Abacus

From what I understand (this is just reading from RTG, by the way, so could be nonsense and interested to get your take), there were two main failings with Moyes at Sunderland. The first was that he was moaning about relegation from the first few games of the season, and so set a negative mindset for the whole season from the off. The second was his (generally) terrible signings, where he brought in lots of players who were past it or had bad attitudes, often on contracts that saddled the club with players they couldn't shift and on high wages. So, when you then got relegated, they were an albatross around your necks financially for several seasons after, hence plummeting further. Also, awful football. But then, it hadn't been great for a few years, and it was probably the regular points from us in the derbies that kept you up in those last few seasons. So, it was coming at some point; Fat Sam leaving for England seemed to throw your plans into disarray that season. Though BFS seemed keen to get out before that anyway and Moyes on paper seemed like a good choice. Maybe he saw the same things behind the scenes the fat egomaniac had and then also wanted out fast too. The terrible transfers seems a good argument - I think N'dong was on his watch? And there were a few others that went awol. Then again, I think most of the players he bought were loans and, in transfer fees anyway, he probably spent about £35-40m. Which isn't a huge amount for a team that had been battling relegation anyway. Is that fair, or am I missing something? Because from the outside it seems he is pretty well hated in Sunderland.

There's many a mickle makes a muckle.

One interesting titbit from the Times today was apparently Stavely represented PIF and played "a pivotal role" in their negotiations with the PGA to broker this deal. Whatever your views on it (and I for one couldn't care less about golf), if true she's definitely well in with PIF and a really effective dealmaker.

Not convinced that selling St Max makes much sense to me right now. I still think he's needed for when Plan A doesn't work for at least another year - he can certainly unsettle defences and push them back 10 yards. But I'll immediately contradict myself now by saying that he's no longer indispensable like he used to be. The new indispensable players are Bruno and Joelinton - almost certainly Isak in time. I can't see many of the CL contenders in the premier league going in for ASM, and that's where we're aspiring to be. So I guess that being the case IF, and only if, the right offer comes in this summer then you have to sell and reinvest better just like you would any other player in the squad. Edit - currently working on my next statement of the bleeding obvious as we speak.

Not to swim against the tide or anything, but re Casemiro. I think that's the definition of an orange card. Should have been a yellow at least, but VAR can't intervene with yellows. And unless it was a clear straight red then, again, I don't think VAR can do much even if it's clear the ref couldn't have seen it properly. Hang on, have I just become Peter Walton? Fuck my life. In that case, personally, I'd have given him two yellows and sent him off anyway - one for the foul, and the other for the playacting straight after. Phew.

I don't think anyone said desperate. Just that London journos were pushing the story, and then I mentioned they were keen to use the money to bring in Rice as I'd read that in the paper this morning. Plus, he's lost his place to Zinchenko last season, so seems an obvious one for them to move on.

On that injury record - that's 3 seasons as Celtic where he missed 42 games, and then 3 at Arsenal where he missed 48. And then barely played last season anyway. You'd guess the reason Burn continued as LB for us even when he was looking wobbly and Target was fit, was that most managers, Howe included, want a settled back line. So, it might be a bit of a risk is all.

I think it was mainly injury, but then Zinchenko came in and became the preferred choice. Which might just be a matter of playing style as STM says.

Maybe, and I'm quite happy to be wrong there, but he's certainly disposable to them - only started 6 games last season. It's the fitness issues that would worry me mainly. Aren't we past buying players who are a fitness risk and taking a gamble on them?

Yup. Gary Jacob in the Times (their London correspondent) saying we're in 'pole position' for Tierney, with Arsenal wanting 'more than' £30m, to help them fund a bid for Rice. Not fussed either way on Tierney, but with this and the McTominay stuff, I really don't think we should be taking unwanted squad players from premier league rivals, especially not if there's a Newcastle tax on them.

Looks like Forest are trying to sell Shelvey, with Cooper being unhappy with his attitude around the training ground. You could tell that wasn't going to work given his miserable face when he signed there. So happy we didn't trigger that contract extension now - I'm guessing it'll be a championship team he goes to.

Allardyce is hoping to stay in the Leeds job. But is warning that he'd need to spend money on proven experience to do so. Here's an inspiring quote about is brilliant managerial powers; "Recruitment is the number one factor for any manager. You can't improve a player by 10%, it's going to be 2 to 3%." After what we've been seeing here under a decent coach? What a chancer.

Good for him, and for us as well. Hopefully shows ambitious players that you don't need to be playing for Man Utd or Barcelona to get international recognition.

On the second point, if he's negotiating a new contract here on the best terms you can get, then you absolutely wouldn't say that you'll stay no matter what.

I get the rest of it. But Madri lager!? ffs

Luton to go up for me. Harsh on Coventry's fans, but Ashley owns their stadium, so I want anything associated with him to fail. Plus, it'd be quite funny to see more mackem rage at Jimmy Hill's statue when they play them next season.

Also, we may have had this second favourite / likeable tag for a little while under Keegan or SBR, but that's pure nonsense under Ashley. Why would any neutral like a team that played like that, or appointed classless oafs like Bruce etc? More nonsense clickbait.

I suggest we have a poll. Scott McTominay, or Nott McTominay

Ta - didn't realise he'd played that much, though may be partly due to injuries elsewhere as Froggy suggests. I guess fringe was a bad choice of words by me - but if the noises are right, he does seem disposable.

Just a throwaway line in the Times today, by Paul Hirst (their north west correspondent), saying that Man U need to clear out fringe players to help with their rebuild. When discussing which of those would attract a fee to help them comply with FFP, it says "Dean Henderson, who is of interest to Nottingham Forest...is one of them, as is Scott McTominay, a target for Newcastle United." May be nothing, but there's too much noise for me to think there's nothing in it. It just makes me want him even less, as it's helping a rival to buy better players.

Chelsea are such a rabble Lampard doing a fine job once again

I think the comments under that tweet, which are all happy to let McTomminay go, ring a few alarm bells. If he'd been playing under a poor coach already, or in an underperforming team, you could make a case that Howe could improve him. But I think ten Hag looks like a decent coach. Maybe it's just that he doesn't fit Man U's system and would fit ours better, but I'm reaching there - l'd much rather look elsewhere.

Wow

It's one of the things they said early on, isn't it? From where we started after the takeover, there was plenty of potential to grow commercial revenue as it is, without having to challenge the PL.

I could be completely wrong about this, but I'm not sure the PL could stop a sponsorship at any level even with a related party. But what they can do is limit the amount that is then counted from a FFP point of view. If that's right, go as high as possible, and then if the PL set the FFP qualifying amount from that deal as too low, tangle them up in legal arguments about it for years. Anything we get that's over and above a fair FFP amount, we could presumably just use on non FFP spend - like the stadium etc. Which stops the owners needing to put in more capital as cash for that kind of investment.