just based on pre-tax profit/loss, but third party ownership rules only apply to players so there might be ways of non-playing staff being paid by another company and not affecting the club's accounts.

I don't think there is any set protocol, it will depend on the terms of the manager's contract. When a player transfers what the club is essentially buying is the player's registration. In the case of a manager its just an employment contract that needs to be bought out of.

The clubs hold player's registrations and there are rules about approaching them, a manager is just like any other member of staff and they can talk to other potential employers without the knowledge / permission of the club.

Although, the lawyers involved in the contract bit would probably be solicitors rather than barristers.

If it turns out to be Ten Hag and Overmars