Abacus

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.

There aren't many industries where owners aren't allowed to invest what they like in a business. It comes with the risk that it doesn't pay off, or that the company goes bust. Going bust is sad for the employees and suppliers but a fact of life. Clearly football clubs are different, as they are cultural assets and important to communities too and as you'd affect the rest of the league. So, normally, you'd think it would be enough just to ensure those owners can guarantee that they can cover any liabilities for the foreseeable future, and let them get on with it. I do see the issue here which is this would allow the richest owners who could invest and provide those guarantees to dominate a league. But that's always been the case. It's just that right now the oil states are the richest of all and so could if they chose to financially dominate the league. But again, I can't see how that is different to how it's always been or how you can effectively legislate to prevent one set of owners to financially dominate but keep another set where they are forever (who have got there themselves from previous spending and/or their historical reputation), due to the fear that a bigger fish will come along and threaten their dominance. Whatever you think of the respective ownerships themselves, that can't be right. If gotten rid of, the fear could be that this drives away existing owners who can't or won't compete (like the Glazers, what a shame), or dissuades anybody else from coming in and trying. But FFP as it stands will also dissuades anybody else from coming in and trying, so I don't see what problem it actually fixes even if you are a neutral who supports it.

Well maybe, but then Miley is young and to some has already been overplayed. And Anderson has just come back, and to some we make returning players come back too soon. A fit and firing Anderson, I'd probably agree with you, but I don't see what goes on in training. And I also remember how much when Longstaff was out previously, he was suddenly missed, just like Anderson is the solution now. I think had Joelinton been fit, this would have been less of an issue, as the others could have been rotated more easily as the situation required. And I won't even mention Tonali.

Lots of players play through injuries with painkillers etc - depends on the nature of it. It's hardly like we've been bursting at the seams with options. It would make sense though - there's been a drop off from last season when his engine got him through games and he worked his way into matches because of it.

A couple of people have been saying that they were disappointed by the club voting for certain rule changes. As far as I'm aware, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, whatever you sign up to in this sort of club doesn't matter if the rules are against the law in the first place. That's assuming these do breach competition law. We, or any club, could well vote in could be prepared in the background. Not saying that's what's happening, but those kind of challenges can take a while, so there'd be no sense rocking the boat right now when most of the league seem content to vote for them, so you won't win. I might be completely wrong on all that, by the way, just a random thought. Most annoyingly though, if we did have any grander strategy than what seems to be happening on the surface, Ashworth would presumably have been aware of it. So I hope he stays in his garden all summer and gets stang off a wasp.

And on the pitch, we could have our very own cow corner. Take that Neom.