38MC

He wouldn't even be considered (rightly so on merit). Could you imagine him sitting across from Steve and Jon and the facial expressions and responses he would give to them? That said, I would pay a lot of money for a ringside seat at his job interview, even if it would be like a 1 round boxing match in duration.

NP is a principled man. If he declares himself fit I’m sure he is. Once he isn’t, I’m sure he’d admit it and mutually walk. Give him a 12m rolling contract.

You have to wonder his inspiration for it. The club’s a mess and even if he performs miracles that’s mid table and on no-one’s radar. At worst he gets a pay off. That’s all well and good, but he’s young. Does he need to have a completely tarnished reputation at this age instead of waiting for a better opportunity?

Ask Mehmeti

The Birmingham circumstances are quite different though so not sure it reads across. This is because Birmingham were relying on a similar premise as a defence to a breach v the regulating authority, whereas for Everton vis a vis the other clubs, they don’t need to defend/justify their breach or even be apologetic for it, just defeat the clubs argument that Everton’s breach resulted in their relegation - quite easy for the Everton KC to pick holes in any argument they want to run on that basis. Middlesbrough too I thought was without merit.

I think it's toilet paper to be honest. They would need to prove Everton were in breach and that Everton's breach caused them financial loss. The breach is a question of fact, but lets assume it is proven. I think their case fails when trying to prove that breach caused them financial loss. This is because you simply can't say money spent = improved League position or more points on the board (see Chelsea or Manchester United, or in the alternative SL's favourite club Luton). The question would be 'if Everton didn't overspend, would those clubs have stayed up'. I don't see them as being capable of proving that. I think the correct action would be against the Premier League. They were the one's who (potentially) breached their obligation to uphold the FFP rules and their failure to do so and award the appropriate sanction (points deduction) is a much easier argument to run. You can show the breach and how that directly caused the clubs to be relegated - assuming the breach warranted an automatic points deduction.

Steve Lansdown lie or be economical with the truth? I can't have that... 'what football makes it can keep'... oh wait

So if you win the league once the dream is over? Also think you’re being disingenuous towards Leicester as a club with their size and potential.

How can we contribute if we don’t meet the senior red criteria?

It’s close to them in terms of other clubs only. But for context it’s as close to us as Luton Away or Watford away for us and transport links only easy if you drive. As you say fair play to them, but I think that at very least. For me it’s commendable more than expectable.

Oh I’m by no means in the he can plead poverty camp. Not at all. His vanity has got us here and if he wants that stand in his name there’s an ongoing commitment commensurate with it. I’m just saying back then I can understand protests being muted as he was putting all on red as it were, now when he’s saying ‘off to the penny slots let’s hope we pull a jackpot’ when he’s got everything in place and the manager, is soooo bloody lansdown

The difference is way back then lansdown was chucking money after a bad horse. Best intentions and all that. It’s hard to protest at lansdown when you can see he’s spending a lot of his dough albeit in vein. This time around yet again he’s backing the wrong horse - a frigging unicorn in the distance… and he’s making the same mistake he’s made time and time again each and every time he meets someone who isn’t afraid to tell him how it can and should be done.

Toothless up front, scared of playing at home, a real lack of any squad depth, going in to winter with a truly wafer-thin squad. Can't see any reason to write off a relegation battle at this point.

If it’s because we want investment it’s shortsighted I think. Whilst the FFP headroom might seem attractive for a new investor, is it really when your team are languishing at the bottom of the table and you think it’s probably going to take you a huge investment and gamble… or better to take a team having a decent bit of FFP headroom which is competing already… you can’t invest eyewatering amounts, but can still give it a go.

Yeah wage limit is the reason, but budgets are usually flexed and revisited when there is a large influx of capital.

Seeing as we just sold a kid for a £25m pure profit and won’t spend, the compensation from massengo will be like piss in a full bath.

I think his stock will be a lot higher than us notwithstanding what happens at Wolves. He did a great job at Bournemouth and at Wolves he's working under conditions which means success or failure, I don't think it will be a defining role for him.

when you put it like that, he is being more than a bit of a tosser

Completely, and if I was him and had felt like I had performed well with the tools I was given and then not backed, so my successor could bear the dividends of all my work steadying the finances whilst keeping us in the division, I'd make sure the billionaire owner paid me every single penny of my contract. If I was him I would now seriously be considering offering mutual termination - the terms would be non-negotiable, pay up my contract.

I think he's just got a very flawed, insecure streak in his personality and anyone who isn't a corporate suit or doesn't engage in management speak he has very little interest in. Gary Johnson being the anomaly there, but you can see how he can cosy up to the likes of Mark Ashton or the clean cut Lee Johnson, but the second a qualified person with experience who doesn't bullshit arrives, no matter what they do (like SC winning League One) or sorting out the incredible mess that was left behind by the predecessors and giving us a platform to push on (Nigel Pearson), he hamstrings them to the point that they have to go. I don't even think it's about selling. He just wants us to be a corporate club.

Yes - by him refusing to join us. The easiest way to consider this is we already have had a bid of £1.3million accepted and it will remain accepted until the option runs out (that date will be pre-agreed but we won't know it). We can at any point discuss contracts with the player because we have had a bid accepted. If we agree personal terms with player before the option runs out, we just complete paperwork, pay the money as agreed and he's transferred to us. Nothing West Brom can do to stop it because the £700k we have paid is not solely for him to join us on loan, some value will have been an inducement for West Brom to agree an option to buy clause. Without that the loan fee may have been £500k for instance. Someone else could come in and offer £10m for him, and have a bid accepted. Nothing we can do about that and the player is free to sign for us (for £1.3m as that has been accepted) or sign for another club for £10m. West Brom cannot block his move to us in that example - except maybe paying us a premium to pull out of the transfer.

Given they are dealing with Tony Bloom, you can damn well believe it, a bit like dealing with Darren MacAnthony, he won’t beat around the bush. I’ll do a deal, but if I’m selling it’s on my terms. Ask Arsenal… oh and btw I prefer to sell in January.

Agree. And until someone meets our valuation he’s our player and will play, otherwise it shows we are hoping to cash in and all the ‘poker face’ will have been futile. Also I’m sure the experts @Mr Popodopolous and @Davefevs will correct me, but whilst SL may want to sell, the reality is he’s still chucking a decent amount in this season to cover losses, Scott sale or not. We’ll have an immediate cash flow/P&L impact for first instalment but the rest is balance sheet creditors (I think, but could well be wrong). Given reporting periods it means no difference to us if the same happens in August or in January. In January it’s much more a seller’s market so it might be worth the risk of injury / loss of form to get to that period. What is pretty clear by now is there are only really two suitors - wolves and bmouth, with the potential for one or two other clubs coming in from desperation towards the end of the window. Neither of these genuine suitors I would gurss are particularly attractive to Alex Scott, hence not seeing any discontent from his side. When you know there are only really two genuine buyers, and one of them can’t actually afford the deal anyway, I really do think he’s still going to be our player on 1 Sept, and we go on with a view to selling in January if we feel that’s the right footballing decision. SL covers the cost of Alex Scott yearly in his owner’s contributions. Even if we sell, given it’s in instalments and add ons, selling or not won’t push the needle too far on what he’s covering at the end of 2024 given we will spend something (despite what the club says).

Agree. If we really wanted to sell, given Wolves’ obvious interest, I think we’d have come to a compromise solution by now with them. I don’t think we’d have played such hard ball and put him through a rigorous pre-season. We’d have shaved a bit off here a bit there and done the deal. To run this saga as long as we have does show some real strength in the bargaining position. If we were keen sellers actually we’re getting to the stage of almost depleting our strength as the window of opportunity to sell closes in. Same as Saints and Ward-Prowse, they’ve happily let West Ham walk away. That shows real strength on their part, because if they really wanted to sell then they are weeks away from West Ham offering a reduced fee as they know the pressure is back on saints to do the deal giving West Ham the upper strength in the position. To give it a poker analogy, you might bluff pre flop and post-flop, it’s reckless to start doing it on the turn and the river.

I disagree. I think he would still play. We’re clear that we don’t ‘want’ to sell, but will if someone meets our valuation and Alex wants to go. If personal terms etc aren’t sorted before then, I don’t think he’s a player we’d worry about his mental attitude, and I don’t think we’d be wrapping in cotton wool either because our position is as a reluctant seller.