Abacus

I'm really pleased with this, assuming it comes off. It also means I can also be even more biased and jeer that menace Pickford even more, wanting Pope to become England's No1.

Interesting if it's true that they have walked away from Ekitike. But seemingly not (yet) from Botman. I wonder if that says anything about their priorities. I mean, probably not, but it doesn't stop me from speculating. Could also be quite an effective scare tactic to get Lille to pull their finger out and stop messing around.

Quite happy with this. Unless of course we do end up buying him. Then I'll be quite happy with that.

Can't see he's done a lot wrong there.

I thought the other guy was Juan Sartori, a failed Uruguayan politician. I mean, either way it all sounds very promising.

I don't understand their ownership thing. They were desperate for Stewart and Methven to go, and I thought all the talk was about someone else coming in and there being offers on the table for that. In fact wasn't that reported on Sky? So all that really seems to have happened is a slight juggling about of the shares. The trust fund owner doesn't seem to have bought them out either. Does that mean there weren't any serious bidders, or that they ran off? Owning that place seems like a game of pass the parcel, where the prize is a shit sandwich.

Phonecalls from Edwards, I think he means.

Happy enough with Pope - more so than Henderson. As has been said, he'd be an upgrade on Darlow at the very least. We bought a right pair of plums with him and Lascelles. Send them both back to Nottingham, I say, with no chance of parole.

We just need to sign Jesus from Man City next and the banter will never end.

It is quite funny that they don't have an airport, though. Especially because the best thing about Sunderland is getting away from there fast.

I guess the issue for DCL for me is that at 25, you can't turn back the clock to previous seasons and injuries will start to become more and not less common, as will their cumulative effect. What would worry me slightly is that Everton would seem to be OK to get rid of him. And Everton are rubbish. So, I'm guessing they don't think they can rely on him either. Long and the short of it is this; he seems to me to be a bit of a gamble. Fine, you might gamble on a youth player who might not live up to their promise. But now that we're free from Ashley, why gamble on a first team player that's already supposed to be near their peak?

But squad wise, if you could trade him for Matt Ritchie... Seriously, if Bruno gets injured, we would have a gap in CM. And if St Max gets hair-Covid again and has to go to France to recover during January, he'd be OK there. He's the non-Dummet back up on that whole side of the pitch.

The latter, I think. Pep tried to turn him into a left back. He can also play left wing back, and in midfield, which he does for his country. A really talented player, maybe played in the wrong position? Well, please meet your new coach and also a new mentor in Mr Joe L.Inton.

I've noticed this, and assumed it was a good thing. We seem to have vanished from the gossip pages in terms of serious links, yet I expect that there's a lot going on. So suspect whatever we're doing isn't being leaked everywhere. I wondered if this is Ashworth's influence, based on pure guesswork.

I feel that Botman (and Ekitike for that matter) are both being bought as rocks to build the team around in future years. I.e. they are players who won't peak for a little while yet, but that we think might get good enough for where we want to be. I like the strategy, but it means I'm a bit less bothered about buying them NOW, because they're more long term buys. For next season, and maybe the one after, I think we'd need a more established striker and CB anyway. At CB, assuming we do lose Fede (and it's a mystery to me why he hasn't played more - the one game he came in under Howe he bossed), then there's not really any depth behind Burn and Schar that I'd trust to step in and be PL quality right away in case of injuries. Wish we'd kept Lejuene, as he could have been that player. Another fail from Bungler Bruce.

Right, so it's a meaningless term as I was trying to say. Honestly, it's hard to think how I could have had a better Saturday afternoon not only entertaining myself but everyone else, no doubt including the whole Botman family.

My whole point was, if there is a genuine obligation to buy, they're not treated as 2 separate transactions. You'd add the loan fee to the permanent fee, treat the whole thing as a sale, and write the whole lot off equally over the same period. I.e. it does nothing for FFP. To treat it as you suggest, you would need to demonstrate that the loan part is genuinely that, different from the permanent part, and that there is a realistic prospect you can and might back out of the purchase part. In which case, the substance of that is that it's actually a loan with an option to buy. Meaning, I don't see what this term being used "loan with obligation to buy" really means. Anyway. Might be wrong, could just be loose journalistic language, but happy to leave it there. After all, I'm no football manager, so I'm all for sensible soccer chat instead.

Thanks - I followed that just fine! I suppose my question wasn't about the benefits of a loan with obligation to buy, and more how it could be allowed. It can't really be an obligation to buy at the end of the loan spell. There has to at least be some performance related clause which allows the buyer to back out, but which gets triggered during the loan spell - such as number of games played. In that case, fine, I get it. Though I'm less sure I get what the selling side gets from that. Because if there isn't, and if you really are obliged to buy him at the end of the loan spell no matter what, then the moment you sign that 'loan' deal, you're also entering into a non cancellable contract to buy the player at a fixed price. You have effectively signed him at that point no matter how you try and describe it. Surely any auditor worth their salt would see through to the substance of that transaction, and force you to record that properly on your books as a purchase right from the off. If so, there's no advantage to it from a FFP point of view. Apologies, by the way to anyone bored by the contract / FFP chat or who want to hear about Botman. I think it's vaguely relevant while it's quiet on that front, if this is the way we're going to have to conduct deals like this. Also to highlight the advantages FFP seals in place for bigger clubs already at the top who can just buy up front with fewer FFP complications - which might well be more attractive to a selling club to accept.

Well, the benefit of adding clauses is that it can match your spend to your success. To take that example, if a fee goes up by £10m because you finish in Europe, you'll also have the money coming in from Europe to help offset that £10m. Likewise, if you're higher profile because of it, you might start to get more lucrative commercial deals at that point, to offset these clauses kicking in. So it sort of does work from a genuine financial management point of view as well. The loan deals are interesting. I totally follow them with an option to buy - you haven't triggered the purchase (or incurred the cost) until you exercise that option, so until you do, the only cost should be the loan deal. Loan with an obligation to buy sounds a bit odder - but maybe that's just how they're described. I'm guessing the obligation can only be triggered if certain conditions are met, like X number of starts. Otherwise, if there are no conditions, it's really just a purchase on day 1 in all but name.

I thought it was a proper Henderson too! In fact it's some Gavin Henderson, no less, who writes for something called Roker Report. I say writes, probably just taps a keyboard with his nose like Homer's typing bird. And good luck to the little feller, I say.

It's a good article about the derbies, and I can see in the comments that the Mackem self defence instinct has kicked in. I was wondering how they would square how, if they ever played us again, they would undoubtedly get spanked. Apparently, the results would be void altogether due to the huge wealth of our owners, and they wouldn't really be playing Newcastle but Saudi Arabia. Well done to them for getting their excuses in early and even having the mental capacity to think ahead. You could of course point out that their run of recent victories was bankrolled by a billionaire who wasted hundreds of millions on them, whilst our wallpaper billionaire was extracting value from our club. But if so, then we'd have to write those results off as well and they wouldn't agree with that for .... reasons.

Surely Qatari owned PSG wouldn't be attempting to cause us problems behind the scenes?

I think it just means we've offered 10m on the transfer fee, so it's just badly phrased. And might not be true. From Lille's point of view, they are in no hurry to sell, and would no doubt love some sort of bidding war by dragging this out. Get Milan to match our offer? Great, then we'll probably increase ours. Play it out all over the media? Great, maybe someone else will join the auction. Might be time for me to check out on updates on this one till nearer the end of the window.

A tiny snippet in the Times saying Burnley want £40m for Pope, which would cause us to move on (quite right too). Not sure whether that means the rumoured £10m release clause is real or not, if that's true.

That's one of the least convincing taste tests I've ever seen. "Amazing!" The body language of the woman in purple also implies she's a hostage, and her lanyard suggests she's an employee. Now, come on William, please stay sane for just long enough to convince the EFL. Were all rooting for you. (Although, I would say as friendly advice. If you really are a fantasist, then your fantasies are at quite a low bar re owning a bit of Sunderland. Even if it's not possible, it's still quite a surprisingly poor ambition for someone who can just make up their wildest fantasies in their own head.)