jonny1403

nufc.com saying he won't be in the squad?

This has happened a few times in Spain where a club has been caught out setting a release clause too low - I never understand why a Spanish club doesn't just adopt a policy of setting all of its release clauses at a minimum 200 million to avoid any risk.

Joelinton and miggy exhausted, ASM just back from injury. Atsu on the bench having barely played this month. What does Bruce do? Starts two of them and replaces ASM with a third defensive midfielder. Against a league one team. After complaining that we don’t have the players to create enough.

I really thought Manchester United would have been in for that kid. His transfer fee was a pittance considering how well he’s done in the CL this season. They were? Soljsaer even flew out to meet him to try and convince him didn't he or something? He just decided that Dortmund was better choice, which is sensible considering the toxic nature of man u right now Not true, he is owned by his agent and that is where the transfer fee goes, Dortmund have to sell him within 18 months, they receive a maximum of £20 million and the agent gets the rest, which looks about £80 million, no wonder FIFA are looking into agent fees This is absolute bollocks UEFA wouldn't have registered the transfer if there was any hint of third party ownership for a start, it's been banned for a decade

I refuse to believe, but this guardian article goes into a hell of a lot of detail compared to the high level stuff that was going around following the Peter Kenyon fiasco: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jan/26/saudi-340m-takeover-newcastle-leak-threatens-deal

Can't risk playing Ritchie and I'd stick Atsu in for Almiron, and Lazaro in for Allan if he's available (Bruce is hopeful).

Also, why is this such an unpopular fixture with our fans? Never seems to sell out.

I'd almost be tempted to move Hayden to RB and bring in one of the Longstaffs rather than play Krafth there again.

We can’t do that playing 3 at the back though.

Some brutal comments from some of the columnists here - fair play to the first two in particular https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11678/11789306/can-steve-bruce-be-blamed-for-newcastles-issues-the-sunday-supplement-panel-discuss

As much as I agree with the general point: - Sunderland got their money back on Gyan - no idea where that figure above has come from. - John O Shea and Wes Brown were good signings for Sunderland given the length of service provided - not their fault they continued to be played four years later when they were completely finished because Sunderland didn't replace them. - Abel Hernandez was consistently Hull's best player during his time there and only left because they couldn't agree a new contract. They got money back on gyan because of the first loan fee, but the transfer fee they received the year after was just over £6m True, but the first loan fee was something like £6.5m so they were net neutral overall.

As much as I agree with the general point: - Sunderland got their money back on Gyan - no idea where that figure above has come from. - John O Shea and Wes Brown were good signings for Sunderland given the length of service provided - not their fault they continued to be played four years later when they were completely finished because Sunderland didn't replace them. - Abel Hernandez was consistently Hull's best player during his time there and only left because they couldn't agree a new contract.

Chose Lundstram as my 5th choice defender as read an article saying he was going to start every game and is only £4m. Turns out he plays in midfield despite being listed as a defender and is going to get me 12 or so points today

Dubravka* Blob Darlow Woodman Yedlin* Manquillo Lascellout* Schar * Lejeune * Fernandez * Dummett * Clark Lazaar Ginger dog Hayden * Ki * Jonjer* when he can be arsed Longstaff * Almiron * Atsu Ritchie * Murphy Aarons Gayle Joelinton ? 25 man squad. I make it about 12 that are serviceable/ proven to do a basic job in the PL. ones worth having and who can do a job in the PL 19/20 marked with a *. Very harsh on Clark and Atsu.

Borini to us for 10m

To be fair to him he came runner up in their player of the year vote

What penalty miss?? When he played against us in 2008 for the Mackems, he botched a penalty on purpose. It wasn't a penalty, it was a shot from 6 yards out.

That's not how any of that worked/works. It kind of is though in effect. He's cut off the clubs income streams and diverted them for Sports Direct's and/or his own personal benefit. Hence the club wouldn't have needed these 'loans' if Sports Direct had been paying for advertising (plus other things) rather than depriving the club of millions every year. Nah none of that is true - the loans were made to keep the club's cash flow afloat after the massive income drop caused by relegation. It was the sensible thing to do as it meant we were loaning money on an interest-free basis and not from a costly third party bank like Sunderland did. There are plenty of things to criticise MA for, but that isn't one of them. If you incapable of understanding that he has reduced the clubs income for his own/another company's benefit then I'm lost for words tbh I understand that perfectly well, but a lack of advertising income from Sports Direct is not linked in any way to the reasons why Mike Ashley has loaned money to the club. Read up on our finances A considered and well thought out response You don't seem able to understand that the club is more than £100 million poorer than it should be as Ashley has diverted that money to himself basically, then loans the club money back that it wouldn't need. So it's really pointless discussing anything with you. You don't seem to understand that this sentence : is completely wrong. The club lost approx 70% of its immediate income on relegation for the first time under Ashley. Loans were made immediately post-relegation to cover that funding gap, and were made by MA so that the club wouldn't pay third party interest. Those loans would have been needed whether or not we were receiving advertising income from Sports Direct - no advertising deal would have been sufficient to cover the immediate, massive loss of income following relegation. So to suggest that the club would not have needed to be loaned money had sports direct paid for its sponsorship (over a period of ten years) is just complete bollocks and massively misunderstands the impact (or lack of) advertising income has on a club when compared to the cost of relegation. And just to reiterate - I 100% agree that MA should be paying for any sports direct advertising around the stadium. I also agree that relegation the first time round was MA's fault in the first place, and if it wasn't for him we wouldn't have needed those loans in the first place.

That's not how any of that worked/works. It kind of is though in effect. He's cut off the clubs income streams and diverted them for Sports Direct's and/or his own personal benefit. Hence the club wouldn't have needed these 'loans' if Sports Direct had been paying for advertising (plus other things) rather than depriving the club of millions every year. Nah none of that is true - the loans were made to keep the club's cash flow afloat after the massive income drop caused by relegation. It was the sensible thing to do as it meant we were loaning money on an interest-free basis and not from a costly third party bank like Sunderland did. There are plenty of things to criticise MA for, but that isn't one of them. If you incapable of understanding that he has reduced the clubs income for his own/another company's benefit then I'm lost for words tbh I understand that perfectly well, but a lack of advertising income from Sports Direct is not linked in any way to the reasons why Mike Ashley has loaned money to the club. Read up on our finances A considered and well thought out response

That's not how any of that worked/works. It kind of is though in effect. He's cut off the clubs income streams and diverted them for Sports Direct's and/or his own personal benefit. Hence the club wouldn't have needed these 'loans' if Sports Direct had been paying for advertising (plus other things) rather than depriving the club of millions every year. Nah none of that is true - the loans were made to keep the club's cash flow afloat after the massive income drop caused by relegation. It was the sensible thing to do as it meant we were loaning money on an interest-free basis and not from a costly third party bank like Sunderland did. There are plenty of things to criticise MA for, but that isn't one of them. If you incapable of understanding that he has reduced the clubs income for his own/another company's benefit then I'm lost for words tbh I understand that perfectly well, but a lack of advertising income from Sports Direct is not linked in any way to the reasons why Mike Ashley has loaned money to the club. Read up on our finances

That's not how any of that worked/works. It kind of is though in effect. He's cut off the clubs income streams and diverted them for Sports Direct's and/or his own personal benefit. Hence the club wouldn't have needed these 'loans' if Sports Direct had been paying for advertising (plus other things) rather than depriving the club of millions every year. Nah none of that is true - the loans were made to keep the club's cash flow afloat after the massive income drop caused by relegation. It was the sensible thing to do as it meant we were loaning money on an interest-free basis and not from a costly third party bank like Sunderland did. There are plenty of things to criticise MA for, but that isn't one of them. Any extra sponsorship income would have been a drop in the ocean compared to the cost of relegation - we'd have still needed financing sponsorship or no sponsorship.

West Ham have bid accepted for £29m Maxi Gomex after already signing £24m Pablo Fornals

Downie is trying: We’ve taken legal advice from our lawyers. The Company’s House listing from Sheikh Khaled is a Special Purchase Vehicle (SPV) used to transfer shares at outset of a new company. Can be done by anyone though, & difficult to prove veracity. NUFC aware & still refusing to comment. 40 replies 32 retweets 122 likes What I would say is Mike Ashley has been using Denton’s Lawyers to sell the club, and not Pinsent Masons - as I’m aware. As it stands, this means nothing other than a new company has been registered #NUFC This is exactly what I said earlier and points to Downie not understanding what is going on: - Yes anyone technically can set up a company, but internal legal documents have been used to do so, which you would somehow have to obtain. - Yes MA uses Dentons, but you'd expect the firm setting up that company to be acting for the buyer, not the seller.

People generally don't incorporate in these circumstances until they need to. I've worked in plenty of processes where the binding bid document simply refers in general terms to 'a UK limited company, to be incorporated in due course' because it saves the hassle of setting one up and then closing it all back down again if the other conditions of the sale are not fulfilled. I'd disagree with that slightly. I agree that in a normal bid scenario you would establish the company and acquire within a few days. However I've seen clients establish just to reserve the name and then never use the company again. It's really not that much hassle - it costs £40 to incorporate a company (£120 same day) and not much more to terminate. For large corporates that's less than 15 minutes of legal fees.