Abacus

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

Joe Biden has just stepped down. Honestly, if it's not the England job he could be tempted by, then it's something else.

Agreed. And I don't see why you'd bother politicking, if that's what it was, unless you wanted it to work.

Agree with all of that. I guess all I'm saying is that it's a hell of a burden so he needs people around him he can trust. Edit - and maybe people around him to challenge every now and again. All great managers need that from time to time

Yeah, I personally would prefer a set up where the manager makes all the big calls, especially if you have someone like Howe that I completely trust and has no doubt overperformed. But I'm harking back to the past with that sort of set up, and football is no doubt too big for that now. Just on the injuries point, there were obviously a huge number of freak injuries (I'm still cursing Pope's injury) in a squad already stretched in a European competition we had no right to get to this soon and without the quality in depth to make up for it. We all know that, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they've wanted to see if there are ways they were looking to improve here too, like they'll want to in every area. Given we're still playing catch up from years of neglect, it's all part of trying to get the most out of what you've got, isn't it? So, I do get your point.

Welcome Miodrag. Also, empty your pockets first next time.

My guess is that Howe isn't interested in the England job, not yet, but he has to be diplomatic about that. And also use the speculation to his advantage at Newcastle. So, then as for Newcastle. Originally when he joined it was to a shell of a club at exec level and he, along with Staveley, would have been involved in just about everything because - well - they had to be. He might even have enjoyed that, but it was never sustainable and it wasn't intended to be done that way forever. I'm pretty sure the appointment of a DOF was needed to ease that burden - I think Staveley said as much at the time - as well as always having been intended as part of a more structured set up. Then, rumours of friction with Ashworth which if true would have instead complicated his job in some respects. Similar rumours that Ashworth thought he'd have more control than he did - if true, maybe this was with Staveley, Howe or a combination of those. Roll forward to appointing Mitchell. If there was some sort of power struggle with the previous DOF, it's only natural he'd be cautious. From being in a position right at the start where he'd have been involved in everything through necessity, to one where some roles will be taken out of his hands or have reduced say, it's understandable he'd be cautious about how it would work again this time. Then Bunce - brought in for player recovery etc. Is this an implied criticism of the injury situation last time? Will it mean not being able to play players in situations like with Longstaff when he was choosing to play through an injury? It's one criticism made of Howe last year by some fans at least, whether it was fair or not. If I had to guess, this is where any stuff about boundaries is coming from, especially with Staveley gone too. Each of those appointments makes perfect sense to me. But I can also understand why he might say those things if he'd been a bit burnt by Ashworth. That's all complete speculation, of course. We'll see how it goes, but personally just can't wait till the season starts and everyone can get on with their jobs. If all the pieces fall together, I think it could be his dream job since he looks and sounds happy to be back.

The Times were reporting yesterday the PL are potentially looking at Chelsea's sale of the women's team under FMV - they referenced the sale of other women's teams globally for a lot less. Interestingly, there was talk in May that they were looking for minority investors in the women's team - so I'm guessing that's what they'd have to support any valuation. But it supports the basic point that how do you value a women's team in the first place? It's a growing sport after all, but nobody can know how much it can grow, and how do you compare the value of teams from other leagues globally anyway. They also reported that the PL still hadn't signed off on the previous hotels deal. Let's say that isn't signed off - what does that mean for PSR implications? Should they have been docked points and what would that mean for other clubs who would have placed higher? Pretty sure there were also their self declared breaches, which I haven't heard anything about for a long time. That's even before you get into the Man City arbitration and the never ending investigation into their alleged breaches and the implications of that for the integrity of the league. Anyway, both just illustrated how impossible it is to try to enforce the rules in the first place.

Sir Jimmy's derisory bids and other frogponds.

Exactly, it won't be her money. She's a deal-maker and you've got to admire her for it.

Both things were reported. But even if it was just the latest changes being challenged, it still makes the original ones all but unenforceable I'd say. To my mind, there is no open market benchmark you could use to value a related party sponsorship, or indeed any sponsorship. So no basis for the PL to challenge them in a situation where they might have to, especially where there is no burden of proof on the clubs to prove it and that burden lands on the PL instead. I'd guess they knew that, hence the rule changes. It's the same argument re player transfers - what a player is worth to one club is totally different to what they would be to another. It's not like selling a hotel, say, where you can have other bidders and thus be able to prove it. You aren't dealing with an open market in either situation. Edit - At that point, PSR itself comes crashing down for some clubs, as do the new revenue rules. I'm not sure I'd want that either to be honest. Except that the whole original stated purpose of all these tests was to stop clubs being exploited by their owners and that seems to have gotten lost.

This may be several weeks too late but I completely agree. It's definitely an element of player fatigue and of trying to shoehorn too many teams into this competition (probably for TV money) at least in Europe, I won't speak for the Copa America. The grind of qualification, then the group stages, where most of the best players have already played in their leagues, domestic and international cups, friendlies etc just isn't sustainable. Lip service has been paid to player welfare, but it doesn't translate onto the pitch when there is content to fill and TV money to be earnt. Don't know about the CA, but the Euros felt a bit flat all round to me other than a few standout moments. Then those exact same players are back for training, friendlies or made up cups within days. I kind of wish they had a month off, ate some ice cream on the beach with their families and then came back ready to bust a gut for competitions that really mattered.

We're going to smash the league this season with Tonali aren't we? No-one is going to want to play us. Get on.

I don't think Howe needs to come out and say anything. Per a previous comment, coming out and saying it's not for you right now could snooker him in the future as it would make the FA look silly. No doubt there will be discussions behind the scenes, but that's where they need to stay, especially if he wants the job at some point in the future.

It's disastrously bad, isn't it? He won't leave due to the left wing fascist police keeping his family safe through punishment beatings amongst the general disorder in every other major city, apparently. Aye, got you.

I'd be gutted if Howe went to manage bloody England, a team I only care about briefly once every two years. Sorry if you feel differently. Don't think he will, mind and nor would any top club manager. Even if this England team had won it, I reckon most football fans would have moved on after a day on the lash and be looking to their own club's transfer business more by now. Just appoint that parsley bloke and we can forget all about it for a couple more years, bar getting annoyed with the odd international break when there's no proper football, so watching us have to stutter past San Marino in a meaningless friendly just out of boredom. That was all unnecessarily negative Edit - he might have won us an extra bank holiday though, so in retrospect Howe in.