Hhtoon

He doesn't change the direction of his run, just turns his body which looks worse but would have been wiped out regardless. He could easily have avoided it of course but shouldn't. Keeper unlucky as the defender put him under pressure with the back pass...

Off on hols and you can no longer stream NOWTV im Europe post Brexit so missed this and the Liverpool game. Cheers Gammons

Come on Targett, show us you've still got it

From the Richard Arnold statement: "We were provided with alternative explanations for the audio recording, which was a short excerpt from a much longer recording, and for the images posted online."

You'd imagine so as they have undertaken their own investigation into it. If they do retain him, I guess you can either assume they didn't have enough evidence to cut him loose, or they did but chose to keep him anyway for their own reasons. I suspect 95% of the population will happily assume the latter

You still have to undertake a process and what would their justification be? I suspect offences directly associated to his actual role of playing football would have a lesser threshold, but anything else is going to have to be pretty watertight to avoid a shitload of legal action from him.

I doubt contractually Man U or sponsors could pull the plug that easily without a conviction - That being said, Nike sacked him off pretty quickly but suspect they have tighter image restrictions on their individual sponsorship.... To be honest, I'm surprised Man U wouldn't try and flog him elsewhere and if I were him I'd want to slope off somewhere a little off radar as well.

It's OK, they'll apologise in the next couple of days, suspend the VAR ref and add some additional robust controls in to ensure it doesn't happen again.

I'd have personally been disappointed if we'd paid over £30m for someone who was injured for c.15 games, 3 times out of the last 4 seasons. So not really bothered about the fee. All the best ASM and thanks for the memories!

Man, do you see the irony of your post? Someone could quite as easily say they're fed up of all your posts saying you aren't impressed by this deal, and that you're falling over yourself convincing yourself hes not class.

Always loved this little snippet from Bobby: "He looks overweight, but he isn't. If you see him stripped, he's like Mike Tyson. He doesn't bite like Tyson - except in the tackle!"

The problem with FFP is that it doesn't seemingly move with the times. Valuations and wages are way up yet the FFP limits remain the same. I suppose you could argue that commercial revenue can increase (suspect TV does) but I bet its not in line. Unless FFP limits have been reviewed/increaded in which case ignore my garbage

These should both be the Income Statement which records revenue and costs within a year, rather than the balance sheet which records your current assets or liabilities. E.g Szoboszlai is currently sitting on the BS as £60m, with £12m to be transferred/charged to the IS each year. FFP regs focus on the IS.

I've seen this a couple of times but don't understand it as I had thought FFP was purely income statement. It may be for other financial accounting reasons, or maybe there is a cash element to FFP...I don't confess to having read in detail about it. But from an amortisation point of view, if you bought an asset on the last day of a financial year, then you would normally recognise just one day of cost. Unless there is a specific accounting requirement for football clubs stating otherwise!

That was probably to get cash in to the business to pay for him but no impact to FFP.

I don't profess to be an expert by any means but I've always understood it to be on income statement profit/loss only. Though I've only ever had a skim so there may be a cash element as well! There is a 70% (I think) restriction of wages to turnover as well now, but that'll be income statement items

I don't get it - the costs are amortised across the whole contract, most likely monthly, so not sure that makes any sense FFP wise.

NUFC to pay him £10k a week whilst his Saudi Tourism Ambassador role (or whatever it is) just happens to increase by £1m a week.

Didn't realise he was only 26. Bring him home please.

Yeah I agree, I was kind of bandying 20m about as the known increase in sponsorship. We definitely need to live within non-champions league budgets as you say, though even that one-off season (if it is just a season) hike would help reduce our losses over 3 years.

To be fair, I don't necessarily think this is as unreasonable as people are making out and I doubt anyone really knows how these things are discussed internally...though clearly journos will/do assume that transfer budget equates to total cost of the players. Talking in absolutes of 100m is odd as deals are structured differently. You could buy 2 players worth 50m each but only pay 10m each upfront and that would be our transfer spend done despite only a 20m CASH outlay. But that would be the same as the clubs insisting we pay more upfront which equates to a 100m CASH outlay but apparently the same transfer spend. Extreme obviously. But I dont think it's beyond the realms of possibility that they are talking cash outlay budget rather than future total spend. That being said, 100m total transfer spend equates to about 20m a year FFP hit (exc wages) assuming 5 year contracts. Which seems reasonable...so who knows

Wish we had a twitter nonsense thread for this sort of shite

Wonder if the £25m is the "base" amount with extra payable for seasons that we're in European comps. Either way, when you factor in that a transfer fee is amortised over 5 years, thats a huge chunk towards the transfer pot!

And it's even worse if if they lose as they'll be wanting a reaction in their next game...

https://twitter.com/AndyHa_/status/1657362656590807040?t=WMzB6Bg_DFZvAGqPG887NA&s=19