Abacus

Can we just shock you? We like Eric ten Hag, despite what we said to all the other managers just earlier.

If either ATP or PSR rules were meaningfully changed (and on balance I'd prefer it was the PSR ones as that seems fairer overall to rest the league to me), I wonder what the reaction would be from some of the owners of clubs who would see their current dominance threatened. A few more clubs going up for sale?

Dubravka was a bit of a revelation when he first came here and contributed lots when, at the time many thought we didn't really need a new keeper. But I do think that, as well as being a bit rusty recently, he just doesn't suit our style of play now - nobody's fault, it happens. Under Rafa we tended to sit back more, so his shot stopping and then onward distribution were pretty key. Now, we need a keeper who comes off his line more than Dubs is used to or comfortable with. That makes him look worse than he would be in a different set up, and probably hits his confidence at the same time. As well as clearly being second choice here when Pope is fit. Then there was the Man U loan, probably as a result of being second choice where he basically then didn't play either, which set him back further. I'm sure he could do a job somewhere and if that's Celtic, then great for all concerned.

I hope that PETER LIM doesn't listen to this rumour, and accepts £41m instead.

With Pope's shoulder and Karius off as well, I wonder if we're after two keepers, including Trafford as one for the longer term.

It's being reported that the Dell owners are backing a bid to buy Everton. More mega-rich owners who won't be allowed to spend, then. Anyway, I'm sure Sunderland will have some spare shirts to send them.

Me too. Still, bit tired of being dragged into everything as if we're some great white shark ready to bite.

Damage is already done, though.

Paulo, if he does go, we'll have a support group ready for you man. (You may need a space for me in there too.)

They'll all have estimates of where they'd expect to end up at this point. It would then take a while to approve and file the official numbers, and to make the various deductions and additions required by FFP, I'd guess. Which is probably why you won't find out who was actually officially in breach, if anyone is, till next year after the season starts. But I've been beaten to the punch by huss9.

You do wonder where this rumour / information came from about which clubs apparently need to sell. Let's say you could sell a player now for £20m - everyone you deal with now would lowball, in the hope you'd accept e.g. half that, if that's the magical amount that you'd need to make up. So surely this stuff should be commercially confidential till after the deadline, or these rules distort the market downwards for the specific named clubs.

Why don't we just sell a fringe player to Villa and they sell us one back to the same value on June 30th, for £30m. We're not related parties, so it's fine. We both take all the sales proceeds this year, and only each take one days worth of the amortisation in the period on the player neither of us wants, allowing us both to meet the FFP limit, with no need for tedious votes. See? My new game is really going to catch on.

Thinking of inventing a new game next season of Fantasy Legal and Accountancy Football League. It ditches all the boring football bits and really focuses on the minutiae of financial results and their legal interpretation across both domestic and European competitions. Who's in?

Not sure how we'd have gotten into that position. Maybe banking on a higher league finish? That's if it's even true. Whatever, you'd think it can't be over by much. So either sell a fringe player or two, or challenge the ruling endlessly, dispute any points deduction to get it reduced, which surely won't be that much in the first place, and then start on minus a couple of points along with a third of the league, rather than sell anyone we don't want to. Failing that, hope Man City win their case, and announce a bumper shoelace sponsor on June 30.

NB, to answer your actual question, I don't know. So, was sadly just skimming the Uefa regs that I can find online on my phone in the pub. In short, I think they do. Anything above FMV to a related party looked to me to have been treated as a capital contribution. Capital contributions could then be set against your FMV losses with the target of essentially hitting break even. If it was just that then, in theory you could sponsor to whatever level you want as an related/associated party absorb any losses through capital contributions and carry on. Except if you did that, you'd then hit the hard spending/revenue cap of 70%, both of which are assessed at FMV in the first place. So, you can't do that after all, because you couldn't artificially inflate the income, if you're already close to that spending threshold. More than happy to be corrected if being a dumb dumb, though.

Nah, I was saying I'd rather FFP went than APT (so we could invest via owner capital), whereas SAK was responding saying that wouldn't help us in UEFA due to their own version of the FFP rules.

Those rules were never going to go by a majority, the only way was a legal challenge. In saying all that, having read the article, City really are throwing the kitchen sink at this one. I've been trying to decide if I want FFP gone or APT gone first (or at all). But in either case, the effect is the same - if an owner can afford to invest, let them. On balance, I'd rather FFP went. It's more transparent to say that owners have invested £xm and the club won't go bust than having a million and one elastic band sponsors, which everyone could see through anyway. Does it create a new inequality? Yes. So, then, come up with a better FFP that doesn't force clubs to sell homegrown talent that fans want to keep, or farm young players for future home-grown sales, or stop anyone competing with the established clubs, as just a few examples.

He'll be thinking of it as a stepping stone to Bayern.

Anchoring would have been ok for us in the short term - it would have held down the richer clubs a bit allowing us more time to catch up while we're constrained by the revenue rules. Saying that, I did read an article that said the anchoring limit would actually make no difference to Man City's current spend, so I'm not sure how much it would have held them back in reality. But yes, in the wider scheme of things it's a bad idea as we're competing against other European leagues too, so it's not just internal competition. Just as the current PSR rules are a bad idea for clubs like us, and consequently for the whole league. One small example - give us the money to have invested last summer to compete in the CL, and there's every chance we at least hold on against PSG, qualify for the next round and from there who knows. Would have given the English leagues European coefficient a boost anyway.

It's for any transaction including player sales and purchases, I believe, not just sponsors. Anyway, like millions of others, I'd certainly be looking for a pro league subscription to watch Casemiro hobble around the pitch, so that move would definitely make sense.

No, it's only us that can't sell at those prices, as we'd be a related party. Anyone else can sell at whatever they like, without having to prove it.

If true, can they not see how that would look if they get drawn together? Do they care?

If the Connor Gallagher rumours resurface, then you know what you've got to do.