Abacus

Yeah, it's a shame this signing has been so linked with selling ASM and has dampened the enthusiasm around it for some. I mean, it seems the two trades were (probably) linked for FFP reasons, and we'd need cover in ASM's position. But likewise, if we make more than one other signing on the back of ASM going freeing up some more funds, those ones won't be the ones to take the flak. Also not discounting that FFP could be a smokescreen if ASM was actually just unhappy and wanted to go. If so, good to trade an unhappy player for a happy one, whatever their relative merits.

TBH, if one of our players was spotted training with whoever plays for Sunderland, I'd think something had gone seriously wrong with their career.

Before Leceister imploded last season, I reckon most people would have been more than happy with Barnes. It's still quite hard to explain how they went quite so badly wrong. And of course, us overperforming as well has had everyone looking skywards. I think, though, if you look at him less as a replacement for ASM, but more a replacement for a squad player (regardless of positions) like Ritchie, it makes far more sense. I do think you'd need a Trippier style LB to get the most out of him, and that starts to become the priority position to me. No shade on Burn there, but I'd rather a specialist, with Burn as cover there or at CB. I also still think we'll have at least one more surprise signing coming out of the blue as well.

Yeah, plus you're basically buying a player on credit and will pay more as a result. So, it'll cost you more each year from an FFP point of view than if you hadn't effectively taken out a loan and had to pay interest on it.

I'm also not fussed if he goes to Spurs. He's a good player, but either; He wanted to move to London; or He just didn't want to come here; or We thought we had better options for the fee and didn't push it; or His wages were a problem. I'm fine with any of those as being a good reason not to sign him. It might be a mistake of course, which is an option I didn't mention, but there you go. The one thing I can't understand is what he hopes to achieve with Spurs if that's where he lands up. From the outside, it seems they lack ambition to do anything other than try and cling onto the coattails of bigger clubs and if that's the limit of his ambition as well, fair enough. Presumably Kane is going this summer too, so who is he creating chances for?

Hope the medical team have had an early morning airport pint on the way over.

Fashion police.

Definitely excited by the ambition here. Though I'm still expecting Ted Bovis from Chelsea to try and gatecrash it right up till he's signed.

First offer rejected

I don't think there's any great conspiracy to help or hinder Chelsea or Newcastle. But I do think the growth of the Saudi league will benefit those clubs with aging stars on huge wages and long contracts. I'd rather they (like Chelsea) suffered for their decisions, but this is now somewhere else to offload them, and therefore doesn't help clubs who try to do things in the right way. Also think it adds it adds to the massive wage inflation in the game. It's when they start picking up players in their prime on multiple times the wages anyone else can offer that it starts to be a major problem. But then, I suppose people have been saying that about the PL and the big European clubs for years.

Me either, tbh. It was a bit of a daft suggestion by a columnist who was talking about how the Saudi league could distort the game. The logic being they would entice players on vastly inflated wages which then wouldn't directly benefit the selling club - the likes of Gundogan was mentioned. No, I can't see it making much sense either. As for Maddison, I'm at the point where I could take him or leave him. A very good player, but I think we have plenty of options if he goes elsewhere.

I read a suggestion that the Saudi clubs might buy players in their prime from our direct rivals to weaken them. Seems a pretty far-fetched idea to me, but for anyone that enjoys a good tinfoil hat theory, you can have that one for free.

He could just swap the word "first" for "debut", if he knew what he was doing.

Favourite player, bar none. You'd go to war with this one.

It did seem a complete fluke for him to work there in an emergency. Clark's red > Joelinton now starting for Brazil ffs You honestly couldn't script it.

It's a good question, but I couldn't give an answer about a general consensus myself about Newcastle fans if I was asked that question the other way around. (There's a danger you end up giving a majority view from what you hear and then having to defend it as if you're some sort of spokesman.) But yes, interesting to see if the general vibe he gets is similar to social media or not, without having to answer for it - I get the genuine sense that he just wants to talk about his team on here.

Well, I think we can all agree that if Barella comes to Newcastle and fails, that proves that Italians in general can't play in midfield. So let's just buy him and settle this debate once and for all. It's the only way to sort it, and that's science.

Wild, isn't it?

I'd fear for ChatGPT's mental welfare.

This was always the issue we'd had with Ashley. The so-called Arsenal of the north plan, of buying young, developing well and making the odd sale is great on the face of it. But some gambles don't work, and you're stuck with those ones. Plus, it relies on you being consistently ahead of the market both in recruitment and development, and other clubs will spot what you're doing and catch up. Then, of course, it relies on you reinvesting any big sales smartly to improve the squad long term. So, it's alright if don't employ comical bunglers to negotiate transfers and 'develop' players, and then pocket any money that comes in from the few successes you do have. It doesn't sound like your current owners are on the same ego trip or have the intent to use you as a golf-sale style billboard, though, so you might have a better chance. PS, you can have Bellingham AND Hendrick if you like...

As they are PIF owned, any transaction between us and any of these Saudi clubs would likely be classed as a related party transaction. So, that loan deal would already need to be assessed at fair market value and wouldn't work as a dodge. Lots of reasons why - the most basic one being that if it was a genuine third party transaction, what would be in it for the loaning club to pay someone's wages with no benefit to them? Still, always interesting how FFP has been subverted from stopping clubs spending recklessly and possibly going bust, to stopping clubs spending money they actually have and want to spend, in case it threatens certain clubs who seemingly make the rules. Thing with that is, Man City are already in the henhouse now and seemingly unstoppable, as were Chelsea before. Ban them both and strip their titles, or let others compete on the same basis. Watching Man City parade to the title doesn't make for a great competition either, which is the PL's main global selling point. I'm actually all for us following FFP using realistic sponsorships etc, because at some point, a reckoning is coming.

I don't really know if that £10 a head figure is accurate, or where it really comes from. I think it was from one of those Kieran Maguire articles, based on the results of your last PL season. Don't have time to look at it in detail right now, but I think it was just dividing total match-day revenue by the number of fans claimed to be in attendance. I.e. it would include season ticket revenue and season ticket holders attendances, as well as any free tickets given out in those attendance figures (which would obviously lower the average). It's not just based on those who pay on the day or buy tickets game by game. NB, on free tickets given out to schools etc, I'm not so sniffy - I think it's a good initiative even if it inflates numbers. It's not like that season when Ashley gave away 10,000 half season tickets to deliberately pad the numbers, since he was a disgusting embarrassment. Or is your point that a season ticket comes out at less than £45 a game? I'm not sure that matters. They point really is that for all the claimed attendances, it doesn't result in as much revenue as it does for other clubs. Yes, maybe if you'd been more successful, more paying fans would have turned up, that's true. I'm not sure how many walked away as a protest against Short. But I suppose it's a bit of a vicious circle - if they don't turn up, you don't have the money to compete.

I suppose the other thing is that Sela could always just agree to end it early and renegotiate if we start looking like a more regular top team, and our value to them goes up. E.g. agree to extend the deal for x number of years at the cost of increasing the annual sponsorship cost, something like that.

£50m for Maddison seems a lot given the situation Leicester are in, and that he'll be wanting away. Saying that, I wonder if that's the right way to look at it. I think the real question is, what would he be worth to us and therefore what should we be prepared to pay? If we thought Gordon was worth £45m (and the jury is out on that one for sure), why do we think £30m is what Maddison would be worth to us? Plus, more childishly, I'd just like to stop Spurs getting anyone they actually want and send them further into a tailspin.

Appreciate the response, thanks. From the outside, it also didn't seem like his heart was in it to me either. I just didn't know if he'd been sold a lie by an increasingly detached owner, or if he was still smarting from his previous two jobs and went for a club to build up like at Everton and then just using all the same players, a bit like being on the rebound. Anyway, back to usual (non personal) hostilities soon.