TheBrownBottle

The mechanics are back to how they were after the takeover and before Feb this year, along with the shareholder loan issue thrown in (which would make it potentially harder for us to sell players). I don’t remember the rules particularly benefitting us as they previously existed.

We’ll find out quickly enough as the PL rules will have to be adjusted ASAP. We’ll also now get a quick resolution to whether or not the club has been waiting to announce loads of sponsors because they were waiting on the Man City case, or whether they have simply been very slow in getting deals in. I know where my money is on that front.

Which is fair enough, and it has significance, because the PL can’t simply push the burden of proof across to the clubs, which would have been a nightmare for some clubs. But FMV and APT is still in place.

Agreed, though this is what was in place until February of this year - so for anyone wondering what the consequences are, simply think back to January and before that.

You know, that’s easy to throw about, but only at those you disagree with …

@r0cafella this is the result that I was referring to

He always does, the man has a pretty open agenda. As ever, let’s wait and see. I’m struggling to see how this makes any real difference to us going forwards.

Yes, I do. It’s been ruled on. Interest free loans benefit NUFC, too.

Yep, that’s how it looks to me. Wishful (and understandable) thinking. From what I can see, that was the big challenge to FMV and it failed on all but a couple of details. I don’t see any other club likely to mount a serious challenge to it now.

It’s not uncommon for arbitration or adjudication to make rulings like this in business - it doesn’t tend to make much of a difference. Man City aimed at the PL’s head and blew off its little toe.

It isn’t likely to change anything based on the ruling - the rules brought in immediately after the takeover remain in place. The PL can still rule that a sponsorship deal isn’t FMV. I’m not seeing how this helps beyond the new rules from the start of the year being thrown out (which would have made things even more difficult)

Because they still need to amend the rules in the narrow areas where the PL rules were ruled illegal?

Yep. I’m not seeing the victory for Man City here, beyond some narrow interpretation of FMV. The burden of proof is back with the PL, and shareholder loans not being taken into account. And that’s it.

The ruling is about the new rules from February and shareholder loans. We’re as we were at the beginning of the year - ie with the rules that were brought in when the takeover went through. For us, the status quo remains. So if the club wants to grow, its finger-pulling-out time.

It didn’t at all Simon Leaf, partner and head of sport at law firm Mishcon de Reya, told BBC Sport: "Whilst the decision will be embarrassing for the Premier League, because in a couple of narrow areas their rules have been found to be unlawful, generally speaking the decision confirms that the vast majority of the APT rules are indeed lawful. "Therefore whilst we can expect to see some changes to the rules going forwards, on the whole this isn’t a resounding victory for Manchester City by any stretch of the imagination." https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/articles/cq5eyvl7nggo.amp

The location in the city wouldn’t make a dent in the attendances - unless we have literally the worst support in the country

Part of what makes him exactly that tbf

There was a Milburn statue of course, which has been bounced around a few spots in the city. Though I suppose having a stand named after you is pretty decent (though Harvey’s inside the Milburn has now disappeared). The Robson statue is utterly mystifying to me. The one at Ipswich makes sense. But then I’m not keen on statues full stop. The lack of any formal acknowledgment of Keegan - who for me does rank above pretty much everyone in the club’s history, including trophy winners from times past, given the fact that the club might not exist without him and certainly not in its present form - does seem a bit rum, though.

Yours truly was born in 1982 - here's the derby record in my lifetime (first game in 1985): NUFC W 13 Draws 13 SAFC W 9 'Normal service' ...

(I love that they hate us btw. They were bitter in the mid-90s when we nudged them out of one of the ‘big club’ slots. They’re still jealous that we tend to get more coverage than them in the national press, even during the Ashley era)

Is a county mile shorter than a country mile?

They’re close geographically- so it counts I reckon Same if the men’s team pulled out Gateshead in the cup. Not much of a history, but it would count as a local derby (Mind you I’m looking forward to the game vs the Mackems …)

A fit Carroll unspoiled by injuries played for Liverpool and looked like a carthorse. He wasn’t near that level - it was a poor signing by Dalglish, though of course that was something we were very familiar with. He went to West Ham because he wasn’t good enough for Liverpool, not because of injuries. I do agree though that the lad would’ve had a better career without them - like I said, he was more akin to Kevin Davies than Alan Shearer. He had a solid PL career, and would’ve had a more solid one had he stayed fit. I just don’t think he would have ever become a top notch PL centre forward - just my view, of course. Cisse’s purple patch involved him scoring a goal a game, and about 90% of those were somewhere between goal of the week and goal of the season. The lad was ‘Pardewed’, the quality was clearly there. Though as an all-round centre forward, Ba was better than either of them. Agreed re the purple patchy nature of both Cisse and Carroll - the only difference for me is the quality of the goals scored. Neither were first rate PL centre forwards. Carroll’s local lad status is absolutely the reason why so many had an emotional attachment to him - had he been from Maidenhead instead of Gateshead he have been viewed and remembered completely differently. For me, I never really reached that with Carroll - he reminded me of Duncan Ferguson; big bloke, causes problems, slow and not likely to be prolific in the long run. I’ve never been a fan of target man centre forwards - all just personal taste.

He played pretty much every game for Liverpool in the PL the following season. Was never a top PL centre forward. Within a year we had two centre forwards who were better than him (Ba and Cisse). If Carroll wasn’t from Gateshead he’d be a less than a footnote in the club’s history.

Got his insanely big money move after a short purple patch - he’s far closer to Kevin Davies than Alan Shearer in pretty every regard tbh. The only season he managed double figures in the top flight. I would’ve taken what Liverpool offered - it was an insane sum of money (and still would be a hefty sum today - if we had an Andy Carroll right now I’d still be tempted by £35m. Dalglish paying us back for Andersson, Tomasson, Pistone etc). The problem was Ashley had no intention of allowing the club to spend it.