Jackie Broon

I find it very hard to believe that you were aware that PIF never withdrew. You may have formed that opinion, as did I and stated it on here many times before the event, but that does not mean you were aware of the fact. The difference between you and me (other than knowing that "you and I" is hypercorrection in that context), is that I speculated that PIF might still be involved but also acknowledged other possibilities. On the other hand you continually stated your opinion as fact, which it was not, it was your opinion, even if it was eventually shown to be correct.

I was one of the very few on here that didn’t take PIF’s public statement withdrawing their interest in the cub on face value and continued to argue with the likes of FB and JL that there was a possibility that they were still interested in buying us even when just about everyone thought the takeover was dead and buried. There were things that led me to believe that could be a possibility, I did not state it was the case because I didn’t know, I just said I thought it was possible. FB, JL and the like simply dismissed that, treating their opinion that PIF had gone as fact, rather than accepting that there could be more than one possibility. That is what you are doing now. You come across as someone completely unwilling or unable to see that there is more that one side to and argument, more than one possibility outside of your opinion, the archetype of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Just like PIF’s statement about withdrawing their interest, I also don’t simply take the statements about this being a long term project on face value. It is obviously going to take some time to turn us into a competitive club, but that long term will not be an unlimited one, relegation would put that project back and they would make an analysis of where it is worth continuing with it or not. PIF are ruthless, they have cut losses on multi-billion investments in the past, it’s incredibly naive to discount any possibility of that in our case. I’m not saying that would be the case, just that it is one possibility, my response was in the context of some people saying relegation might not be all that bad.

Some folks are struggling with the concept of there being more than one possible outcome.

I'm not saying they would, but it is a possibility. Going down would extend the term of the project by at least a year, in reality a lot more because it would affect the amount we could spend under FFP for at least 3 years, amongst other stuff.

Yeah, there's every chance they would just cut their losses and move on.

There will be ways around it for us, we've got the power and wealth of a nation ruled by an absolute monarchy behind us, they'll be able to get unconnected Saudi companies to sponsor us with no paper trail. That's not the case for other clubs owned by rich individuals. I think the clubs outside of the big six are just focussed on being overtaken by us, but they can't see the wood for the trees that the FFP rules as they are only really benefit the big six.

I'm not concerned about us getting around it, I'm sure we will one way or another whatever they do. My point is more about clubs outside of the big six voting in favour of rules that are basically designed to stop them from ever bridging the financial gap to the big 6.

No need to get aggressive, I'm talking about the current rules about related party sponsorships have been in place for years: A.1.163. “Related Party Transaction” means a transaction disclosed in a Club’s Annual Accounts as a related party transaction or which would have been disclosed as such except for an exemption under the accounting standards under which the Annual Accounts were prepared; Pursuant to Rules E.18 to E.20, the Board may require further information from the Club including (but not limited to): a) confirmation that Club Own Revenue Uplift has been calculated on a like-for-like basis; and b) satisfactory evidence that revenue included within the calculation of Club Own Revenue Uplift has not been artificially inflated. In addition, the Board may adjust a Club Own Revenue Uplift by assessing any revenue within it from Related Party Transactions to Fair Market Value. As set out in the definition of Club Own Revenue Uplift (Rule A.1.33), the Board must give the Club the opportunity to make submissions before it does so.

I'd say that the current rules are fact, they restrict related party sponsorships to fair market value. Clubs outside of the big 6 voted for that, but how could they ever bridge this sort of gap in 'fair market value'? The model of FFP that they have already voted for has already pulled up the drawbridge on them.

The current FFP rules already have that effect, they just don't seem to have been particularly rigidly enforced. They've already unanimously voted for a temporary rule to ban new related party sponsorship and whatever is proposed at the next meeting will not make FFP any more equitable for the clubs outside of the bix 6.

Yeah, it makes absolutely no sense for anyone other than Man U, Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs and maybe Chelsea. The rules devalue all of the other clubs and condemns them to being also-rans. They're pulling up the drawbridge on themselves just to prevent another club from competing with the big six.

No, the PL rules require clubs to submit accounts with that information each season. The rules allow the PL to discount any income over fair market value from the FFP calculation.

Which makes it all the more ridiculous that the other 13 voted for it and this new restriction on related party sponsorship. It's like people in Blyth voting tory.

Yeah, It's clearly just set up to protect the current top clubs' position.

It doesn't look like it's going to turn around any time soon, the limit is a total loss of £105m over three seasons. Their past three accounts showed: 17/18 £13m loss 18/19 £112m loss 19/20 £140m loss (doesn't count towards FFP due to Covid) So unless they make a big profit this year that 18/19 loss is also going to keep them from spending next season. But, those losses are not just from transfer fees and the transfer fees are obviously being heavily deferred, even if they're not actually buying players right now they're clearly still paying instalments (£125m liabilities in their most recent accounts) and running at an operating loss excluding player trading.

Although I really like the sound of Fonseca's playing philosophy, I do worry that it's going to take a lot of work to get this squad playing his football. We just can't afford that now, we're heading down and need someone who can get the current squad playing effective football. There is no better man for that than Rafa.

"There are always people who say ‘You are too old’ so at the time, maybe I thought they were right, but I am in good shape and I have not completely decided not to do it anymore," Arsene Wenger 21/09/2021

But what they will be looking to do is have as many sponsorship revenue streams as possible, because one massive sponsorship deal is probably more like to fall foul of the fair market value element of the FFP rules than lots of smaller deals.

It's completely different, Ashley was looking to benefit himself, our new owners need to generate as much revenue as possible to avoid falling foul of FFP. If that means selling naming rights for the stadium, so be it. We can all still call it St. James' Park anyway.

He's on the PIF board so he was obviously just speaking with his PIF hat on rather than his finance minister hat, obviously.

Well our owners are now the ones asking the fans kindly not to do it. End of argument, case fucking closed.

Even if it were Hitler protesting it wouldn't make it any more acceptable for someone to put a fucking towel on their head.

Which was an argument made for justifying racism in comedy in the past, that now seems abhorrent, "I know black people who say they find it funny too". Putting aside the thorny and often overextended issue of cultural appropriation (just about all culture is appropriated to some extent, the line comes when it relates to something that is significant to a minority group whose culture has been attacked etc.), the phrase 'towel head' has direct racist associations and is clearly inappropriate to put a fucking towel on your head in that context.

Apparently Citeh fans did but were also asked to stop by the club.

On the other site of the equation Warren Barton was fighting the good fight yesterday on Talksport, absolutely spot on about Bruce's tactical ineptitude.