Jackie Broon

I expect they'll either be hoping he says he only wants to play for them or showing Leipzig they won't get into a bidding war, and will up their offer to match if they accept ours.

They'll want us to reach an agreement first then match it, they won't want a bidding war.

I wouldn't mind Højlund if we don't get Wissa. He's obviously struggled at Man U, but I think there's a very good player in there.

Seems nonsensical that they bought Ekitike when they could have let us have him and got Isak.

Fuck them and him. Let him and his earning power rot if he chooses to go on strike.

Evern factoring in potential, like Chelsea did, we're not goingbto get much for our women's team, Everton and Chesea Ladies are lightyears ahead. We might have already done it with STACK, which is probably our biggest asset.

Let him keep pretending to be injured for 3 years, then see how much other clubs are willing to pay him after being out for three years.

It was a thumbs up denoting 'fair enough'.

Because they are probably less exceptional at what they do that earn similar or more.

But they are truly exceptional at what they do, there are approximately 4m men between 20 and 30 in England and around 260 English premier league players. So just to become a bog standard PL players, you're talking being 0.0065% of the population. They get paid what they do because of supply and demand, and for me it's less obscene than what business owners and CEO's earn off the back of other people's work.

He's on probably less than half what he would be for a player at his level at one of those clubs. But, that gives us some hefty negotiating power with him. We could insist he sees out the three remaining years of his contract, which would mean him losing out on £20m+ in wages. And if he downed tools that would potentially affect his ability to earn that much in future. We actually hold far more cards than is being made out in this, if we want to insist he stays.

Someone who is now gone made that decision. Anyway, he doesn't have to believe it, we can say he's under contract and going nowhere this summer. If he downs tools tell him he can rot in the reserves for three years, is he willing to risk the impact on his career of that?

It doesn’t matter, he's under contact for 3 more years.

It's so fucking weird this waiting for us to agree to sell befor making a bid, I don't remeber that ever being a thing in any other transfer.

Yeah, it's actually PZ Newco Holdings Limited, which is the new entity which Newcastle United Football Club Projects Limited was transferred to, I hadn't twigged that PZ Newco Holdings Limited was a newly set up company. Newcastle United Football Club Projects Limited (now under PZ Newco Holdings Limited) owns STACK, Newcastle United Promotions Limited (still under the club) operates STACK.

Unfortunately, if the club decide selling him for most we can get is better than having an unhappy player, potentially not contributing, affecting the rest of the squad and losing value, and that helps us to extract the maximum value from Liverpool, it's a sensible decision... Although I'd personally prefer us to cut off our own nose to spite Liverpool.

There hasn't, but players at his level don't move very often, and when they have it has tended to be at the end of their contracts. Compared to other £100m+ transfers that he is leagues ahead of in terms of quality and rarity, he's worth a lot more than £120-£130m.

It isn't top money though, he's a £200m player. It's a cut price because the other top clubs either can't afford him or don't need a new first choice striker right now.

That Is that right though? As far as I can tell the UEFA rules are essentially the same as the PLs, that income from player trading with related parties does count, it's just that it can be adjusted down if it's not fair market value. Relevant income is equivalent to the sum of the following elements, as described in Annex J.2 below: Revenue – Gate receipts Revenue – Sponsorship and advertising Revenue – Broadcasting rights Revenue – Commercial activities Revenue – UEFA solidarity and prize money Revenue – Other operating income Profit on disposal of player registrations and/or income on disposal of player registrations Excess proceeds on disposal of tangible assets Other non-operating income Finance income Foreign exchange result Relevant income must be decreased if any of the elements listed in a) to k) above include any of the items listed in l) to o) below, as described in Annex J.2 below: Non-monetary credits/income Income transaction(s) above fair value Income from non-football operations not related to the club Income in respect of a reduction of liabilities arising from procedures providing protection from creditors Income transaction(s) above fair value For the calculation of football earnings, the licensee must reflect any income transaction, irrespective of whether it is with a related party, at fair value. If the estimated fair value is different to the recorded value, then the relevant income must be adjusted accordingly, bearing in mind, however, that no upward adjustments can be made to relevant income.

They weren’t associated party transactions. They reportedly did dispute the initial fee for ASM.

I think we're much more likely to have an issue with the PL disputing it than UEFA.

The related party transaction rules only require that the transaction is a fair market value, UEFA are not going to dispute that £130m is FMV.

I don't think that is right, the UEFA rules don't allow infrastructure sales, like Chelsea's hotel, to be included in income for FFP but I think they're less restrictive than the PL's rules for other related party transactions (or associated party transactions as the PL defines them).