New owner confirmed…

Interesting comments re. Steve Bruce. Some of the football was utter crap but he got the job done. Depends what you want, for me football is about entertainment more than anything. The Europa League was a massive wasted opportunity too but he did get us to the final of the FA Cup even if we arguably had the easiest possible run in to the final (Poyets bizarrely weakened Sunderland team and Sheff Utd, even if they did have big 'arry) I hated the lack of Plan B and the hanging on at the end tactics. It took him a bloody long while too to recognise how good Harry Maguire was, saying that I can remember some of our less enlightened fans slagging Harry, the same as they did Clucas etc. and look where we are now without them. Can understand both sides re Bruce

 

Wonder why he didn't mention Abramivich’s Israeli links and his association with their Nazi like oppression & occupation of Palestine.

 

Agreed

 

Great article.

Not related to us unfortunately, but I think it depends on you as a person. I imagine 90% of football fans care more about results and trophies than they do about Human rights and morales around the world. Would I go if we had the Man City owners running us? I highly doubt as I have principles and football isn't worth breaking them for. However I would be the minority.

Just because some fans don't care about fit and proper tests doesn't mean we shouldn't have them. The same way just because owners have often being crooks doesn't mean we shouldn't change this now and try and bring football into the 21st century and promote equality for all etc...

 

Apparently Jim Ratcliffe, former Beverley Grammar School pupil and one of Britains richest men, has had a bid for Chelsea turned down. Surely Assam and Ehab can sell him the dream??

 

You just beat me to it

 

Ehab's too busy trying (and currently failing) to get a listed building delisted to help him expand his property empire.

 

Wouldn't that be wonderful.

 

I thought that said tying, and I thought it was going to say tying his shoelaces!

 

It’s a shame stricter “guides”on where income Is spent can’t be introduced, I know a lot will say a businessman should be able to do what he wants with his investment but I think it’s ruining a lot of clubs, due to the businessman’s ineptness at times, me and a guy I work with we’re trying to guess how much cash has gone through the club from the sky tv deal we guessed at around £450m which is staggering, we then spoke about what we have to show for all of it infrastructure wise, not a lot

Could the league rule that in order to recieve tv cash , a certain percentage has to be spent on training facilities, youth academy’s etc etc Rather than spunked on **** over priced buys on ridiculous wages

 

The league could write whatever rules they wanted in theory.

 

I think instead of getting parachute payments the FA should just cover a percentage of ruining costs up to a certain amount

 

What’s the current cost of ruination & what percentage should be paid? Would it cost more to ruin different clubs? If so shouldn't it be a fixed amount to make it fair?

 

Conn must have been listening to me.

 

I know that there is a lot of modern graffiti down Bankside, but this was proper 'old skool' graffiti down Walton Street before the old properties got pulled down.

 

U miss my point i think. My idea (and i am a bit thick) is along the line of.....the FA will cover wages...youth investment ect for 3 years up to a maximum of 150 mill. If u dont use it all then u lose what is unused. This way at least the money would be reinvested. This is just my little idea so dont slate me.

 

I was just playing with your misspelling of “running”. I was in no way being serious.

 

It’s cost about £450m to ruin ours hasn’t it?

 

It’s an ongoing project. If the FA had contributed accordingly the whole project could have been boxed off by now.

 

I might order food. What to order though?

Nah , it's Sardines on toast.

They're the ones in Tomato sauce.

Hungry anyone?