Jackie Broon

That was completely organic growth, it's a myth that we were bankrolled by Hall. The only money the Halls put in for transfers was for Brian Kilkline, and that was from Lady Hall.

It is demonstrably not true, taking the figures recently reported for 23/24 since the takeover revenue has increased 100%, costs have increased by 75% and revenue growth has been more than growth in costs every year. Yes we probably can't spend £90m without sales, but it's not true that our revenue growth isn't keeping pace with growth in costs.

That's not actually true.

The fees aren't accounted for up-front they just go on to our overall amortisation. The profit from sales (minus the remaining amortisation) are accounted for straight away, so in terms of fees Osula and Vlachodimos are £6m on our overall amortisation this season, minus Minteh's amortisation (if he had stayed) that's about £3.5 in additional amortisation. Minus Miggy and Joelinton, who became fully amortised (or as near as makes no difference over their new contracts), that's another £12 off our our overall amortisation. So our total amortisation figure for this season is at least £9.5m lower than last season. Gordon's and Bruno's new contracts will have also reduced their amortisation, spreading the remaining out over 5 years, particularly Gordon whose amortisation was previously spread over 3.5 years, that will at least cancel out the increase in wages for them.

The arena site is 10-25m above the edge of the river, flooding from the river is never going to be an issue for the site itself.

Flood risk is unlikely to be an issue for the arena site, the site is all flood zone 1 (which is everywhere with less than 1 in 1000 year probability of flooding from rivers and sea). Part of Skinnerburn Road is flood zone 2 (1 in 100 to 1 in 1000 year probability), which could require some mitigation to ensure access but that would probably be pretty straightforward. There would be a flood risk assessment with any planning application and that would take into account climate change, but given the levels of the site there would be unlikely to be any showstopping flood risk issue.

It'll be Leicester.

Reminds me of a story my Dad tells about when, soon after moving to Newcastle, he took a friend from Leeds to see us play Bastia in the UEFA cup in 77. We apparently got torn apart by Johnny Rep and lost 1-3. After the match they were approached by a kid who asked for a tab, my Dad's friend said "sorry I don't smoke" the kid, hearing his (Yorkshire) accent, responded "you're from fuckin' Bastia aren't ya"

It was last season I heard that though, and that element of his game it likely to improve with experience.

Burnley fans I have spoken to said he is a great shot-stopper, good with his feet but poor command of his area and flaps at crosses / corners.

I think that's a bit of a leap, and not a likely effect of the ESL ruling. The whole concept of FFP/PSR is to some extent anti-competitive, the argument would be to what extent is that necessary in the public interest.

I read that as Man City are after Matt Targett

It benefits Man City too, the tribunal aside they're in the best position in terms of PSR, they've been able to game the system to put themselves ahead of everyone financially. And I don't think the other big 6 clubs are even that bothered about winning trophies provided that the big 6 is a closed shop.

Not going to happen unfortunately. The government's stance, even with the football governance bill, is that the PSR is a matter for the PL. I, like a sad fucker, wrote to Lisa Nandy about the way PSR enshrines the dominance of the big 6 and this was the response i received: Thank you for your correspondence of 8 October, about the Premier League’s profit and sustainability rules and I apologise for the delay in responding to you. I had constructive conversations with a number of Premier League clubs prior to the introduction of the Football Governance Bill earlier this year. I am committed to ensuring that fans like yourself are at the heart of the game - and that clubs up and down the country can continue bringing joy to millions, rather than worrying about financial losses and instability as is so often the case, and as you have written about. That is why the government has introduced the Football Governance Bill to establish an independent football regulator. Whilst the regulator will not have responsibility for profit and sustainability rules, it will protect and promote the sustainability of English football more broadly, in the interests of fans and the local communities football clubs serve. Ultimately the Premier League is responsible for implementing its own profit and sustainability rules. The Premier League's processes are outlined in the Premier League Handbook at the start of each season, and agreed by all clubs. If you are dissatisfied with any of the Premier League's processes or decisions, I would recommend contacting them directly to request a fuller explanation.

It was an absolute no-brainer for Leicester and Everton, they have £132m and £451m of shareholder loans respectively, they would have been screwed by any rule change that applied FMV to shareholder loans retrospectively. There's the added bonus for them that the rules that were voted in could still be unlawful and that could potently result in PSR being unenforceable for the current period.

There was a point mid way through the half where we started to take control again, but then rather than keeping the pressure on them we started passing it backwards and sideways between the defense, they pushed out and and it handed the momentum back to them which we never really regained. It was a great win, but on another day they would have taken the chances that presented to them. Then again, on another day we would have been 4 or 5 up by that point.

That’s something we're still not great at though, we almost always play ourselfves into trouble when we try to play it safe.

I've been expecting Villa to get found out by other managers for a while, I thought it would happen last season but no other team seems able to exploit their high line like we do.

I don't think Bruno sees himself as a 6, I think they both see themselves ideally as 8s.

Credit to Howe for changing it, but how long have people been saying Bruno should be played in the No.8?

A conditional land deal could definitely be done privately then.

They could have an agreement with the Freemen subject to planning permission being granted, that could be done privately without the land registry record needing to be updated. Depending on the council's scheme of delegation, which I can't be bothered to look up, it's likely that a decision over selling council owned land would need to be made publicly. I know the Freemen own Castle Leazes but I think Leazes Park is owned by the council? They could potentially have agreement with council officers that they will recommend the sale or lease of the land to the club, but it's likely that the final decision would be need to be made by a council committee in public.

Whether he knows fuck all or not it's almost certainly going to be a new stadium on Leazes Park / Castle Leazes that the club go for.

It follows the accounting period set by the club, for us that ends on the 30th of June.