Keegans Export

Wow, that's a big shock. Unless they're bringing it in in addition to the 70/85% rule?

Don't blame them for threatening but would the argument against be; They'd still have to abide by UEFAs 70% rule regardless Judging by Kieran Maguire's figures, if the multiplier was 4.5x then only Chelsea and Man City would be over the limit currently, if it was 5x it'd just be Chelsea On current spending, English teams (especially the "big six") are competitive both in terms of attracting players and in terms of success on the pitch The same argument could be made against a challenge from the PFA - 18/20 (or 19/20) clubs are already spending within this hypothetical limit, nobody is having to get their wages cut to keep their club within the rules. That was part of the argument against Saracens - you can't say the salary cap is anit-competitive because you are still attracting top European players and regularly winning European games and competitions. Admittedly that was just arbitration though wasn't it?

The "Big Six" will vote against it because they don't want to restrict their own spending versus European competitors but also want to limit the likes of us and Villa from matching their spending power Teams like West Ham and Brighton will vote against it because they don't want us (and possibly Villa) suddenly being able to spend twice as much as we are now because their owners couldn't afford to keep up Perennial bottom-half teams don't want to risk a fellow relegation candidate getting bought out and being able to buy their way out of trouble overnight Honestly, if this gets more than a handful of votes in favour I'd be very, very surprised.

Let's hope the decision makers at Arsenal etc feel the same way. They can offer £80m, we can tell them to fuck off, everyone moves on.

Away kit needs off-white/cream shorts like.

Just seen it and thought exactly the same. Just shoves him in the back, the fact he flicks his arm out as part of the follow through doesn't help his case either. Completely different to the Joelinton/Gabriel one because Joe was actively challenging for the ball. If he'd knocked Gabriel out of the way from behind, then headed the ball they'd be more comparable.

Chelsea have won 5 PL games since 13th Jan, they'd do well to win five in a month.

That was a 42 (?) game season too!

In hindsight a worse punishment would have been forcing them to stay until full time. Arseholes.

There's enough evidence that their own fans aren't particularly arsed, so why would the general public care?

Must have given them an absolute rocket at half time. Goal early in the 2nd half drained all the life out of them, then kept our foot on their throats as we've come to expect from Eddie's NUFC. Really hope our luck with injuries changes next season, reckon we could have a fantastic 24/25 season if we get our transfer business right.

It's another article that seems to think the "anchoring" rules are to replace the 85% cap rather than run alongside. Kieran Maguire must think the same judging by his comments about us and Villa. It's not how I've interpreted it but there doesn't seem to be a clear answer.

This suggests that it's unlikely to pass. If the "big six" are against it, we only need one abstention/vote against and it gets shot down.

He was the same with our takeover, wouldn't give any specifics about anything. I just assume he's such an idiot he doesn't trust himself not to say something he shouldn't so he just says nothing at all.

Presumably because he/they thought it would be settled without it? I don't imagine they expect arbitration to just say "Yeah you can have him for nothing", but perhaps they think they've got a better chance that way than dealing with us directly?

Isn't it possible that there is a clause in his contract that any disputes would be settled by arbitration?

Not if its in addition to the 70% of turnover rule. Our turnover would have to be something like £650m for us to be able to spend £450m+

Presumably the same grounds that some restrictive covenants can be challenged, even if they are in a contract.

I'm struggling to see the point of this "anchoring" thing. 1. Even if the cap is £500m, most clubs (including ourselves and Villa) still won't be able to spend anywhere near that because of the 70/85% rule 2. Looking at the figures posted on the Athletic, only Chelsea would have broken the cap this year (or perhaps last year, I can't remember) So the top 6 can still spend as they are now, while the aspirational clubs are still forced to limit their spending due to their lower turnover?

Credited for bringing in the likes of Eze and Olise in the article. I'm not entirely sure why we enlisted a specialist recruitment company to come up with a shortlist - if it ends up being between Mitchell, Freeman, Pinto and the Benfica guy I feel most of us on here could have come up with at least three of those names

I haven't been watching but did we just use the 10 days gap between fixtures to decide we'd just try exactly the same thing we used against Spurs? Not a great call if so.

At least we don't have to dwell on it too long. Opportunity on Saturday to open up a gap between ourselves and West Ham & Chelsea. Should be the easiest team talk of the season.

First glance - is that considerably better for us than either £105m/3yrs or the 85% cap? Obviously teams in Europe will still have to adhere to UEFAs rules presumably

Sorry, that is just wrong. Six months is the average gardening leave term, but the term is agreed as part of the employment contract. It isn't just something you can stomp your feet about, claim is unfair, then leave early. Reading your posts, I'm not even convinced you are a Newcastle fan to be honest

Just out of interest, what makes you think CAS would override something that is presumably in Ashworth's contract? Edit - also, "United"