Abacus

Three permanent quality signings plus a couple of astute loan signings (with options to buy) wouldn't seem outrageous. That's half a team. One real problem we'd have then would be that none of the current players contracts run out this summer and many which aren't regulars now are on decent wages. We'd have about 35 players then for 25 squad spaces. It'd be almost as much work to move that many players out or on loan.

If that's true, then it's pretty daft from him. I'd always want to meet my predecessor in any job, at the very least to find out what they thought the problems were. I might well not agree with them, of course, but that's a different matter. It sounds like every Man U manager has needed a football ally in the boardroom, otherwise decisions just get made by a committee of dolts. That boardroom person might not have been Ragnick, and fair enough. But they need someone. They moved from Ferguson, who essentially ran the whole club, to a series of different types of managers who then have a bunch of marketeers above them, who aren't football people, making the decisions. They can buy whoever they like, player wise. And that always just seems to be the answer. "Let's just get rid of these players who don't care, and then just buy some new ones that do!". But until they change that culture from the top, they're on a spiral downwards imo. It's like the Ashley years for us - as owners they've no idea of what football means and that permeates every strand of the club.

I find it quite interesting that Man U have decided not to go ahead with keeping Ragnick on as a consultant for a few days a week. Seems like another fine mess. The official reason being that it's because he's managing Austria, as previously agreed, but they just hadn't realised how much work that would be. It's hard to escape thinking they are either incompetent in thinking that, or they decided he wasn't good enough after a poor season as a manager (a completely different role), or that perhaps ten Hag didn't want him there. Anyway, to the point. If Ashworth's role is essentially being the infrastructure guy, the man who keeps everything ticking and makes sure the club is being run properly, isn't there still a gap for a technical director of football? A sort of elder statesman who maybe has contacts in the football world and can provide support and advice when needed. Understands the club, has been around the block and can be a shoulder to lean on for a manager when we hit inevitable rough patches. I'm not saying Ragnick as a person, I'm just saying that's the kind of role Man U have lacked as they've bounced from manager to manager, wasting money on bad signings and focussing on the wrong things, and reading about their recruitment strategy it seems an obvious miss from their boardroom. If you could turn the clock back, it would have been ideal for the likes of Sir Bobby to be in that kind of position. Alongside Ashworth I mean, not instead of, because I think the roles are different. I wonder if there's anyone out there who could do such a role for us.

Whereas I think he'll mainly be filling Charnley's role of buying paperclips and whatnot. Urgent! Printer ink levels are dangerously low, the office fridge needs a quick wipe down and Brenda from admin has gone and left a Muller Fruit Corner in there that's about to go out of date.

And Trippier. As well as the policy of extending player contracts before that under Ashley just to avoid spending on new players. If it's reliable, then according to Transfer market (or whatever it's called), we've got one of the highest age squads in the PL at 28.5. We really need to freshen it up, and if we want to spend big money, then while the odd bit of experience is great and it's got to be taken case by case, in general I'd rather spend that on a 25 year old rather than a 30 year old. NB, Burnley's average age was higher at 30 but they're gone now. Villa had an average squad age of around 26.2, over two years younger on average than us, so less of a risk to them I'd guess.

Funnily enough, Bruce has insisted now that all West Brom players need to move to be near to the training ground so they don't travel long distances. So he clear knows this could be a problem, but still didn't do anything about it for us. He also excluded himself from this new rule of course, because he still wants to live in the North West.

Hate this guy much more than Pardew. Should be banned from the city forever.

They reportedly lost nearly £150m last year. Despite them blaming Covid for around £100m of that, the underlying position still doesn't seem terribly healthy to me. Especially since their own website records them as losing just over £96m in the year before Covid. I'm sure it's all absolutely fine though.

The thing is, those asset valuations only make sense if you expect income will continue to grow as they have done. So, I expect r0cafella is right, and it's a gamble by their new owners that TV money continues to increase exponentially. I'm more of a pessimist there, since we seem to be heading towards a global recession, and it has the feeling of a bubble ready to burst. Meaning I don't know what supports that pyramid scheme idea of constant growth. That said, whilst I correctly called the tech bubble bursting, I also thought the internet in general was just a fad for nerds. So what do I know? And here I am now, come to think of it.

I expect that's true. I'd just wonder how they'll be able to justify it given the landscape has changed since RA took over. If you've had inflated related party sponsorships to boost your income, that's one thing. You can at least point to precedent to back up those future deals. But if you've been reliant on an a wealthy benefactor and are still making losses despite you probably being as successful as you'd expect to be, it'd be tougher to justify that level of spend.

It's not simple, and it's quite unclear as to how it will have accounted for.

Abramovich bought Chelsea prior to FFP (2003?), and I think much of the loan was incurred prior to those rules coming in. In any case, FFP is based on losses over the most recent 3 year period, rather than the whole length of time of an ownership so it's not that relevant. In theory, though, writing off the £1.5 bn does make them a more valuable asset. But there's no indication he was calling in the loan anyway and besides, even if the value of the club as an asset goes up, it makes no difference to FFP anyway. Though, I'd be interested to see how they account for the debt write off - I'm assuming it would have to be done below the line, rather than as a direct profit. Regardless, in their shoes, I'd be more worried that they regularly lose money anyway. Longer term, they won't be such big spenders any more I'd guess.

Joe and Lascelles went for the same ball. Lascelles landed on him and injured him.

Leeds seem well up for it at Brentford, who don't seem up for it at all so far.

Bloody typically if that's Lascelles last game for us, and he's gone and knackered Joelinton for months. Talk about a liability. Talksport speculating an Achilles or a fracture, but they don't know.

Yeah, I'm not saying there was anything dodgy about it. Just wondering what was in it for Atletico to agree to that. From their point of view, Trippier was worth X. It wouldn't make any difference to them if we were relegated or not - in fact, it looked like we would be. They'd want what he's worth. You tend to put in performance bonuses for untested younger players.

Steward's enquiry for that goalkeeping

Always seemed odd that £25m was being quoted, and then suddenly he was announced and it was half that. Not sure what was in it for Atletico, mind, since at that point we looked dead certs to be relegated, so they couldn't count on that extra £12-13m. Makes me wonder if there was something in the deal meaning they got their player back if we did go down, so they wouldn't lose out. I've just made that last bit up, of course, but if there was anything along those lines agreed, then it wouldn't be that different from a loan to buy type arrangement.

So... after trying to copy wor flags, they've instead gotten scammed into trying to make an unsafe flag out of bog roll, which is now banned? Still, there's still time not to embarrass themselves in front of the couple of hundred TV viewers around the world tomorrow. Crisp packets at the ready lads. You've got this.

Maybe their accountant caught Covid.

It's a bit cramped in there.

Whereas, I'm only a football fan because of Newcastle. Had no interest in it at first really, but all my mates at school did and all were interested in Newcastle first and foremost. So gradually, I started going along with that, listening to the radio, reading the match reports, going along to games. So everything, to me, is through the prism of Newcastle. I know the players, our history, our ambitions, our highs and lows. It means something to me - most other teams and their games don't. So, there are no dead rubbers for me - even friendlies are all about testing out youth players, or seeing a glimpse of a new signing. In contrast, I only watch most other games because they're on and better than EastEnders. But even if I accepted a game being a dead rubber in the wider context of football 'achievement', I'd still want to watch Newcastle first. I don't care much at all about which one of the two wins the title this season. Nor who ends up in a CL spot, though I would if we were competing for either one of those. Don't even care much about who wins the CL final - just looking forward to being entertained by a good game, but the result won't affect my feelings in any way ten minutes after it's over. Likewise, international football. Mostly, it's quite boring outside of the main tournaments, and often I'm looking to see how any Newcastle players, or players linked to us, get on. Though a lot of the time I'm happy if no-one is called up, because less time away or chance of injury. Even the tournaments themselves I get a bit annoyed with. I'll watch games with my mates, but I'm not that invested in the national team. Worse, during a tournament it's like going to the pub at Christmas, when you can't get your favourite seat, the bar is crammed and it's full of braying part-timers who don't know the rules. This weekend, had Burnley been safe too and therefore our game had nothing to do with the relegation spots, if I was given the choice I'd have watched our game in preference to any of the others on Sky and kept up with the other scores on my phone, only flicked over for a couple of minutes only if something really exciting was happening. Before switching back again and wondering if we'd give Dwight Gayle a runout.

He might have a better idea now after getting a kick up the arse.

I'll be watching in the hope of a having a good laugh, as they once again heroically attempt to scrabble out of the third division in third place on St Mackerings Day. Though if I'm honest watching the semi final was a right chore, the all round quality was so poor. So if they score early or make a decent start, I'll probably just go and do something else and then switch on again a few minutes before the end.

Tyrone Mings. A name and a review all in one. No.