Abacus

Well, the Chronicle (I know) was reporting that he'd been assessed by the medical team on Tuesday and it wasn't as bad as first feared. I await your skepticism with baited breath.

You could make that argument and test it, not that we would. Thing is with footballers, it also comes down to image rights as much as ability, for global shirt sales etc etc. It's one reason why I really can't fathom how FMV is supposed to work in practice.

That would be one reason why the PL are shooting themselves in the foot here. Pretty sure we were the most watched league in the first place due to having the money to attract so many big names, not to miss out on the likes of Mbappe or make everyone have to sell.

Pretty sure we disagreed with the FMV value rules - presumably that could be a separate challenge, if we ever needed to make one. I think the plan was always to play nice at least to start with, and grow organically with things that had maybe not been exploited like some other clubs have, as there was plenty of room to do that. That was the gist of what I took from their plans. No doom and gloom from me just yet, other than about Gordon's knee.

Murphy!!!!

Couldn't agree more. Though, you could argue that similar applies to sponsorships as well, just for different reasons, if one were inclined to waste an idle spring Saturday in such minor quibbling to what was an excellent post.

Please don't take it personally when I say this, because so far I think you're a good poster and a good addition to the forum. It's always good to hear the views of rival fans even (and especially if) it conflicts with what you already think. But, I was going to say that there's no way the clubs themselves will change the rules, too many vested interests in preserving the status quo. And also, that Chelsea are most at blame for creating this whole fandango with ridiculous spending in the first place. That said, I'm going to row back on this a bit. It's not unlike Jack Walker and Blackburn, it was just the scale of it in your case, and now Man City's. Anyway, to me your fans have a huge amount of legitimate credit for objecting so strongly to the ESL and being a big reason for why that whole farce collapsed. And if we're being truthful, nobody wants to buy the league title but wants to earn it in the right way instead. The minute it became a global sport where money talked, though, this was the inevitable conclusion and I just don't know what the fair solution is. Because let's say FFP collapses under legal challenge - well, I'm not sure I'd like the alternative either. Believe it or not, most of us would love to have our 15 minutes in the sun with the world's best players etc. But I also think genuine fans would feel in their gut that something wasn't right after a while, and disengage when it's all about global revenue streams etc. Why do we support Newcastle? As a great man once said What is a club in any case? Not the buildings or the directors or the people who are paid to represent it. It's not the television contracts, get-out clauses, marketing departments or executive boxes. It's the noise, the passion, the feeling of belonging, the pride in your city.

Looking forward to the squad lists being released next season. Just to be competitive, anyone with less than 11 first team players, three lawyers and two forensic accountants minimum is a certainty for relegation.

Even IF he doesn't want him long term but we're still obligated to buy, he's not going to trash his future transfer value either. But that's tinfoil hat territory. Hopefully though, it's as simple as that - he's a long term talent with years to come. He did say that he'd hardly had much of a pre-season before joining, and he doesn't tend to drop in players before he thinks they're ready.

Yeah, too many vested interests. You'd need to get rid of agents in their current roles for a start and image rights etc, but it's an interesting Bosman type argument re player registrations for both players and to the real "value" of a transfer to selling and buying clubs, which will of course be completely different from club to club. It's why proving FMV is a mess when there wasn't FMV in the first place.

Now you're thinking.

Well, if true, I'm fairly sure I read some critique of Howe somewhere that he was only interested in winning the next game and not thinking ahead to the medium term. So maybe that wasn't right. Anyway, truth is we're all guessing. The one thing you can say about Howe is that he keeps his cards close to his chest about what he's really thinking.

I know, let's just bulldoze the Theatre Royal and move the whole thing brick by brick to London.

Well, I suppose that what you're paying the selling club for is the value to them of breaking their existing registration to them early, unless I miss your point entirely.

Indeed, and per my previous post, because there is no way of proving FMV, that's why the PL are putting the onus on clubs (mainly us and Man City) rather than themselves. Two options here; you either show you have competing non-related party bids of similar value, which you could get in all sorts of bother with re commercial confidentiality, even though in a free market sponsors will have all sorts of different reasons for what they're prepared to bid. Or, you say this sponsorship is worth x amount in an open market because it's what similar sized clubs have. And there's no way you could compare our size to Man U's, say, meaning that any deal would automatically be lower than theirs, hence locking in their advantage forever.

Fire up the bread-maker Di Marco. Could be a lot of dough in this for you.

The one thing I didn't get was when Chelsea waived the requirement for Hall not to play against them in that game. Sounded like they were keen for the transfer to go through. I'm assuming that's for FFP reasons rather than not rating him. Or maybe, more simply, they genuinely thought it was a decent fee. I hate the way thoughts of FFP muddles everything. Anyway, that's Chelsea's issue - I hope we decide based on purely footballing reasons I.e. whether we want him or not rather than anything else. Some loans just don't work out for a whole load of reasons, and after a season watching him closely in training, I hope this is only Eddie's call.

Re the new adjusted rules; for us I think the most damaging thing is putting the onus on clubs to justify that commercial deals are at fair market value, rather than the PL having to prove they weren't. Each football club is unique - the reasons sponsors might invest and what they want to get for it differs. I have no idea how the PL could have proved what was or wasn't FMV, which wouldn't be open to challenge. Likewise, knowing what a range of sponsors, say, had offered (per the supposed database they were building up) was always pure nonsense. Let's say Saudi wants to improve it's reputation with it's companies wanting to associate themselves with a PIF owned club. Regardless of whether you think that's palatable, what's the fair market value of that? If we'd made that case, how would the PL have disproved it? I think flipping the burden of proof to the club was the only way they were going to get out of the stupid situation they'd put themselves in previously. And makes it all the more obvious who they were aiming this at. The PL are politically inept and have tied themselves in knots ever since this whole saga started.

I enjoyed the way competition and protectionism were thrown in liberally. You've been saying for a long while a legal challenge on competition grounds is the only way. Let's see, maybe even the threat of it is enough.

To be honest, I've been thinking along similar lines. Having had to fight tooth and nail for so long to even get the club, and then, when finally let in being completely prevented from doing what they'd hoped to do, it's either another long battle or stepping away. Hope it's the former, if only to give them time to get the infrastructure right.

Oof, would like to see that pen shout again. Played much better second half tbf Oh well, lost again.

Been a pretty dismal watch so far, other than flashes from Leicester. Not surprised even the commentators seem to have gone to sleep. 10 points off the playoffs as it stands, I think.

I didn't want him at all, couldn't see why we'd pay so much for a player I'd only seen glimpses of, and had mainly thought of as a diving cheat. But my word how wrong I was. He's been an absolute beacon of hope this difficult season and far surpassed what I'd hoped for. Superb.

I think he's working on the basis that £100m over 5 year contracts costs £20m in year one. Agree with you, though.