Abacus

With any new manager, usually brought in after a run of bad results, there's a carousel of excuses that all fans will make when those results don't improve. First it's the players - all are either gutless or useless. No point looking at the manager as even Pep couldn't get a tune out of this lot, etc etc. Then it's the owners / DOF, who are clueless and haven't made the right appointments etc, leading to a hopelessly unbalanced squad. Finally, it turns back to the manager who was originally going to be the person to turn it all around. That's the gap, before the finger points back at you, where a serially underperforming manager like Bruce gets in and earns a living. I think the real trouble with appointing Bruce, though, is that it's a bit like not noticing you've stepped in a big dog turd. By the time you've realised that the stink is coming from your own shoe, you've already trampled it all through the carpet and it's going to take ages to clean up the mess.

He mentioned huge strides. So I'm saying Ashley.

Watford have a wily manager and a couple of OK forwards. Burnley have been here before, with a history of clawing their way out of it. But on the other hand, if you were either of those two clubs you'd snap our hands off to swap positions with us right now. I'm at a 2/3 whatever happens tonight. Beat Brentford and clamber past a couple more teams, and I'll be at around a 1.

Or this; Re: Steve Bruce - Manager 4 games in and we are no better... We are actually much worse as were conceding more and creating less chances. Any semblance of a team shape, tactical plan or clear instructions from the dug out has gone.. Or, succinctly; Get him out of our club now. Totally clueless and past it

Or the vaccine.

Hahaha, I'm so distracted gloating about Bruce losing that I don't know who to laugh at first

Love the thread title change

Proper therapy, this. Getting some popcorn in for the post match interview.

Some halftime talk this must have been. NB, West Brom have one of the highest wage bills in the league, and more marrachute payments to come next season. I wonder if Mr Stay-puft will be given another season to let it slip through his buttery fingers?

Looking forward to the WBA match on Sky tonight, and playing some Brucey-bingo. (Pre match) Middlesbrough are a top, top team. It'll be very very difficult, that's for sure I always say, there's no easy games in this league. (Lose) That's not what I'll accept from a team of mine. We'll analyse it. I've never walked away from a challenge. But it takes time to turn a team around. (Win) I hope that's shut a few people up. (Win or lose) Since I've walked through the door, I've always said it's about what happens at the top end of the pitch. And not conceding. And fortunately / unfortunately we've got / not got that right today.

From one of their forums; "The one person who should stay at the Club is Steve Bruce. Keep him, he knows his stuff. Give him time, God knows he needs it." I for one would like to see a club getting rid of everyone EXCEPT Steve Bruce. It would prove to me that an alternative anti-matter universe does exist, just in the West Midlands, where even CERN hadn't thought to look.

West Brom when previous manager was fired - 4th West Brom under Bruce - 11th Press - squad's fault.

There's an obsession with young, hungry coaches. What's wrong with an old, hungry coach?

With all of his experience, he'll just keep bashing away.

It's about time for William Storey to take over and put an end to all this silliness.

Yes, it's in their audited accounts on Companies House. I was wondering how this could be true or square with what Stavely said. So, rather tragically, I looked up the next year's accounts. Under that year's related party note it says the following; "A provisions [sic] was made in FY20 for £2.0m payable to Newcastle United Football Club...this was reversed..." Spelling mistake aside, if it's the same £2m and it was 'reversed', then that would explain it.

The NUFC accounts don't disclose what they were paid by Sports Direct (it's not required). But the Sports Direct accounts for the same period say they were charged £2m by NUFC re sponsorships for the 19/20 season (it's in their related parties note).

There's an amusing thread on there about whether they'd want Ashley to take them over. The ones with any brains say no, and the rest say he's a great businessman because that's what they've been saying all these years and have therefore persuaded each other that it's true. You can feel them wrestling with this internal dilemma, like toddlers. Apparently, they just want a bit of transparency and some good football, which he would bring. I know. There's also a fake Newcastle fan on there blaming Keegan for ruining Ashley's reputation among fans. In other news, looks like the great businessman may have lost c.£30m on another one of his investments, Studio Retail Group, an online retailer he bought into which has gone into administration. He is mystified and angry, according to the Times.

Essentially, yes. Although, it's about their more recent performances rather than forever, from what I can make out. Either way, it's completely wrong. The last paragraph of that article made me laugh; At a previous Premier League meeting, one of the “big six” clubs argued that there should be room for manoeuvre around what was sporting merit, pointing out that in a league in Uruguay relegation was based on performances over three seasons. They're right. It's the Uruguayan League we should be replicating.

Wool pulled over their eyes again! I've actually got work to do, but I just know that's already the rest of my afternoon gone browsing the marrapocalypse on RTG!

Normally player trading would count towards your profit or loss. In other words, selling Krafth for £0.5 bn should count to increase what you're able to spend under FFP. It's not an investment like the share issue was. However, I've taken a peek at the PL rules just now. They are quite remarkable, really, and to my reading go way beyond normal companies act definitions, also covering more than just sponsorships, whilst giving the PL wide discretion to pretty much decide whatever they want. So, I don't think think you could get away with that Krafth deal. Quite how enforceable they are is another matter - I'm guessing that's why we're lawyering up.

Saur point!

Yes, share payments are an investment funds flow rather than being income earned through profit. Therefore it's irrelevant to FFP. I.e. even with the cash it doesn't mean we can spend what we like. Sponsorship income is different and would count favourably towards FFP, hence that's the one with the restrictive associated party rules.

Nope. So it doesn't get around FFP.

But wasn't it great when Trippier smacked that goal past the Villa?