et tu brute

Add Ramsdale and our passing game out of defence improves massively.

Where have I said this time get rid? He has to do better than the poor showing displayed so far though. Of course you were one of the few who thought Elanga was worth his fee. Learn the meaning of Deja Vu before quoting people

We have needed a playmaker for three seasons now to unlock a low block, and he still hasn't signed one. That today was embarrassing. He was bringing players on just for the sake of it in the second half, and then putting other players out of position just to fit them in. The performances are just not acceptable and he needs to sort it out quickly. Elanga man £55 million, I said at the time it was well over double to what he was worth

This isn't good enough. We look totally clueless going forward practically all season away from home. Howe has lost the plot second half he is just bringing on players and nothing has changed, with players playing out of position. We have done absolutely nothing this half. Howe needs to sort this out and quickly. We have needed a playmaker for three seasons and we still haven't got one in

This isn't fucking good enough. He needs to bring subs on at half time. There's no excuses for this form now

They are investing £5.2 million into a new training ground. The reason for the signings was down to Langley.

Donald the flag crying failure has highlighted your post

Conveniently ignoring 23/24

I think it's quite obvious it wasn't only results for the reason why she was pushed. I thought it maybe due to the club agreeing with a new coach to come straight in, but that hasn't happened. I noticed she still has NUFC manager on her social media, which I'm surprised the club haven't asked her to take down.

Not like it's going to last long either daft twats

It doesn't count towards PSR already mentioned. We don't do loans currently, we put revenue in based on restructuring owner shares, which does impact PSR. Maybe your owner will at some point also. Are you Donald the flag man failure? Someone wants to tell him to read the thread properly.

I was getting mixed up with an injection by restructuring of owner shares. That's not what your lot have done though

Loan has nothing to do with PSR as already discussed

Just have to wait and see, Le Fee was signed in June and there will be a big increase in wages and bonuses amongst other costs, before any signing costs are included. They only have 61 million to play with for the three years.

Loans don't, but injection of cash through shares restructuring does: In the context of the Premier League, clubs are allowed to sell shares to cover a maximum financial loss of £105 million over a three-year period, provided that £90 million is covered by secure funding from owners, such as buying shares instead of loans. This rule is part of the Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR), which aim to ensure clubs spend within their means and avoid breaching financial regulations

The sales of shares does come into PSR I thought, 90 million allowed to cover losses of up to 105 million over three years if I'm right? It's not only the sales ratio I was thinking of, their wages and bonus payments would have went up massively also. Bearing in mind they have roughly a £17 million loss from the first two years, that only gives them roughly £44 million to play with this year.

Allocation of shares to provide money which we have done every year including very recently. Not a loan though I was thinking of the bank loan when replying

So basically they're going to have to do a shareholder loan or sell a few players then before then end of June to make up the deficit. I just can't see currently how they don't fail the PSR loss of less than 61 million over the 3 years.

They will do if a fee is paid. Also wages will count if it's a signing you have made

They have taken a loan out and they're creaming themselves about January signings. No, it's to try and ensure they don't get a points deduction, as they will be well over their £61 million loss allowance for the three year period currently.

It has certainly been mostly one way. I can't remember sitters being missed (Chelsea aside as not seen any of the game) from a couple of yards out like the Woods or Watkins chances. Nearly half of your goals have come from goalkeeper errors and a calamity own goal. That's just factual.

Didn't see the Chelsea game (great result as I said yesterday, looking at the player ratings their goal keeper was man of the match) or highlights yet, but everytime I have seen them they have looked bang average. Man U and Burnley comfortably beat them, and nearly half of their goals have came through howlers from opposition goalkeepers and a calamity of an own goal. Add to that two absolute sitters missed by Woods and Watkins which give them 4 points. That's not being biased that is factual happenings.

Be interesting to see what the crowd is against the mackems. I see the club posted this week that 10,000 had been sold, which although still very good, indicates to me that it will be well down on last years attendance

That channel was always massively biased towards Langley. Getting interviews often with her and the players, probably a reason why. The main (Lee I think) one on the channel, actually had tears in his eyes when he first reported her sacking. Just because you go to the vast majority of games, doesn't mean your opinion counts. If they can't see the reasons why she was sacked, then they obviously don't know much about football. As for it being like the Ashley years, if he was still here, she would still be manager for a start and managing a club in the fourth division.

They have been lucky with their goals in previous games. Four massive goalkeeper mistakes and a calamity of an own goal. Great result today though especially after going behind so early.