Abacus

Heh heh heh, Ratcliffe.

In fairness, Eddie Howe didn't seem all that happy about those particular games in Australia either. Not that I think a ban like this is a good idea or fair to all clubs.

The rumours about Gallagher seem too persistent for there not to be something in them. He does seem a good character and, having learnt from doubting Gordon, I'm prepared to wait and see on this one if he comes in. Yes, there are other positions I'd like recruited first, but I'm guessing there are a range of options and combinations we're thinking of depending on where we finish and whether we're in some sort of European football or not. Either way, better than waiting till the last day of the window with no rumours at all and then half-heartedly scuffling about for some sort of loan deal we don't even get, like we used to do.

Yes, and delighted shoppers are AMAZED that this limited offer which looks so expensive is actually so cheap! As one delighted customer commented online "It's a boon!"

Likewise though, with Chelsea and Liverpool's players. Who else was prepared to offer them those salaries? Which is also part of the package and value to the selling club in removing their contracts from their books and helped fund their squad refreshes. Not arguing, by the way. The Saudi League was and is a market distortion, and the only point of debate I can see is why we couldn't seem to take the same level of advantage of it that others did due to the FMV rules, but I'm a bit ambivalent to it personally. Maybe they wouldn't have bought him at all without our ownership, so I can definitely see the argument the other way.

Essentially, yes. I don't think there is any objective way to establish a FMV for a player which isn't open to challenge. To take an example away from us, what is Declan Rice worth to Arsenal, compared to another team already well stocked, who could afford him, or didn't play that way? If we'd had an inflated fee for ASM, how could that possibly be proved when the Saudi League had already cleared out expensive dead wood from Liverpool and Chelsea? So that market we sold to was already completely different. There are still debates on here about whether he was under or over valued, which suggests to me that we pitched it about right, in terms of scrutiny on us You could make the exact same point point about sponsorships - a different deal is worth different things to different sponsors, so how can you readily compare? You could say it's on objective metrics like global fanbases etc, but even THAT metric is open to challenge. E.g. when most of Man U's global online fanbase barely contribute monetarily, what's it actually worth, that you couldn't challenge in court? I think that's why the PL shifted the burden of proof to clubs themselves, because they'd realised they'd dug a hole for themselves. And before they did that, even in the sponsorship example, let's say you are negotiating between two sponsors, and one offers £10m more than the other because you've played it cleverly. Are you then obliged to tell the PL all about these commercially confidential negotiations? Imagine if there was a leak. Imagine if it then set a precedent which stopped other clubs from negotiating their own deals better, because you've already set a precedent which all potential sponsors of other clubs would be well aware of. You've essentially killed competition there too. Buildings and land DO have an objective commercial market value as there is an open market there. But Chelsea don't seem to have done that, or proved it yet.

Chelsea have said they had two independent quotes to show that the value of the hotel was fair. From what I read, that still needs to be approved (or at least did, when the accounts were submitted). It does slightly beg the question as to why they didn't just do that and sold it to their own owner instead, but hey, I'm no cynic. What I do find interesting is that these are an "ESL 6" club, and instead of it just being waived through, it's more and more clear that either the PL are wary of being challenged on how fair they are, or that there are divisions between them.

I suppose the thing is that we don't know what has been contested (if anything) and what hasn't. Or on what basis. They originally came up with some claptrap about building a database to show the FMV of everything. Since that obviously has so many flaws in it's commercial application, they then backtracked on that and asked clubs to prove it themselves, thus showing that they don't know what they're doing. Saying all that, I do think we're all a bit in the dark about whether or to what extent FMV is limiting us. We can suspect we'd have some shiny new sponsorships by now, I do personally, but we don't actually know.

It's quite a funny response though. She's basically responded (correctly) that he's gone back on what he'd previously agreed and just come out with a load of waffle, so to be specific as to what he's actually talking about, in detail. I think Masters is playing politics at quite a junior level here. It would also be interesting to see what level of consensus he has from all clubs for whatever he comes up with, and therefore what his mandate is for any response.

I don't actually have a problem with the hotel sale thing, more a problem with the rules and how they are being applied in the first place. So, as long as it's a fair market value, because that's the dance we all have to dance for now at least, there's nothing really wrong with it. It was the club's, it was sold, so what. In your examples, I didn't fully follow the issue with Arsenal building their stadium (they did suffer a bit for that with spending for a few years), or that they then refinanced their loans at better rates, so apologies if I'm being thick there. In your shoes, from the outside the thing I'd be slightly more worried about would be selling off long term infrastructure designed to make income for the club to pay for shorter term player trading, if indeed that's what it was for. But my first thought was to wonder about what that means for the "sustainability" part of the argument for those rules to exist in the first place if you're selling long term stuff to buy short term stuff like players. Maybe it's worth it and will prove to be so. Don't know myself, genuinely, just asking your opinion. NB, maybe that's all moot if the stadium redevelopment promised at the takeover goes ahead and the hotel was just surplus to what the club needs (not a trick, asking as without looking into it you'll know better than me on all this).

Player of the season for me. He's made a right mug of us

Well exactly. And IF they went bust (doubt it personally), the FFP rules or how they are being policed will have done absolutely jack shit to stop it happening beforehand anyway.

I think 777 needed to put up £150m by today. Not sure what money they've actually got. Bit of a weird decision to go with only their bid in the first place.

The difference being that despite that 36% growth our revenue will continue to be a fraction of yours and those other clubs, so we have less room to make mistakes and no chance of growing it globally without sustained success. Which we then won't have without being able to invest and ... around and around we go. I'm not even again financial controls - I am against something which locks in the status quo. Saying that, I'm equally against something that builds in permanent dominance for one club including ours, though you've probably noticed that's exactly where we are now.