Abacus

Yeah, that's why I said "on the face of it". And I agree with you - I think that's exactly what's happened to them. They've hit the glass ceiling and realised that. But if we'd done it, can you imagine the noise?

The more you look at it, the more sensibly we seem to have played it - playing nice while the rules blow up on their own, and no longer being billy-no-mates in the playground.

On the face of it, it's quite a reasonable request by Villa given it hasn't increased by inflation for years. But since those rules drop away in 25/26 (I think), it suggests Villa might be quite close or over the limit now, so are susceptible to being raided. They'll also be in the CL next season and so must realise they need to strengthen and are hemmed in like we were. And at the same time makes a complete mess of the current points deduction farago that's happened.

They do make the point that after the collapse of the ESL all the traditional voting blocks in the sky 6 have broken up - they all want different things. So, at least we've disrupted all that, meaning the anchoring vote was actually quite clever by us, I reckon.

They say it's believed to be Man City.

In terms of whether he should actually go on loan or not though, I can see the argument for it. A year away whilst he finishes developing, regularly playing competitive football and ready to come back the next year, I can see that. He did seem to play more minutes this year than would be ideal for him due to our injuries, but then again he did take his chance. I suppose it depends how and whether we strengthen the midfield with more first team hardened players, as he'd probably feel like he'd gone backwards with what could well then be fewer first team minutes. I'd have been tempted to keep him here personally, but that's heart rather than head and logically a good season in say the championship, might be the right thing.

Yeah man, I'm sure no offence was meant by anyone.

Everyone knows you're supposed to start at school with a compass and green ink, writing "Mam" and "Dad" on your elbow first. Send him on loan.

That BBC article doesn't seem right. For one thing, it's claiming us and Villa would benefit from it. Who was one of the three to vote against it? Oh yes, Villa

Those are the current rules, clarified earlier this year https://www.sportindustry.biz/news-categories/news/new-premier-league-rules-faces-opposition/

Yup. Scrutinised more, anyway.

Which, in turn, gives us a bargaining chip of sorts. Think I read something that these rules on multiples are, magically, exactly about the amount Man City currently overspend compared to the bottom club now. Be funny if an absolutely potless club gets promoted in future, maths fans.

85%, 70% is the UEFA rule. And yes, the two go together. So, we could spend 5 times that of the bottom clubs, but only up to 85% of our turnover. Which means, we couldn't spend 5 times that at all, but all the big boys still could as their revenue is so much greater than everyone else's.

I don't think the anchoring would make any real difference in isolation. If a club can still spend 5 times as much as another, what's the point? It doesn't fix competitive balance at all. And I actually agree with the points made by the objectors - it hobbles the PL in Europe. From our point of view, get rid of some of the other rules and then we're cooking, but I don't think this change would do any of that. Unless there's some sort of pact to protect the 'smallest' clubs with this change first so the other rules go too, since we or anyone else then couldn't just run away with it, as has happened before.

Could give Milan a game, this lot.

Jürgen Klunt has really blown it by announcing his retirement. Even in the back of their minds, that has to have an effect on the players

On the other hand, I don't think there's all that much fraternity within the ESL 6. Man City could blow up the rules and carry on unimpeded and I doubt they'd give a hoot about what the others thought - their own position would be fine, which is all any of them care about.

Yes, conflicting reports - anywhere between 12 months and two years in various media, but I wonder if reports are sometimes mixing up the notice period and the covenant. The Athletic says the extended notice period is 'believed to be' in excess of 18 months, but let's assume it's 18 which is the most common guess. To a layman like me, so I may be completely wrong, I think it is true that 12 months is more common in senior execs, and beyond that is pretty unusual. Mind, it's an unusual sport. But still, you'd imagine there could be grounds to argue that's excessive (per Ratcliffe's moaning) whether he's signed it or not. If so, in that case an Employment Tribunal would presumably strike out the clause - not replace it with something more reasonable. I.e. if we lost that, there'd be no notice period and he'd be free to go already. I guess the same stands for any compensation payment. But that would all take time, legal expense, and there would be no certainty of winning on either side as it would be a bit of an unusual case, and yes this is all guesswork. So, a lot of ifs and buts there, but I'm wondering whether that's why they've tried the arbitration route first, just in case we weren't sure of the outcome of any future case and wanted to test that.

I'd doubt that, but in any case I'd always thought that if a contract wasn't legally enforceable, you didn't have to stick to it anyway. Arbitration is surely for when two parties can't agree on something or where there is some ambiguity and it's either forced as a contractual means of dispute resolution (i.e. a route the contract says you have to take first), or both sides genuinely want a third party to rule or find a compromise. I'd guess we wouldn't want a compromise, and if we're confident in our position let Dan the flowerpot man take it to court instead.

It is mildly hilarious that some clubs are against anchoring as it could make then uncompetitive in Europe, as they have the money to spend and it would harm their ability to compete if they weren't allowed to spend it. But when it comes to their own league, and the same principle applies to clubs who could be competitive against them when those clubs could spend too, well suddenly that's perfectly fine and isn't hypocritical at all. In a lot of ways, I hope they win the competition argument on anchoring on one metric, without realising what a giant target they've placed on their own back by anchoring using a different one.

Apparently he's the best in the business though, according to Ratcliffe. So a world record fee sounds about right.

Wait until the highly qualified independent third party arbitrator is announced as a Mr Michard Rasters

Heh heh heh, Ratcliffe.

In fairness, Eddie Howe didn't seem all that happy about those particular games in Australia either. Not that I think a ban like this is a good idea or fair to all clubs.