Hughesy

Wilson is definitely a step up on what we have, but I'm not blown away but his goalscoring record to be honest. And I can't imagine he's going to improve that much, given he's 28 and has had 2 major injuries.

A real shame we couldn't convince Merino to stay. So much better than the likes of Shelvey - we could have really built a team around him.

Still remember the day I heard the news about him. Absolutely devastating - can't say a death of well known figure has ever particularly hit me, but when the news broke, it was just awful. He seemed like such a great guy and a brilliant player.

The nda ended when they pulled out surely. Why would anyone involved in this deal agree to an NDA with such an end date? It probably lasts for 2 years I imagine.

Genuinely didn't think this would happen. Fuck it.

Does this Henry Mauriss chap have any money? Not a lot on the internet about him.

I'd definitely take Nagelsmann over Pochettino personally. But quite frankly, I'd be delighted with any of them.

On a purely superficial level, Bruce has done ok. I don't hate the bloke, but it's clear to anyone with a working brain cell and a pair of fully functioning eyes that we have regressed, based on any statistical measure and from simply watching us play. He should be thanked for his service and sacked. He's achieved his boyhood dream, he didn't disgrace himself and he can either go and enjoy his pay off or go and manage a Championship team again.

I actually think Delaney is a good journalist and he raises some very important points about the takeover, but he seems to get his approach all wrong. The hectoring tone is actually creating more of a siege mentality among fans than there needs to be and is only encouraging fans to become more tribal about it.

I appreciate it will only take seconds for accusations of whataboutery, but if the PL blocked the takeover, surely they'd need to: (i) revisit the Man City takeover and/or (ii) actually include clear guidelines on what which entities are or are not acceptable as potential owners?

Just a quick question on the concept of sportswashing that I'm finding hard to square away - lots of journalists seem to be writing as if it's a given that sportswashing has positive effects for the relevant regime. Is that really true? Does having, let's say, 10,000 NUFC fans on twitter stating that the Saudis are actually stand up guys really make much difference? Does owning a PL football club really add a veneer of respectability to a regime? It seems to me that there's been far more written in the papers about how awful Abu Dhabi and Qatar are in the last 5 years than I ever recall before, which would imply it actually has the opposite effect?

Still think Tuchel would be a great shout. Obviously dependent on PSG sacking him as I can't see the Qataris wanting him to come to us.

Yep - extend the Gallowgate and add 8-10,000 seats and refurb the stadium. 60-62,000 would be enough. 62,000 would be pretty much the second biggest stadium behind Old Trafford.

Great post. Only quibble is that I'm getting fed up of the term "whataboutery". I understand that whataboutery can deflect from the underlying issues, but pointing out inconsistencies in people's analysis of a situation doesn't seem to me to irrelevant, yet now always appears to be dismissed as such.

Would love Rafa back. But if we couldn't get him, I'd love to see us go after Nagelsmann or, if PSG ditch him, Tuchel would be amazing.

I don't give a shite about human rights abuses within the context of a sport Thanks bud. Good to get the moral depravity out in the open. Saudis have their fingers in many services we use everyday. I don’t see why when all of a sudden football is involved people start finding a moral compass. Well, a long time ago football clubs were meant to mean something in terms of cities, people and maybe values. Yeah - but that was quite a long time ago. Not sure we've even had that in recent memory, given the way the Halls and the Shepherds treated the club.

If the press have this £150m number based on the papers filed this morning, they are jumping to conclusions. The reports are ignoring the credit facility provided to Cantervale by the Reubens and Ashley has no recourse over the shares he is selling, only over Staveley's claims against Barclays and other assets of PCP Capital Partners (the UK entity of which, had assets of zero per last accounts). Ashley would be insane to lend £150m secured against £150m of legal claims plus £13m cash. Totally agree with this. The £150m figure is confusing a lot of journalists.

That Simon Chadwick is definitely briefing on Twitter that the Saudi involvement will be limited.

Why would the Saudis and the Reubens need to pay over 5 years? Maybe Ashley wouldn’t sell up unless he was guaranteed advertising or income for a set period, and therefore Staveley etc obviously wouldn’t pay the whole amount until that period was up? Who knows? Could also be performance related payments or linked to the HMRC investigation. Loads of reasons to withhold some of the purchase price.

I just can't see a world in which this doesn't happen. Admittedly we only have a snapshot of everything that's going on, but everything points to this happening and it being confirmed imminently (albeit I don't know exactly how the PL processes work). You don't grant security and enter into loan agreements for bantz.

Just plain wrong to say "none of the documents filed make any sense".

Agreed - I mean usually any security is dated the same date as completion in my world, so this is all a bit odd.

I don't think the 150m reference means anything in particular. It's simply a representation relating to the value of the security.

Granting security is way way more important than setting up a company. This is a whole new level. In fact, it'd be very strange to give security over assets unless a deal has actually occurred.