Jackie Broon

That's a different situation, the O&D test issue would have prevented them from buying any PL club (although we all know it wouldn't had they being buying one of the right ones from the start). That's not an issue now. Probably one of the main things that attracted them to us was our current advantageous FFP position. If we are relegated that is whiped out and it adds at least 2 years to the project, realistically more like 3-5. It's very naive to think that they wouldn't consider looking elsewhere.

It's pennies to them, they could give away their share for nothing without losing sleep over it.

It hasn't really been talked about at all, everyone just seems to be sticking their head in the sand about it. If we go down PIF are left with a club that, even if we did get straight back up, would have lost all of the FFP advantage we currently have and have very limited ability to spend. If we get relegated and Man U, or Chelsea or even Leeds are available, if you don't think they would consider jumping ship you are being very naive.

Which, unfortunately, is even more of a reason that they could move on to another club if we are relegated.

This article, about why FFP is probably unlawful under competition law, has some interesting stuff in it about research showing that FFP has directly increased the dominance of the current top clubs: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17441056.2021.1935570 With over a decade for the effects of FFP to set in and for data to be collected, the evidence is empirically showing that FFP has in fact led to the fossilization of European leagues. One 2019 study, claiming to present the “first empirical analysis of the potential effects of FFP on competition in the major European football leagues”, collected and analyzed a novel and extensive dataset covering more than 300 clubs across the first and second tiers of the Big Five Leagues pre- and post-FFP.120 The results of this study showed that “FFP has further amplified competitive imbalance” and “tends to make European football leagues less equilibrated and to freeze current hierarchies”.121 The study notes that an “important driver of this result rests on the finding that a larger number of investors makes a league more equilibrated[] because … investors might break up established structures and increase competition”, but FFP raises barriers against new investors.122 The study also echoes that FFP “benefits already successful clubs and makes it more difficult for less successful teams to spend more money on new players to improve the squad, which, in turn, results in lower competition”.123 Ultimately, based on the empirical evidence analyzed, the study finds that FFP has resulted “in an ossification of established hierarchies in football leagues”

Owners can inject money either directly or though loans etc. but they are limited to 105m in total over the past three years to count towards FFP.

Well these are the definitions as they were before today: “Associated Party” means a Person that is associated with or related to the Club in the terms detailed below. A Person (or where the Person is an individual, an associate of that Person or a close member of that Person’s family) is an Associated Party in respect of a Club: (a) if that Person: (i) owns shares or holds a loan interest of any kind in the Club or an entity in the same group of companies as the Club; (ii) has Control over the Club; (iii) exercises influence over the Club, or an entity in the same group of companies as the Club; or (iv) is an Official, Director, consultant or advisor of the Club or an entity in the same group of companies as the Club, or (b) if any of the following conditions apply: (i) the Person and the Club are members of the same group of companies; (ii) the Person and the Club, whether directly or indirectly, receive funds of any sort, are controlled, jointly controlled, or influenced by the same government, public or state-funded body or by the same party; (iii) one entity (or any individual employed by or contracted to that entity) has influence or the ability to exert influence over the other entity; (iv) one entity is an associate or joint venture of the other entity (or an associate or joint venture of a member of a group of which the other entity is a member); (v) the Person and the Club are joint ventures of the same third party; (vi) one entity is a joint venture of a third entity and the other entity is an associate of the third entity; (vii) the Person and the Club is controlled or jointly controlled by a Person identified in paragraph (a); (viii) the Person identified in paragraph (a) has influence over the Club or is a member of the key management personnel of the Club (or of a parent of the Club); or (ix) the Person, or any member of a group of which it is a part, provides key management personnel services to the Club. In considering whether a Person is an Associated Party in respect of a Club, the League will direct its attention to the substance of the relationship and not merely the legal form. References in this Rule to the ability to ‘influence’ an entity include the ability to influence but not control financial and operating policy decision making, whether by share ownership, holding of a loan interest, statute, appointment, employment, agreement or by other means; “Associated Party Transaction” means: (a) an agreement or a transfer of resources, rights, services or obligations, whether directly or indirectly between a Club and an Associated Party, regardless of whether a price has been charged and regardless of whether it is recorded in a written agreement in any form; or (b) any transaction of any kind that is conducted otherwise than at Arm’s Length, where the total financial value of the consideration (including the fees to be paid, services to be provided and/or value in kind to be supplied) due to the Club is in excess of £1 million in aggregate, whether in relation to an individual Associated Party Transaction or a series of Associated Party Transactions. In considering whether a transaction is an Associated Party Transaction, the League will direct its attention to the substance of the transaction and not merely the legal form;

We'll have to wait and see but I suspect that isn't how it is going to work. Man City's market fair market value for sponsorship deals will probably be assessed to be way above ours.

I don't think so, UEFA couldn't do anything in the end because the breach of FFP was outside of their time limit for enforcement. But Man City are still embroiled in a battle with the PL over that, they are going through arbitration over the PL requiring them to disclose documents relating to the leaked emails that led to UEFA's case.

No, but they couldn't have actually stopped Ashley selling the club to the consortium without their agreement either. What prevents it is that they can impose penalties on the club for breaking their rules, including suspending the club from the league.

And that would be a related party transaction, that the PL could say is over fair market value.

From the torygraph article: "It will be the responsibility of the Premier League legal department to analyse the value of new commercial deals for Newcastle, or any other club, and decide whether they represent fair market value."

It's expected news but depending on how they've gone about it could fuck our ability to bring in money from sponsorship in the short / medium term. If the PL have to sign it off before we can agree a deal it could be like the O&D test all over again.

I don't think so, this is driven by the 6. The temporary ban was always temporary until they came up with changes to the rules aimed at scuppering us. From what's reported what they are putting in place is having to agree any related party transaction with the PL before it takes place, the previous rule was that the PL could discount anything over fair market value from the FFP calculation. I expect that any such potential deals will be held up for months / years in legal disputes over what represents fair market value now. Rather than as it was before where we could have just signed them and then had that argument later.

Us taking down the sports direct signage puts a different twist on it this time, if they extend the temporary ban any further we can unquestionably demonstrate that it is now costing us sponsorship money.

Shelvey shouldn't be dropped, but he needs a more defensive midfielder alongside / behind him. Willock should only be played in a more attacking midfield role, or behind Wilson, he's just not suited to playing in a two man midfield, or three man midfield without a more defensive midfielder in there. Hayden, Hendrick or even Schar could be options until January.

This. He need to set the team up to get the best out of what he has at the moment, it's blindingly obvious that we need more bodies in central midfield, we just don't the quality of players to get away without any defensive cover in midfield.

Whilst that is true, Howe is persisting formations that we just don't have the players to make work. He has made selection errors that have directly cost us points and other than Joelinton's form it's hard to find any positives on the pitch from his management.

Any other team in this league would have made it really difficult for Leicester today. We're going down.

This 4-3-3 just isn't working, we're just getting overwhelmed in midfield. It suits Joelinton but no one else.

He just doesn't fit into this system.

I would've hoped we'd see less of that backward passing then hoof forward under Howe by now. Far too much of that in our play.

There would probably still be ways to extend the Gallowgate even if the Strawberry Place development goes ahead. Well, it's much more likely to be feasible than extending the east stand.