Wolfcastle

if they could only offer wages and fees comparative with their recent performances, their past glories would count for nothing. Players used to turn them down to go to Blackburn.

Hope this doesn't become normalised but feel - clubs selling their women's teams to effectively themselves to get around spending restrictions not based on the money the clubs actually have but money the clubs that are allowed to spend money have dictated the rest are allowed to spend - has become par for the course rather than being talked about in some quarters for the madness and obvious highlighting of a flawed scheme that it is

"Leicestering" as its known in cartel circles.

I liked that documentary series about Sheffield United back in the day. Would like to see Man United do that. Still I bet the fact they've been bigger and better than Sheffield United in every possible way other than who had a warts and all documentary is some consolation.

Yeah right. Must be nothing to do with Villa being ambitions but having their hands tied then and must be some other reason clubs want to expand their capacities. Nobody said they were the answer just that its perfect justification for doing it.

Takes a lot of skill that when we've both our hands tied behind our backs by bullshit rules designed to enable precisely what's happening because you feared the exact opposite would be the case without it

Is that so. Ravanelli won the Champions League with Juventus, went to Middlesbrough a few month later. Reckon if we'd been allowed by show ambition we might just about manage to do similar to Boro now.

The excuse can be completely justified now, that's the difference. Owners cant be blamed for not investing to take a club to the next level and with clubs having to maximise what's available to spend as a duty, they're often going to risk PSR punishments, many have gone close, so the extra few millions probably aren't insignificant now like they were.

Said it before but there was no way PSR was going to help fans when clubs are limited to spending by whatever their revenues streams are. It gives clubs the perfect excuse and frankly justification to milk that for every possible penny when other avenues (success, owner investment) have been stopped.

Just basking in the competitiveness these rules have ensured for us all. The clubs that have always spent the most money to buy the best players can continue to spend the most money to have the best players, only now with the impunity of never being challenged.

Were limited because of the regulations unlike the another club

Don't think so. KK, Sir Bobby and Eddie's pre-seasons were just fine. Charity Shield aside.

It obviously has something to do with it, how could it not when we've effectively extended a de facto deadline from early August to September, just an arguement about how much. All the transfers that have gone through on last few days of August since the window obviously didn't happen on the last days of August before and would have been done much earlier.

The concocted transfer window has a lot to do with things not getting done early. Typically prior to that you'd be bedding players in through the friendly programme ad it was seen as kinda last minute and emergency to sign players after the season had started. Typical now. But you know football. If it it ain't broke, change it to justify your jobs.

Geordie boys taking the Wiss

Was on the Mount Rushmore of no9s with Supermac, Milburn and Gallacher. Me mam and dads era, learned all about him from them and the centenary books in our dark days. Was quite literally a legend there. Never thought I'd see the like at that point.

Arsenal have shot their bolt. Chelsea surely too. Man United is a downgrade. Spurs are Spurs. Man City is the only other option and might be a bit tied up with massive fee signings with the charges. I've thought before now that Liverpool waited until Arsenal were out the way.

The ridiculosity of PSR. Couldn't buy the same player for £15m because of it and could end up paying £80m a year later. Way to keep fees down and make sure clubs do smart business.

I don't think its unreasonable at all to explain not selling to a rival, especially one that did a lot to keep us held back as a club and thus would do the same to us without skipping a beat, to a player on that proviso we'd not do the same for a club overseas in a years time.

I remember Cantona, Hughes and Keane stamping on and kicking people on regular basis.

When Liverpool beat us 3-2 at SJP under Rafa towards the end of one season they were scathing on their forum that we had the temerity to try, instead of just rolling over for them. I'd never seen anything like that before. As devastated as I was about the 4-3 there, Blackburn and Woan - it never went through my mind that they were c*nts and thugs for trying against us.

I can believe it. At school I only knew some people were mackems when they were giddy about us selling Cole - was the highlight of the 5years for them. It served as a window into the bitter misery they'd been living through unbeknownst.

Jeff Brown at the far end hasn't aged a bit

"Walk On"

Any details on whether that Puma-City deal has clauses should they be punished, possibly massively punished at the end of their on-going case? Would be bad business not to but if not its got to be suggestive they think nothing is going to happen charge wise. 1 billion shirt sponsorship, well I'm sure glad FFP/PSR came in to stop all this crazy money in football.