Abacus

It's been a frustrating stop-start season so far. Signs of progress, but always lots of off-field distractions and daft international breaks. That said, we played pretty well yesterday particularly in the first half and on another day, or with a non-rusty Isak, we go on to win it from there. But with the second half in particular, we didn't have that magician to break down teams when the press isn't working or is nullified. I also unreasonably blame Wilson for his constant injuries far more than I should do. However good he was when fit, it still winds me up that he hasn't been replaced.

This is true, but he's better at pressing on the RW and more natural in that position than any of our other options imo.

Think that's our best lineup with who we have available and the likes of Willock and Barnes to come on and cause havoc

Think he saw TBG's t-shirts and bottled it

Not in the squad, cancelling my order

Had to be, with Gordon on the left. If Isak tires or breaks down, there's the option of Gordon in the middle and Barnes on to replace him at LW. Gordon isn't convincing at RW.

I'll take twelve.

And, do other teams fear them and come up with ways to counteract them? In this case, I'd guess no. I'm not digging out Longstaff there. Did really well in the 4th season when he felt his way into games and was carrying an injury for a chunk of last season. And as of now, he's a useful squad player - take him out and we'd look pretty thin right across the park.

If some people and/or the FA are 'embarrassed' about appointing a non-Englishman as England manager, then good. Only way it'll get fixed is by improving the supply line, and until it is in the meantime it's surely better for the current players to be working under a manager who gives them the best chance of winning something. Not their fault for developing when the managers haven't and so they shouldn't be hamstrung by having a clogger in charge. Think Tuchel is a great choice. I wonder if the reaction would be any different were the manager to be a Scot or an Irishman rather than a German, but that's by the by. I wonder if being German just brings it into greater focus for some like the press - it's obviously going to be the main angle on their stories. Anyway, not sure how you improve the supply line of English managers with top class trophy winning experience, with the PL being money dominated and more likely to employ proven winners wherever they're from as a result. And in return, English managers (in general) seeming less willing to go abroad to learn and adapt. Or at least if they do, they mostly don't do it very well.

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.