Happinesstan

At what point were these 'unofficial assurances' given? Was it after the bid was submitted? Or was there a preliminary discussion to ascertain the likelihood of success, before wasting their time? I don't believe for one second that there wasn't at least feelers put out in advance. So the consortium have suggested that they want to buy the club, and the PL have said yeah, I don't see a problem with that. But then when they submit the list of directors to be tested, the list is not the same as the one discussed, previously. PL ask them to rectify this and PIF refuse.

I took it to mean leagues you've created, so it would have to be restarted by the same person. That's my guess.

I used to have a Sonnetti top that looked like that. Without the influence of the 3 year old that was sick from Slush Puppies.

Shit on your left shoe, or shit on your right? You choose.

The extra information they wanted was for the state to be subjected to test, whether that was just MBS or the whole govt is open to debate. The consortium argue PIF is a separate entity and should be treated as so. A stand off then ensues for around a month. The consortium maintain they have provided all info as required, however instead of rejecting the takeover the PL find a way of not making any decision by offering arbitration on this one single point of ownership. Now if you believe the PL this was a previously unheralded move and they gave the consortium an olive branch. All very reasonable at face value, however the sting in the tale is this arbitration may have taken 12 months who knows, and they would still have had to take test after this. This is where accusations of them being disingenuous come into play, the consortium at this point had every right to expect PL to make decision based on info they provided. However, the PL allegedly just said where not going to either approve or reject, and where happy to sit here month after month. If the last sentence is true they basically left them with no alternative but to walk away, and as far as I’m concerned this is still the key unanswered question by the PL and why many believe they manipulated this outcome from the start. If the PL have requested somebody be named and the consortium haven't done that, then they haven't complied with the PL's requests, at all. So reject the takeover on insufficient information received ? I'm sure I saw a list of rules [in relation to timeframes, the only timeframes] in which it stated that any request for information should be responded to in 5 days, and if no response is received, a new 5 day period commences. If that is correct, I'm not sure they could do that.

The extra information they wanted was for the state to be subjected to test, whether that was just MBS or the whole govt is open to debate. The consortium argue PIF is a separate entity and should be treated as so. A stand off then ensues for around a month. The consortium maintain they have provided all info as required, however instead of rejecting the takeover the PL find a way of not making any decision by offering arbitration on this one single point of ownership. Now if you believe the PL this was a previously unheralded move and they gave the consortium an olive branch. All very reasonable at face value, however the sting in the tale is this arbitration may have taken 12 months who knows, and they would still have had to take test after this. This is where accusations of them being disingenuous come into play, the consortium at this point had every right to expect PL to make decision based on info they provided. However, the PL allegedly just said where not going to either approve or reject, and where happy to sit here month after month. If the last sentence is true they basically left them with no alternative but to walk away, and as far as I’m concerned this is still the key unanswered question by the PL and why many believe they manipulated this outcome from the start. If the PL have requested somebody be named and the consortium haven't done that, then they haven't complied with the PL's requests, at all.

Barcelona. Now and in the future. Definitely not now. Mahrez and Silva basically play the same position as Messi just far worse and Jesus is good but isn't a top striker Mahrez and Silva could play anywhere behind the striker. Barcelona are in desperate need of players now. That would be 3 absolute quality players in return for one. It is better for Barcelona. and even with their combined wages would still probably cost them less than Messi does now Easily. Probably cost them half of Messi's wage. Aye but Messi pays for himself commercially so the finance argument is moot. This is a no brianer for any team. He is literally creator, finisher and playmaker all in one. He's irreplaceable. If that's the kind of advice you give Ashley, I'm not surprised we don't sign anybody.

I'd hang them both from the same rope.

Well if he's half the player...

A bit more demanding. Oh he's broke the eleventh commandment. For those of you with more of a scientific approach, it's all relative, innit. Maybe other clubs aren't demanding at all, which would make us a bit demanding. Oooh, paint me offended.

And a massive club.

So is this the takeover he knew about but couldn't talk about because if he talked about it it wouldn't happen?

You could be the next Nostrefuckindarmus with Bruce as your muse.

Yes, certainly. Just as annoying is the lack of effort in identifying the talent that can be had for reasonable fees. It's not an impossible approach, but it's clear we don't really do it properly. We should have done everything we could to have got Brentford's Director of Recruitment Phil Giles on board, he's a massive Newcastle fan and his work at Brentford has been incredible thus far Unless he hangs out in London pubs and restaurants throwing up in fireplaces I doubt Ashley even has a clue of his existence. It's just horrendous man. Christ. We've got nobody at the club that knows anybody in football. Even Bruce. I bet beyond shaking hands with the opposition manager he doesn't even give a nod of acknowledgement to the other staff. He only shakes the managers hand cos it's on the telly.

He started in place of Tiote. And, for the record, we were losing 1-0 before they had their second player dismissed. So yeah, he tore apart 9 man Stoke. I'm sure there are better games to make the point you're making. Weird thing to pull him up on tbh I wasn't pulling anybody up on anything. It's a weird game to use as an example. Hs performance against Liverpool would be my goto. Think choosing that game was to make as much a point of how Pardew handled him by not trusting him for the next game that it was to say that was his stand out performance at the club. Agreed with LFEE that it's the WBA game for me as far as my favourite performance. No. I got the point he was making. But it doesn't stand up. we were 1-0 down because we were missing Tiote and Adams had too much space in the middle. That starting line-up was not winning that match against Stoke's starting eleven.

He started in place of Tiote. And, for the record, we were losing 1-0 before they had their second player dismissed. So yeah, he tore apart 9 man Stoke. I'm sure there are better games to make the point you're making. Weird thing to pull him up on tbh I wasn't pulling anybody up on anything. It's a weird game to use as an example. Hs performance against Liverpool would be my goto.

I'd still rather be where I am, than be a Chelsea fan. And I worked there for 3-4 years.

He started in place of Tiote. And, for the record, we were losing 1-0 before they had their second player dismissed. So yeah, he tore apart 9 man Stoke. I'm sure there are better games to make the point you're making.

I'm with Ian Wright all the way, until he says "What does it matter?" that's a little disingenuous. It matters because it is an [albeit small] victory for equality.

"Onfield Pragmatism"? ONFIELD FUCKING PRAGMATISM???

Sauce? Red wine, red onion and plum.

You hoof it when you can't pass, whether it is down to obvious pressure from the opposition, or pressure from the fact that you can't pass, it's still pressure. Lascelles was calm and collected and found his player. There is plenty of actual s**** to moan about without making s*** up. Dummet constantly hoofs it aimlessly when not under pressure. Mike Williamson was the same. You don’t need to be under pressure to hoof it. I didn’t say Lascelles hoofed it, I just said you were wrong about having to be under pressure to just hoof it. Teams like stoke made quite a living out of the good old not under pressure hoof. Just because you can’t pass doesn’t mean you are under pressure. Hey man, you're free to continue making your own tailor-made misery. I'll continue to get mine off the peg.

Merson will be fetching the tea.

Absolutely It’s fascinating though, like watching a car crash. Aye. There is still entertainment to be had. Every laugh hurts, of course. But we really have little other choice.

Best looking waitresses @ Denny's.