Abacus

Well exactly. And IF they went bust (doubt it personally), the FFP rules or how they are being policed will have done absolutely jack shit to stop it happening beforehand anyway.

I think 777 needed to put up £150m by today. Not sure what money they've actually got. Bit of a weird decision to go with only their bid in the first place.

The difference being that despite that 36% growth our revenue will continue to be a fraction of yours and those other clubs, so we have less room to make mistakes and no chance of growing it globally without sustained success. Which we then won't have without being able to invest and ... around and around we go. I'm not even again financial controls - I am against something which locks in the status quo. Saying that, I'm equally against something that builds in permanent dominance for one club including ours, though you've probably noticed that's exactly where we are now.

It's interesting that we don't much talk about the Reubens. There has been some debate about what PIF's intentions are re Newcastle - a sustainable investment or a PR exercise, or some mix of the two. You'd guess that for the Reubens it's more an investment. Maybe mixed with some element of interest in property redevelopment with the land and St James's etc.

Post match interview sounded like the commentators were trying to sell him, or work out why he does what he does when I reckon it's just instinctive. They can all feck off, he's ours

This is the whole problem. Even if it wasn't deliberate some people will wonder

Here's how to myself look stupid - don't rate Haaland at the moment. Stick Isak in this same City team instead and he'd be having a field day.

You're going to relegated to watching the mackems if you carry on like this

Having read the article, which is self serving drivel and has the cheek to talk about the need to maintain "competitive balance", I couldn't agree more every bit of criticism that comes Masters way. He is the problem, which is exactly what the most recommended comment on there says. Keep politics out of the game? It's already in it, as he well knows. I'm also not sure about a government regulator, but I do think a bit of light into the backroom politics of the PL, however that is done, is the only way.

It was rumoured by one journalist, with the fines being described as a "luxury tax". Other journalists have since come out to say there probably will still be points deductions. It may be that these were all options being discussed, but the short of it is that while the rules are likely to change, it doesn't sound like anyone is sure what to.

I'm sure they'll be watching their own game - that's proper football. Pringles for goalposts and all that.

Aye, to be fair, you're snookered at the minute in defence. Can only see tomorrow's game going one way, the Chelsea game was madness. It's also madness that I'd probably want to hang to Dummet right now and not take that deal

Deal, Sir Ratcliffe

We should get Chris Tarrant on VAR to stroke his chin and take his time deciding if it's a goal or not. Thought that was a soft VAR decision, not the clear and obvious it was supposed to be. That said, I'd have taken it the other way round

Yes, it's looking more like it's being reported differently and maybe the original article was what some clubs were expecting/ hoping rather than what's been agreed. We'll see, including how this is linked to the anchoring proposals - i.e. a fixed limit on salaries compared to the bottom clubs, which has problems of it's own. A clearer explanation of the rules and exact penalties, maybe a lifting of the £105m loss limit wouldn't be the end of the world IF there's a loosening of the related parties rules. The main problem I can see is that a fixed set of points penalties could equally lead to gaming of the system. Happy to take a 4 point penalty to allow an overspend? Then how many clubs would take that option deliberately, and how much of the league table would be dotted with an asterisk?

I take it back, Froggy watch back on. What a game, though

Think he'll be fine

Those are my thoughts, there's so much more to be done with international branding and marketing etc that we've neglected. But you still need a USP, which is a unique stadium which still has an atmosphere in a pretty unique city, rather than creating a corporate megadome a mile or two away, which could in the long run become a white elephant unless you move all the hedge funds, banking and international travel from London here too. Can see it now; a remake of cash converters and a full takeover of the airport. And we'll claim to have invented Shakespeare too.

I thought match day revenue included the price of tickets, pints, corporate boxes etc. Could be wrong, though. Commercial income would include sponsorships (which you could still do with a suitably rebuilt stadium), concerts (likewise), hotels and all the 50ps earnt from go-karting. A different stadium in the same city doesn't mean you have access to the same concerts, the same hotel traffic, the same business events as you do in London. I think it's a false argument to say you could match the income from the Spurs stadium here, but maybe that's for another thread

Meanwhile, Ashworth considers whether turnips or carrots should be his main winter crop.

Just goes to show how little matchday income is the main factor - it's all on broadcast and (mainly) commercial income

Haven't seen it myself (yet), just people re-reporting the Mail

Some lovely grizzling on RTG about football is now ruined forever and will become a closed shop. Conveniently forgetting that it already is, and besides that they were bankrolled by Short well above their means for years as well. Now it's state ownership that's the problem, rather than who has the biggest most spendthrift billionaire (foreign or otherwise) as if that makes any difference at all to the argument. Ah well, it's all very sad. In fairness though, no matter who you support, I can't see a good outcome from any set of either restrictive or unrestrictive rules. If anything, there should have always been more rules about owners who actively try to rinse a club instead, as if it was OK to exploit a club instead of putting your money in.

If the related parties rule goes re sponsorships as well though, the revenue part of it could be less of an issue.