Abacus

Fingers crossed we sign Guehi - that would be a really exciting transfer in itself and particularly as it seems he wants to be here. We may then also end up with a late surprise at RW as well, as the club have shown we're capable of that. Plus I always take Howe's transfer comments not just with a pinch of salt, but a shot of tequila and lime, as it should be. Still nothing about these rumoured new sponsorships which might free up some wiggle room either now or for January.

Agree. Well, maybe not terrible as he did a job, yet not only was he played out of position but he also had nothing in front of him on the left. Not his fault, but that's how Southgate set them up and picked his team.

Well, I for one won't believe any of it until I see a picture of Jarrad Guehi-Thiaw on the steps of SJP holding an NUFC scarf over his head in THE CHRONICLE.

I want him to join as he seems to want to be here. But actually, for about the same amount of money, a late switcheroo for Branthwaite would be pretty hilarious.

One interesting snippet in there for me was that Spurs are after Eze for £60m, but the snag is that Palace want a large chunk of the money up front. That's one area we presumably have an advantage in here. Keep the Guehi fee lower, but offer to pay the lot up front. Makes no PSR difference to us, and stuffs Spurs negotiating tactics for Eze at the same time. I mean, if any of it's true.

Be very excited with this. Early days, but assuming Ornstein is right about the interest, it shows the level of player we've been thinking of at the very least, so time to relax and enjoy the ride.

If I were him, I'd later become convinced on whether this was the deal he was told about or not, depending on whether there is another deal or not.

This is a shame.

Yeah, and I guess it would also be a short route to loaning players back and forth.

Which, errr, we then wouldn't be allowed to get players from or Ratcliffe would explode, come to think of it.

He probably means we're trying to buy seven hundred and seventy seven feeder clubs

I was thinking this. When we've been down to the bare bones up front I've seen a few people say "do we not have someone from the academy to put on", but apparently not, or nobody quite ready. So I'll be happy with this, and excited to see what potential he has.

Edit, nah never mind. Sorry for the quote.

I idly wondered if Staveley going might affect the choice of sites. Seem to remember she was pretty keen on SJP. Probably not mind, they'll have been thinking about it for a while, I expect.

Flipping heck, clips obviously, but looks like that kid can pick a pass. Welcome Rory.

Maybe. But then again think back to January and how we were barely able to field a squad - and it seems now we were in no position to bring in a replacement. As for Minteh, yes agreed we'd have liked to see him get a chance here. Really promising signs, but the jury is out till we see how he does in the PL. Wish him all the best personally.

Even if any part of this is true, I suppose the PL would need to argue the deal was in bad faith. "You have acted in bad faith by spending money that you legitimately have on a player for a position you need, in order to meet a rule that we ourselves put in place to, errr, well, no hang on a minute. I'll call you back". Anyway, hope he turns out to be a decent 2nd choice keeper and the conversation changes to actual football. I do actually think Anderson had some real potential as well for a youngster. Think he'll do very well for Forest.

They've probably all got a flight to catch.

Definitely wish him all the best and hope he tears it up. It's not his fault players are having to be traded around like objects, a system I dislike. Yes, yes, it needs to happen, that's why we need an improved academy as well etc etc. So, I should just grow up. Well, no I won't. At least the point of an academy was originally to bring players through and see who makes it, with the rest (including those who just don't fit what your team needs) finding their way elsewhere with your best wishes. Likewise, bringing in promising players to go on loan and see if they'd make it, is fine too. Just maybe, in this case, we already decided he wouldn't make it here, in which case fair enough. Doesn't quite feel like that, but I may be wrong. But in general, turning youth players into commodities doesn't sit right.

Whilst we'd all love transfers done early, I think the position we're in (i.e. no Europe, mainly) means that you have to keep your powder dry. Otherwise your interest gets leaked as agents agitate to see if someone else comes in, as other clubs are watching us more now.

Thanks for sharing, I think, because I became weirdly transfixed by it I think I really enjoyed the main judge best. In my layman's reading of his language, he was usually telling them, in effect, to stop waffling on and asking them to be clear about whatever point they were trying to make. But here was probably my favourite interjection from him. One of the points made by the SD lawyer was that Newcastle fans would go into SD stores, buy a shirt, then buy other stuff. This was referred to as the halo effect. So on that basis SD would seek damages for lost other sales and not just for lost shirt sales. The judge was saying that surely they could work out how much that was, just by referring to how much fans of other clubs bought when going into the store to do the same. Here's his quote, the part that tickled me in bold; "...so far as City or the other United or whatever is concerned ... that is a way of quantifying the halo effect so far as the Newcastle United sales". Get in.

Agreed and think it's unlikely. But maybe, even if there was anything in it, another way to look at it would be as a back up / rotational striker for cup games etc, meaning Isak would be the main man and therefore going nowhere. I kind of think the same way with the DCL links. Get back into Europe next time and maybe then is when you go big on another striker. Anyway, probably just speculation throwing our name into the hat for bargaining reasons, so probably wrong.

I think there are fractures within the ESL 6. Pretty obvious the rules as they stand disadvantage Man City for one and could now well do the same for Chelsea. NB the difference with the Everton and Villa swaps is they aren't related parties as far as I know, so looking into that would have to be under the 'bad faith' clause, which would open up a further can of worms. Several, in fact.

D) We'll dig into an aquifer to save on water costs instead. Pretty sure that was the most exciting news one year