Abacus

I doubt we'll do it anyway, so it's purely hypothetical. But I think if that happened (and the Saudis decided to dilute their own league which they're clearly trying to grow, so I'm dubious of as well), that could well fall foul of existing rules anyway. E.g. if they paid 100% of the wages, the PL could also argue that we weren't paying fair market value for that transaction, and not allow it for FFP reasons, presumably. There's possibly an argument to be made about what a fair contribution would be for a PL player. You could say that Saudi wages aren't that, because it's being spent for a specific reason - to attract players to a growing league. I.e. maybe you could make an argument that a wages contribution equivalent to what that player would earn in the PL would be fair. Well, maybe. But again, not sure it would fly even if we (and they) wanted to do that. It's all ifs and buts for now, though.

It's amusing, because we haven't even done anything wrong. It's all everyone second guessing what we might do - hopefully gives them sleepless nights making up hypotheticals. In the meantime, it's being reported that Spurs may have broken agent payment rules that were actually in place several years ago. If true, Luton got a points deduction for that at the time. Quite glad our owners seem to be canny and operating within the rules, but should do everything they can within them. Unlike the previous jokers who'd have probably forgotten to turn up and vote, citing the high cost of train fares.

I'm not even sure we'll take anyone on loan from Saudi, it would still have complications, but it's fun causing the meltdowns about it anyway.

More posts on there about it than on any other fans forum, I'd bet.

I doubt there was any way to make that work in the first place, it was a crackers rule. Anyway, time for an evil laugh. Mwhahaha!

Yeah, I was sort of thinking that when I typed it but pressed send anyway. Allowable losses surey need to be linked with a club's ability to stay afloat, so the figure will obviously differ depending on the club's circumstances / wealth of your owner. Then we come round in a circle again as to what the whole point of it is.

Looking forward to Shite of the Living Dead.

NB @The College Dropout, I do agree that maybe the £30m per year limit on losses may need to be raised. The inflation in player transfer fees over the last couple of years is insane and I wonder where that arbitrary limit comes from, but it starts to look like chicken-feed in that context. But what should it be? Wouldn't know where to start.

The only trouble with that is, we could do that and then we could buy the league in perpetuity. I'm not sure I'd like that either. Even though I do think we're being overly restricted right now and are only just making up for the damage Ashley caused.

It was all much simpler when Jack Walker bought the league title for Blackburn. Point being, that money has always influenced the league. But for every Blackburn, there's a Leeds or Portsmouth. So, I agree that sustainability has to be something that should be a factor in what a club spends and I also agree that I wouldn't want us to just buy the league either. The main thing that's missing is a way to counterbalance the historic advantages of a few big clubs who built their advantages before FFP was a thing. Can't really think what that would be though - salary caps, spending limits etc all have flaws. I'm a bit sick of thinking about it all to be honest. I'm just going to enjoy the football and let our owners and their lawyers worry about it as I'm just enjoying us being competitive and ruffling a few feathers.

Saying that it's a personal matter is only going to cause speculation about that which is likely nobody's business. Would rather they'd just said he'd had a mild illness like a dose of the shits, a paper-cut or tennis elbow.

Everton tried to break into the top 5, and gambled that their spending would get them there. Yes, they spent badly and the gamble didn't work, but the point of FFP was surely originally to stop a situation like Portsmouth - a club going bust and unable to compete, not just wrecking them but also the league itself. It's now been twisted to stop another Chelsea / Man City problem, which is a different issue altogether and should have been stopped at the time. But now the horse has bolted and they're cemented as top clubs based on it. Ironically, those two were also the two least keen on wrecking football in a different way with the ESL, so I don't really hold as much of a grudge against them as I should. It's a right muddle. At least we're trying to do things the right way. But the PL definitely can't be trusted to make the right decisions as they're too in thrall to a few clubs who want to pull up the drawbridge to anyone that wants to compete. It's Villa and Brighton, along with us, that I really want to see smash things up. Big 6 my arse.

Trouble with that is, you'd no doubt get extra punishment for deliberately breaking the rules. And of course there would be new rules introduced the minute we tried it.

Pretty sure it's because they've spent how they have, making too many losses over a consecutive period. That said, they also need to spend a lot on a new stadium and their billionaire owner (who overspent) is selling up to a group who aren't exactly loaded, so might struggle financially in the future. But it's the first one they're in trouble over, not for being in financial trouble.

It annoys me when it keeps being referred to as Newcastle's "controversial goal" against Arsenal. It's not controversial. It was a goal. And it was checked, checked and checked again. The only thing that's controversial about it is that blubbering fool Arteta. Hope they put VAR in his bedroom and Peter Walton rules out all his orgasms.

Spiderman, for one.

Well, Howe has a job on now for sure. But he's defied expectations before. What annoys me is the suggestion that he may be under pressure, mainly from a couple of know-nothing journalists. E.g. Alyson Rudd in the Times (a Liverpool fan who writes some of the most biased anti-NUFC match reports I've read) gleefully suggesting on Monday that this might be the case on the basis of nothing at all. I can't see any groundswell of opinion from actual fans that anyone seriously thinks someone else could do any better, or that he doesn't deserve anything less than our full support not least for his character, attitude and what he's already achieved. Can think of a few fans of other clubs who look at him enviously. He's one of those rare managers where I just think "let him get on with it" and don't worry too much.

Maybe a loan? Wilson is such a good striker in the box that he'll be hard to directly replace, stating the obvious. But Isak seems to fit the system better, so I can't think we'd go for another out and out striker - not many of those about anyway. By January, though, you'd hope both Wilson and Isak might be back, which may take the urgency away. The job until January has to be to somehow not be too far adrift in the league and then see what's possible. I guess it all depends what we're aiming for by then.

I think so as well. Best not come out and talk at the moment because it just brings the whole thing up again and serves as a distraction - plus, some people will still be annoyed with him, so best let the heat die down, keep his head down, train, then clear the decks and let his feet do the talking when he's back.

That needn't be an either / or question tbf.

Hopefully meaning the international weeks, before magically recovering

On the upside, ten Hag lives to fight with his players another day. Looking a bit of a dull relegation scrap this year, though.

I don't think it was a red, but it was certainly borderline and could have been given. But I suppose if VAR also saw it that way, they can't intervene and insist on a yellow. Much as I'm not a big fan Peter Walton in the Times said as much, that the goal was correct by the rules as well and the only thing he couldn't agree with was the Havertz decision. Which is actually what a lot of more sensible commentators are saying now the heat has died down. I do think the ref lost control after the Havertz incident, and so did a lot of our players. It's maybe the only downside of having such togetherness in the group. Watch one of your close-knit team get cleaned out and everyone loses their heads a bit. Bruno seems a leader in that respect so perhaps no surprise he was the one to go most OTT. In most cases, we channelled our anger in the right sort of way after the 3 yellows, which is something Bruno needs to learn, especially when the crowd also becomes a monster because of it. You can tell he feeds off the emotion, which we don't want to lose at the same time.

Agree. Contrast this with Howe - I don't think he's ever put a foot wrong in a post match interview regardless of the results or his own emotions at the time. One earns respect through his conduct, the other becomes a bit of a joke and it will come back to bite Arteta when some decision goes in his favour and he has to eat his words or claim that he hadn't seen something. I think the Havertz thing was already in his favour before we deservedly won it, by the way.

Livraminto