TheBrownBottle

I’d play him further forward, but that’s not the same as him not being a ‘6’. Agree that the solution is to either play Bruno further forward or to try Bruno and Tonali together in what the kids call a ‘double pivot’. The problem with the ‘double pivot’ is that we don’t have a ‘10’, so a 4-2-3-1 is out. And I don’t think Bruno and Tonali can be the midfield in a 4-4-2

Settling in periods are usually related to moving to a new country / area. He’s been here long enough to settle.

Bruno has basically played his entire career there. He played there for Lyon when we signed him.

100%, sadly

Sheikh Mansour is the state

That and Tonali never looks like an upgrade when he starts

It’s odd unless you’ve seen us play with Tonali at RCM If the lad is going to start we’d need to change the way we play. Any signs of Howe doing that so far? My suspicion at this point is either Howe or Tonali is not here next season.

That was always a load of bollocks, and there is no ‘separation’. Besides, there is nothing in the PL rules re state ownership. The idea that PIF isn’t part of the KSA state is laughable. The amendment also includes national investment funds.

No bother at all mate - outside the top five tiers of English football is effectively where the semi-pros and amateurs sit (though the fifth tier is a mix of professional and semi-pro). Because tier six down is semi-pro and amateur, and they're concerned about ownership and governance, I can't imagine it would be applied to every level of the pyramid. The Lords can't block but only delay bills - so the Commons can re-present the Bill either untouched or with any amendments suggested by the Lords which have been recommended. This is regular in Parliament - some of the lords are former Law Lords (judges - the HoL used to be the highest court in the country until the UK Supreme Court was created in 2009). And others are ex-judges and lawyers who have significant careers and expertise in law. So the often re-draft proposed Bills and send them back to the Commons with their suggested changes. Often these are the result of knowledge of legislation and practice. While I'd like to see the Lords abolished, this is a function which would be difficult to replace. The issue comes when you get suggested amendments like the ones in this Bill, which oversteps review and redraft and becomes an effective change of policy. At that point, these amendments are usually rejected (to get through the Commons, the Bill would likely need govt support). I can't see the govt supporting these amendments. This happens regularly, but usually doesn't get much visibility as it doesn't impact the back pages of the newspapers. Because it relates to football, it has gained more visibility.

Baron Parkinson is a Tory bastard, so not that shocking

If it happened we wouldn't be able to play at any level. TBF removing clubs from the football league isn't a new thing. It isn't going to happen, though. Not worth worrying about, as fun as hypotheticals can be.

There is a tiny chance it occurs, but I just don’t think it will. It would create a diplomatic issue over something which ultimately of very little importance.

It wouldn’t be a forced sale - they wouldn’t ’have’ to sell. But their asset wouldn’t be able to play in the PL. So in effect, it sort of is a forced sale.

I’d be surprised if they did tbh. Starmer is too pragmatic and centrist to worry about irksome details like human rights etc. This is just a couple of the law lords proposing amendments - ultimately, it isn’t up to them. For those worrying about this, my advice would be - don’t. This is standard stuff in Parliament, and like you say it would potentially create some tensions with KSA and Abu Dhabi.

Can’t see the genetic jackhammer passing the FPPT. But then again …

If the amendment is accepted by the Commons and then the Bill receives Royal Approval then there would be a forced sale - just as happened with Abramovich at Chelsea. The new regulator would simply cite the new Act and refuse to grant the licence to operate for the season. On the flip side, it is the role of the Lords to interrogate and propose amendments to bills proposed by the Commons. It doesn’t mean that the amendment will be accepted in the second reading of the Bill. This only becomes an issue if the Commons accepts the proposed amendment and sends it back to the Lords.

It wouldn’t be retroactive

SJP did look pretty empty by about 85 mins from what I was watching mind.

Honestly, the bloke may be the thickest cunt on the planet, though he is doing what he’s paid to - that is, wind people up so that they ring in. Just ignore him

It could happen with the right commercial strategy and targeted investment. To date we’ve came up well short on those fronts. Need to: - build a new ground (not restricted by PSR) - build a new training ground and academy with elite coaches (not restricted by PSR) - get some sponsors in (ground, academy, training ground) - can be limited by PSR but so far we’ve done nowt - get more commercial partners in (same as above) It’s hard to say that we’re trying to be all we can be when we haven’t even maximised within the current limitations. At present our commercial revenue will flatline this season.

Literally what the rules are designed to do - costs passed onto supporters. Owners don’t have to invest.

This is how Spurs did it, mind. Berbatov, Bale, Modric etc. Bought well and sold incredibly well. This is what turned them into a ‘big six’ club when they hadn’t been anything of the sort for two decades.

We signed Bruno when we were in the relegation zone, and Isak and Botman after we finished bottom half. We’re in a much better position today.

Have to say I'd be far less upset if Isak heads off to Barca. I'd be pissing blood if we sold him to an English club.

We would’ve needed to recoup before the 30th June. Just like this year. We’re maxed out on the FFP credit card.