Abacus

30 minutes ago, duo said:

Of course he wants that - then it's win win for him - compo and a sale of the club.  

But him 'wanting' means nothing in the grand scale of things.  Ashley hasn't suddenly become Robin Hood - he's only interested in one thing - himself.  He has seen a chance to make some money and he's taken it.  Do you really think he Is spending his own cash just in the 'hope' that it 'may' bring the buyers back to the table?

I am not trying to be negative just realistic.  Yes I am happy he's taking the PL to court as there is no doubt in my mind that the big six put pressure on the PL to block the sale.  My point is if he wins his case - it doesn't mean the club will then be sold.  All it means the people running the PL are the shady people we all suspected and Ashley walks away with a fat cheque.  Newcastle United are still at the same point  - 'hoping' the buyers come back to the table. 

I guess so.

There's no guarantee a win would make the PL change their decision on the ODD test, true.

On the other hand, it would be a fairly public way of slapping down the PL and saying rum fiddlings were afoot.

Then the club start arbitration after that, and the logic for that decision has to be made public now as well, due to that previous legal challenge.

So, if it succeeds, it surely tilts the arbitration decision our way.

Also, I think if De Marco doesn't know this trick already, he should throw a ball at Richard Masters in court. When he catches it with his right hand, he should say "aha! I thought you said you were left handed!"

And vice versa if he catches it in his left hand.

It's won so many court cases.

3 minutes ago, Kaizero said:

In theory, both examples should do the same and work just fine. This thread removes the optimistic "Keith" style musings away from the main takeover thread to, in theory, allow for more discussion regarding what most seem to find more "realistic" news than twitter rumors and the types of bread a lawyer makes. This thread allows for the people that want to discuss those things to do just that without being of any hassle to the other posters who don't want to do that. Yet, the posters that don't want to discuss those news, come in this thread and spew bile. They don't do that between the braindead twitter transfer rumors thread and the realistic transfer rumors thread. 

This is a well managed and well functioning forum and examples such as separating a thread due to two very different discussions going on at the same time are plenty, as it just allows for better discussion. As @thomas very aptly exemplifies, it seems like certain posters believe this thread isn't dressing right and they can't utilize the minimum required self-control to not yell that all over.

I think we may well be agreeing ?

I wasn't expecting that. Fair play to you and your descendents, I doff my cap.

1 hour ago, Kaizero said:

We already have that so it would be merged, it's the brainless twitter rumours thread. Yet, people behave there, even if things posted are outlandish. 

Well if that's true, why don't people behave in this one too?

Maybe because the possible end of the Ashley era has made everyone ker-azy.

But it's a very specific fantasy, crucial to a lot of people, so I think it's worth it's own thread. Oh well, opinions.

On another note, I think football in general is heading for a massive correction. It was clearly only ever a massive Ponzi scheme based on the fantasy of ever increasing TV revenues. Unless you have a Chelsea or Man City type owner, who aren't in it for the money in the first place.

16 hours ago, Geordie Ahmed said:

Didn't Saint-Maximin himself say he was due to join in the January transfer window but that Nice blocked the move, so not sure I buy this thought that Rafa wouldn't have signed him

https://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/rafa-benitez-reveals-detail-mike-17307918

Sorry for sharing a Chronicle article, although there's some great detail in there about someone in the top team not knowing how to microwave his lunch and Rafa having to help him (my bet is Charnley).

Anyhow, whether true or not, it seems like St Max wasn't his choice.

To me, he does seem too much of a libero to fit in with the kind of meticulous planning Rafa goes for. How do you coach him, or a Ben Arfa, for that matter?

But who knows, and I'll stop derailing the thread now.

If I set up an 'unrealistic optimistic transfers' thread, intended to be about how Messi would fit in with our current team, how he might improve certain players etc or indeed accommodate Shelvey as well, that might be a laugh. Or how we might drop him for Hendricks every now and again.

If people then started piling in, saying "We'll never sign Messi, I'm just being realistic, just don't send me back to the real transfers thread with other people like me", I'd think they'd have missed the point.

Anyhoo, back on track. IF we had money to spend, who would you trust it to for transfers?

I know there's a lot of people that would have Rafa back in a heartbeat. I'm not sure I would. I don't think he'd have bought St Max for one thing.

Not actually sure who's idea that transfer was, because someone did something right for once, and I'm confused about who gets the credit.

7 minutes ago, Shearergol said:

We ended up with 44 points didn't we?

Well he's right then, that's a definite tail off in form.

Again, based on nothing but guesswork and idle hope.

FWIW, my own opinion is that both Big Picture and the ESL were blatant attempts to pull up the drawbridge on any competition. I think we all see it that way, so nothing controversial there, and obviously the whole collapse was delightful.

But now, rumours that some of these self appointed 'big' clubs are unofficially up for sale, which have two alternative optimistic points of view.

The first is that their long term growth projections were based on constantly expanding TV money; now they've been blocked, can't see a way to keep the whole bubble inflating, and want out, because their values would crash. Optimistically, that could cause a much bigger correction across the PL.

And / or, as complete speculation, do they fear a bigger competitor (or more than one) is already in the wings and are trying to bail out before they get in?

51 minutes ago, James said:

I don’t do Twitter so I appreciate this thread as a deep dive into the speculative whilst using the other thread to keep a general track of the official state of play. 

I enjoy the coexistence.

Me too.

1 hour ago, veriaqa said:

The only way PIF allowed to buy NUFC (if they still have interest in NUFC) is when NUFC are in the Championship (not champions league).

That way the PL will not have any say in the takeover. So, if you want the club to be sold to the Arabs pray for NUFC to be relegated

I believe the reason that wouldn't happen, is that on promotion back to the PL, the owners then face the exact same test that has delayed things so far. They could then be excluded from the PL until such a test is passed putting everything right back to square 1, of constant delays.

I'd speculate that might support no relegation being crucial. E.g., let's say we're relegated, then bought, then the arbitration goes against PIF, meaning they can't own a PL club. Where would that leave them?

Also, re objecting to one of the arbitration panel, they have brought potential conflicts into the open and ensured that the reasons for any decision are made public, rather than being hidden away (which would enable another lack of transparency on the decision). Well, that's the reasoning I've read - no idea myself.

It would take a heart of stone not to laugh.

Like a bouncy castle

37 minutes ago, 1964 said:

Isn't he saying if the takeover goes through he won't release it, rather than he isn't allowed? 

This entire farce will be turned into a shit film one day!

 

I thought so too, but I'm more excited about the shit film idea.

Like Goal! Or the Bruce version - Mole!

But if he does blow this whole alleged Richard Masters conspiracy sky high, then I'd opt for The Mancunian Candidate.

26 minutes ago, Joey Linton said:

 

I suppose I read this and it's just people having a spat on twitter. I don't know who they are, what this is saying or what their credentials are.

Can you summarise what you think, please? Is it that the Saudis didn't prove their separateness from PIF, or else at least didn't provide enough evidence to do so?

I suppose that was what the PL letter was insinuating first time round, reading between the lines, since we're all just inferring.

If you agree with the PL, then fair enough, by the way.

Hold on just a minute lads, I've got "Enter Labia" so far.

So, if only I can work out what to do with the letters "Fez", I might have a joke on my hands.

Well, surely wrecks the whole thing then if Chelsea go. They haven't even got their founding 15 agreed in the first place, and now they're down to 11 already?

Yes, there should be punishment for every team that signed up, but the worst should be for those clubs who were most active in sorting it.

I also wonder if contracts were signed, they might even all have some external financial penalties there as well.

Oh, and hahahaha.

And on the plus side, if they are all thrown out of the league with immediate effect, that makes our run in look much more bearable.

Ironic that the owners of all 6 of these clubs are deemed 'fit and proper' despite trying to fundamentally destroy the league, and the integrity of the sport as a whole.

So, both us and Fulham have Burnley to play. Let's assume we get the same result as each other in that one.

We have two games in hand, but I say write off Man City and Leicester in our run in. Funnily enough, I wouldn't rule out a point at Liverpool either given the form they've been in, and that other bottom teams have got something there. But anyway, let's assume not.

That leaves Fulham eyeing 3 points against Southampton, and us 3 at Sheff U (which of course we've blown once already, but let's assume).

Even assuming that, I still think that puts us in a likely last day shoot out with Fulham, where a win for them sends us down on GD.

Funnily enough, I'd rather we were below them in the league going into that scenario, which I know sounds stupid.

I just think it's much clearer knowing you've got to go for a win, rather than thinking a draw is enough and that putting doubt into your minds.

The fear of losing your 'advantage' rather than going for it can do funny things. I think that's why you often get a team dropping into relegation contention late in the season, or a third placed team fluffing a play off game.

In his pre match press conference on Sky, Steve Bruce said that "the one thing these players are capable of is rolling up their sleeves".

So, all this talk of him skipping training sessions is clearly wrong.

I'm glad that's the one thing they're capable of, and they can now do it.

Before you kick a football, you see, you must first roll up your sleeves.

It's a lot like making love to a beautiful lady

I'd say it's 50-50, and Burnley is huge.

Fine, we're 3 points ahead with that game in hand. GD isn't very different.

On the other hand, lose that one, and GD means it's effectively 2 points, barring some freak results. I.e. if Fulham catch up points wise, they'll have also opened the goal difference gap.

I also thought West Brom were gone, yet they're a bit of a wild card now, even if they've got too much to do realistically. But a couple more freak results and you never know.

But momentum wise, us playing quite well, getting an unexpected point, and Fulham losing as they did feels like a big one.

Should never have been this close, except for this manager and the total lack of care from the top which caused this manager, of course. 

With profuse apologies to Charley, both the person and the drug, I meant Charnley

I quite enjoyed filling that in.

My polite question to 'the hierarchy', presumably Charley, was just to ask what qualifies them to run a football club.

They must realise they don't know what they're doing, surely.

Every sentence is a riddle wrapped up in an enigma.

"If I thought I would do that, I would resign tomorrow."

So, it's not if he actually did something, it's if he THOUGHT he might do something.

But why would he think he might do something so terrible, that he wouldn't do it?

Does his mind have no control over what he does, perhaps?

That might explain an awful lot.

It's also interesting to note that he wouldn't resign today. No, he'd wait until tomorrow.