Abacus

Used to love hanging round Eldon square when I was a kid. Must be a sign of age though, that now I mainly avoid it and would much rather have had a wander around the area before those old buildings/ streets were demolished to make way for it instead. On St James's, I'm not particularly attached to the building itself. I realise some are, but it's more the pitch I'm attached to and also the area it's in. I realise the practical problems with staying but if there's some very ingenious rebuild plan no-one has been able to think of, or preferably one that involves only a short relocation, either would be what I'd emotionally prefer. So, a curse on you Leazes Terrace, even if that makes me a massive hypocrite about not demolishing old buildings when talking about Eldon Square just before The Arena site would be a very clear third, and out of the city centre a definite no-no. On that last one, I think it symbolises east and west Newcastle clubs being joined together in the middle, so I think the location has a historic importance for that reason if nothing else. Though I'm probably talking guff there. But I know I'm not talking guff about the trudge through town through the same streets being part of the ritual and experience of going there.

Matterface and Dixon waffling on about what has obviously been a pre stadium tour instead of the football says it all.

They're only looking at ATP's above market value, not below. Though you might argue that if the true aim was sustainability to stop clubs going bust, why that shouldn't have been the case.

Except he refers to these as being potentially treated as APT deals, which they clearly weren't and aren't. It makes me doubt his analysis overall. Unless he is talking about everything being classed as if it were an APT deal, which is clearly nonsensical as well. Edit - in fact, wasn't he one of the people downplaying the significance of the ruling in the first place? Memory may be wrong, but that's quite the volte face if it isn't.

Not related to Mazraoui specifically, as I understand these things can be congenital and are better caught in this case, or to Man Utd either so maybe this is the wrong thread or example, but I do think the number of games players are having to play now in all competitions and the stress their bodies are under without recovery times, is ridiculous now. All so we can have wall to wall football on TV. Think we need to seriously slim down some competitions for players' health, which would lead to better football anyway. The new CL format, club world cup, and the Nations League are all things in which to me where there are now pointless games which will cause serious risk to players breaking down for various reasons.

That's rough for him. Hope he's OK.

Or if they've been held up. Unreasonably.

There's nothing much new in that article, just speculation. More generally, I think this connection between the real thoughts of the owners and the fans is something we're missing with Amanda Staveley being gone

For us, stadium naming rights and training ground sponsorships haven't happened yet. Weren't there rumours of sponsorship deals on the way? If that was the case, I'd wonder why they have stalled.

Forget lawyers, there's only one man who can sort this out. Former Leeds United hardman Arthur Graham.

I think the point is that you could argue that an owner should be allowed to invest a loan at any interest rate that they deem appropriate to their ambitions. But that's obviously no different to investing to what's appropriate to your ambitions no matter which other route you do it by. Why were loans excluded from that? Well, errrm...

I'd guess Everton will be fine. You could guess they could argue that, whilst they were charged for interest rate breaches, essentially, other clubs weren't charged through PSR due to owner interest rate rules which were themselves unlawful. Legal cases all over the shop.

Samuel reports that Man City were quite happy to release the ruling when it came out 14 days ago, but the PL took till now to agree.

And that fair market rate is easier to prove than the fair market value of a sponsorship. Not that they'll go back and do something about the first one, because that opens all sorts of other challenges. Though it does mean less PSR headroom in the future for a lot of clubs with preferential loans, or else a lot of loans capitalised, assuming they want to keep the APT rules and vote for that, which would sting. But on the second, the burden of proof re APTs shifts back to the PL.

Massive this. And quite funny.

I think we're slowly clicking into place. Poised very well in the league now points wise, with Isak back (hopefully) after the international break. Europe is very possible indeed, with a cup run giving us another chance.

Gordon has more of a record as a striker with England, so picking him up front to start vs Everton made most sense. As the game went on, I think at 0-0 away, holding out for the point was probably the right thing to do rather than gambling on Osula for ten minutes. But that's even assuming we hadn't used all our subs up in the first place making that whole argument irrelevant. I do think he'll get minutes as the season goes on, thought he's looked good in flashes pre-season (for what that's worth) and in his movement against Wimbledon, where the whole team created very little due to the way they'd set up.

Frustrating result, a few snatched shots and definitely missing a striker. But a point away to a place where we've struggled is OK. Ultimately, that missed penalty really cost us - put that away and I think we win by a couple. Though I suppose you could say the same about the flukey goalline clearance from Bruno's shot. Either goes in and I think it's a different game. Still, like I say, a point away and a few signs we're clicking into gear over the last few games, two of which have been against sides quite happy to sit back and both of whom created virtually nothing against us. It's breaking down those sort of teams where we struggle at the moment.

Was pretty sure Fernandez one was a red at the time. Looking again though, I think it was just reckless and clumsy and more of a yellow. So, fair enough to overturn it. Schar wasn't a red either, but was also reckless in that it gave the ref an excuse/reason to send him off and may have looked like a headbutt from the ref's point of view. But that wasn't overturned on appeal. I don't know why the bar is different between the two Sometimes a frivolous appeal gets an additional penalty, doesn't it? So that one was presumably not thought to be frivolous, which suggests they had something to think about. Why I would have liked it overturned though, was because if so it would demonstrate that it was Brereton Diaz who was initiating contact and / or playacting. Those are the things fans actually hate and that you want stamped out.

With his pace and those runs in behind, I think he could be very useful to turn defenders with the right through balls being played to him. If Wimbledon had tried to come forward a bit to push for an equaliser, he'd have been a danger to them given a bit of space to run into. Definitely looks like he's got something in time, and once the rest of the team is firing.

Thought it was a pretty professional performance, so in a minority here. Comfortable win, controlled the game and some good minutes for the likes of Osula. I don't think anyone should expect to steamroller a lower league team in a cup tie. Not the most exciting watch, agreed, but actually quite enjoyed it anyway for getting the job done with no drama.

He's rapid, Osula

They brought out a matching pair, but he wasn't that bothered, just stuck one on and jwanted to get on with it. I was dead chuffed he was so keen to just get playing. Was also really pleased to see him hollering at the defence and passing up front. Felt like he was really up for it, in fact it felt like they all were.

Had to replace one midway through the game and it was a different colour, is all.

Cracking game, thought Trippier was really up for this as well.