Abacus

I see the arguments to move but I'm not convinced by them, personally. Matchday revenue is one thing, but overshadowed by other types of income. And having an 80,000 stadium which isn't filled doesn't do much more for matchday income either. For all that FFP holds us back right now, it could well be temporary. There's been a lot of noise about how clubs are being forced to sell home grown players because of it, but to me that's nothing compared to it forcing a move from a historic stadium that most people love. If we can expand SJP to c.65,000, have it reliably filled and retain / build on the atmosphere that makes the place special, all the better. Sponsor a new stand, have some nice new plush corporate areas for business income, have better merch, food and drink by all means, those detract nothing so that's the way to go for me.

If there's a points deduction for Chelsea, I wonder when this would take effect? You'd imagine if it's this season, it would scupper them big style for their league placing and therefore put them in a spot for FFP in the summer. Another club that might start to challenge it?

I suppose the problem is that Uber, Facebook, Amazon etc all wrecked the markets they were in and upset the established order, wrecked things along the way, became effective monopolies themselves and are hardly paragons of virtue either. I'm not personally disagreeing with you at all, by the way, the reverse in fact. Just pointing out the devil's advocate position that no form of control can be good in the long run. Although in counter to my own devils advocate position I'd say every market needs a disruptor, or the ability to have one, or we're stuck forever in a situation of permanent market dominance as we have now with ridiculous coefficients as rewards for success etc.

I'd seen that multiple times in the press, Daily Mail, Mirror etc. Here's how the Times reported it back in 2020; Rivals to Liverpool and Manchester United are up in arms after the two clubs appeared to be given special access to vet candidates to be the Premier League’s chief executive. The recruitment process to find the person to succeed Richard Scudamore was run by a nominations committee headed by Bruce Buck, the Chelsea chairman, with Burnley’s chairman Mike Garlick and Leicester City’s chief executive Susan Whelan also involved. It has now emerged that Liverpool and Manchester United met at least three candidates — Susanna Dinnage, who pulled out of the appointment, the NBC executive Dave Howe, who appears to have been vetoed from taking up the post, and David Pemsel, who withdrew after allegations about his private life. The meetings are understood to have taken place before any decisions were made by the nominations committee. The special treatment for United and Liverpool has caused widespread resentment with one club source saying the likes of Arsenal, Tottenham Hotspur and Manchester City were especially aggrieved. The Premier League said it did not comment on appointment processes, but it is understood they are confident there was appropriate involvement for all clubs. The Times revealed last month that Howe, the son of the late English football coach Don Howe, had been close to getting the job after being interviewed last May. Howe, who has a degree in German and French and was a leading executive for NBC in the United States, ticked many boxes. But, according to the New York Times, after meeting Liverpool and United executives he was then told he had not got the job — and despite Liverpool reportedly approving of him. Liverpool and United also met Dinnage before her appointment in November 2018 — she pulled out the following month. It was not until February that United’s chief executive Ed Woodward and Crystal Palace’s chairman Steve Parish were added to the nominations committee. There also appears to be no explanation why Liverpool were given the opportunity to meet prospective candidates. Richard Masters, who had held the role on an interim basis for more than a year, was eventually given the job.

Good work in approving that Everton takeover, PL. 777 seem perfectly above board and the model of how all owners should be. Well, aside from all the allegations over them and the previous convictions of their founder.

I know, it just made me laugh man. I haven't softened my stance to him at all, though. Even things like putting Bruce on that rolling contract meaning he'd get a whopping payout still annoy me. But hey, he's old news and hopefully that's where he stays, which I guess is where you're coming from.

Do you generally have a red/ yellow card system in place for domestic situations? I certainly approve, but no doubt the wife would get VAR involved to point out that thing ten years ago.

And this is what football's become. I expect a new terrace ambulance chant; You're going down with a claim for da-ma-ges! (and repeat)

He's had long running disputes with sports brands who don't want their wares sold in his junk shops, who presumably feel they'd devalue their assets by being associated with his cut-price flea market. In this case, though, it seems he's suing Newcastle rather than Adidas, claiming we have abused our "dominant market position" by telling them to do one. Well, I for one would proudly wear a brand new kit with a giant "70% discount" sticker stuck on it and I'm sure m'learned friends would agree.

This is another example of where it's all a mess. Leicester potentially in breach of the rules (disputed) and so face a points deduction next season and/or selling players if promoted to the PL. If not promoted, the points deduction could then also be carried over next season into the Championship. However, this jurisdiction by the PL to impose that is also unclear and also being disputed. Let's say Leicester are likely lose the first part of the dispute, but win the second. It would almost make sense for them to not get promoted and drop out of the promotion slots, as they would not then face a points deduction in the EFL. What does this mean for sporting integrity and for their fans? Or even the perception that they deliberately missed out on promotion? Not that any of this is likely to be concluded on until next season anyway, at which point you'd open up a whole new can of worms. I get why a lot of people want some form of financial control for good reasons (and bad). But whatever way you look at it this looks like something designed and implemented by the Chuckle Brothers.

Well, I thought that at first, especially when it was described as a fresh injury. But I suppose that even if it's a recurrence /worsening of the same injury that it could well be the case that a majority of them thought surgery wouldn't be required, that still needn't mean they were wrong at the time based on what they knew then. I'm not sure you could ignore the balance of opinion and chloroform him into hospital Mr T style. Even if that later then turned out to have been the right call with hindsight. Anyway, a horrible long lay off for him mentally as well as physically. I guess the one thing about any long term impacts here is that at his best he always played with his head, compensating for a slight like of pace to get his positioning right, and hopefully that shouldn't be affected. Anyway, I think we can all agree that it's shite for him, for us and the club, so he'd better come back rebuilt like RoboCop.

He'll probably accidentally swallow the microphone and be out for 6 months. Howe to blame.

If it's a fresh injury, as Hope says, does that mean it's not a recurrence of the original one? I.e. not something that's down to the medical Department? Perhaps I'm not understanding this properly though.

Yeah, it was Bruce I was talking about there re Schar.

Yeah, I'd forgotten about that till Optimistic Nut pointed it out. You may be right re man management, but only with certain players - pretty sure Schar and Longstaff couldn't stand him at our place, for example.

If I'm following all of this correctly, so as not to inconvenience commuters, season ticket holders, students, planners, architectural buffs and conservationists the only viable solution is to take SJP, the road, the Metro station and Leazes Terrace all together all brick by brick to Beamish, whilst we use the new space in town to build a gigantic underground go-karting rink for Rihanna.

It all comes to something when we even agree with the mackems about something. His excuse then? Because he wasn't from Sunderland. His excuse with us? Because he wasn't from Spain.

In an alternative hell-scape, I wonder what would have happened if Bruce had Pardew's squad, and vice versa. I'd imagine Bruce would have done worse with the squad, but then again there's a chance he'd not have have thrown Ben Arfa under the bus, by just chucking him the ball and asking for "a little bit of magic". Before swapping him for Hamza Choudhury.

I guess the other thing is that not many sponsors would pay to take the flak for renaming a historic stadium. I guess it's why mainly new stadiums have it from the outset.

Well I just voted and it went straight up from 11 to 12

Thanks for this, it's really fascinating. And that's why we're on forums rather than twitter. Edit- I also loved the number of semi un-guarded comments there were about 'cases you will know' (not referring to us), as it feels like a discussion between friends

Well, I still want a giant Wor Flags surfer of him for the next match.

Shots fired there, alright. If there's a consensus between clubs who could all be adversely affected (which is most of them) and we're not the ones leading the charge because we're hated, it could tip the balance. It seems increasingly journalists are being briefed in what it really means also. Perhaps Masters has been playing 1d chess this whole time.

He's basically written half of the club's statement there, hasn't he? PL are screwed.

You could argue that Isak could well be in that bracket too. Obviously, we don't yet know about Tonali or Hall. Livramento looks to fit into that potential bracket. So, in general, I'd agree, but you also have to recognise that it's a risk as they won't all work out, and some years maybe none will. So balancing that with a few more proven players should be a reasonable way to balance that risk.