Andrew

Agree with that, wouldn't be surprised if we kept Targett and Lascelles from that list as well. even if they never play you need a squad. If you let Targett go for example what do you do for backup for Hall? You'll be hard pressed to find another experienced pro at targetts level for less money imo. He's had some terrible luck with his fitness but hes a capable premier league player when hes fit.

Pretty much, the series X has a disc drive and some beefier hardware inside.

Still agree with this, its the best bang for buck option by a long way.

Hes not.

We need to get that done before the online safety act comes in though. Ffs.

Tough one for PaddockLad that, sorry mate

That cup already exists Wait...didnt they win it a few years ago?

Yeah it'd honestly be perfect if that was the case 😅

Is that for the league cup? Everywhere Ive looked says KO time is yet to be announced, where have you found it?

Not surprised, they've absolutely fucked the development of it. Hopefully their record means that Sega give them the chance to get 26 done and released.

Based on previous signings I reckon Howe might not be too keen on short term loans. He doesnt give players game time until he considers them ready to play his way, a half season loan might only have that for a few games.

I really do wonder how you replace Trippier considering Tino is number one in that position now. If you go younger than Tino you're getting someone who is likely very raw and not ready for first team football. If you go older you're looking at someone who is either happy to be a squad option and isn't really good enough or someone who might stifle Tinos development by being better than him right now, who may also cost a fucking fortune. At 22 and 20 Tino and Hall could literally be our first choice full backs for the next decade or more, when have we ever had that? How do you build a squad to back them up?

Thats fair enough, I would expect it to be a new ground tbh, even then I'd expect 60-65k capacity, its the done thing lately. Now also to be fair, I didn't say grounds turn over little money, I said bums on seats do by which I mean regular punters through the turnstiles. Matchday revenue is built so much on the more expensive box seats that increasing our capacity in that regard matters much more than increasing regular capacity.

You're assuming that the intention of a bigger ground is to turn a profit for the owners in terms of ticket sales. The commercial income would skyrocket with a 60k ground with an improved corporate set up even though the relative increase in seats is fairly low. Bums on seats is important for atmosphere and optics but it turns over surprisingly little money for PL clubs. Infrastructure costs are not included in FFP/PSR, match day revenue is. So its an outlay for PIF that won't return them any cash in the short term (though it would increase the clubs resale value) but would translate into spendable money for the club within the current regulations which means we get better, we get bigger, we get in the CL more, they can entertain their fancy pals at their state of the art PL ground on european nights and they can continue to launder their reputations. We're not operating like a spurs or west ham in this regard. Its not about the money, its about sports washing.

They should've upheld it just for this imo.