v.old

Why do you think that I’d be delighted if that is the case?

The question is would you employ the plumber again. I’m disappointed at Edwards’ conduct but I don’t expect him to repay, pro rata, that part of his salary that my licence fee supported, simply that I shouldn’t be expected to continue to pay him to help him behave in way that I believe is morally reprehensible

Or do your own plumbing. Or commentary on state occasions

So in chatting to the plumber they tell me that they love going on lion shooting expeditions and I fundamentally oppose blood sports

I was shaking with rage

Helpful advice

I can choose who to pay as a plumber

Tbh the man’s sexual ambitions would be his own but for the fact that he’s using some of my money to further them through an enforced fee that I have to pay. The thought of a man of his age pursuing a teenager solely for sexual gratification is a bit sick-making for me

Erik Sviatchenko of Houston Dynamo shows his true colours arriving before last night’s match v San Jose

He is all of these things and so much more. Fucking hell, never thought that I'd see days like these whether he signs or not

JoJo. Perfect

I mean the Kilpin role in the formation of AC Milan, the role Notts County played in Juve playing in black and white stripes are far more significant than purporting a quasi missionary role in the relationship with a Basque football club. The evidence is well sourced and primary in the first two cases and needy bollocks in the last. I’d be embarrassed if that was us

That’s a selfish and irresponsible position which I thoroughly endorse. More chance of being overheated by Vladimir’s ‘tactical’ weapons than anything else

Isn’t it the case that venues such as the SoL ‘buy’ the act and come to agreements over splitting of certain revenues (ticketing, catering, drinks and so on) giving a guaranteed income to the act? I always thought that was how it worked anyway

The Fiorentina keeper looks more than canny. Not seen him before tonight’s game

Silent and deadly?

I mean this is brilliant. So many moments of really high quality. Under appreciated by some

The genie is out of the bottle on this, don’t know why UEFA can’t get it; they already let it happen. Are selling clubs really going to want artificially depressed revenues from mega-rich buying clubs observing spending limits in the interests of, ahem, equality? The motivation for back door off the books payments would massively increase. The game would be more corrupt

The SR postcode will be consigned to the litter bin of municipal history and Washington can be free once more

Interesting article; apologies if posted elsewhere. Uefa’s wealth distribution favours established elite while putting Newcastle in their place Martin Samuels Saturday May 27 2023, 6.00pm, The Sunday Times If Newcastle United are knocked out of the Champions League at the group stage next season, they will earn in the region of £21.5 million. If the same fate befalls Manchester City, it is likely to be nearer £58 million. And fair enough, you may say. City won the league, Newcastle are fourth at present. Yet here’s the thing. Even if those positions were flipped — so City are fourth, Newcastle first — and both went out at the group stage, City would still be close to £20 million ahead. Thank Uefa’s ten-year historical co-efficient pot. Keeps the rich rich, keeps the poor poor. And exposes the myth around financial fair play. If clubs can only spend what they earn, and then the tournament regulations restrict that capacity, where’s the financial fairness? Yet to keep the elite clubs sweet, and to ward off the threat of a breakaway super league, Uefa has increasingly skewed its revenue streams in favour of the biggest and wealthiest. Then the financial rules tie each club to the size of its revenue stream. And see what they did? Derren Brown would be proud. In recent years, just about every major change made in wealth distribution by Uefa has benefited the establishment. In 2016-17, it was possible for Leicester City to be the Premier League’s highest earners in Europe. They won their domestic competition, they went further in the Champions League than any other English club, so it made sense. That season, Leicester earned €17.1 million (£14.86 million) more from Uefa competition than their nearest rivals, Arsenal. That has changed. Without unimagined success — and also unimagined failure on the part of all their Premier League rivals, which gives one club a greater share of the television pool — it is hard to see how Newcastle can repeat this. It’s why a club of Leicester’s size can win the league one year, the FA Cup a short while later and then be plunged into FFP crisis soon after. The Champions League, and European football generally, is no longer worth the same to new arrivals and the established elite, no matter what the new club has achieved. The ten-year historical co-efficient pot distributes revenue according to a club’s performance in Europe over the past decade. The total, £522 million, is divided on a sliding scale, with Real Madrid in line for £31.65 million and Manchester City £28.67 million despite that 5-1 aggregate semi-final scoreline. Madrid are rewarded for being good some years ago, regardless of how they perform now. Yet Newcastle most recently played in Europe in the Europa League in 2012-13. They literally have no historical co-efficient points in the present system. This means they are assigned one-fifth of the English overall co-efficient, quite probably the lowest total in the competition, and worth £989,000. That payment would not change, even had they been league champions. By comparison, Arsenal will receive £21.75 million and Manchester United £24.72 million. Newcastle could switch places with Manchester United this afternoon and it would make no difference to the cut decided on past performance. Historical co-efficients are not interested in what just happened; only what went before. So far, so protectionist; but then factor FFP into it with clubs only spending what they earn and you see how corrupt the whole idea is, with the wealthy lobbying to place limitations on the earning potential of upstart rivals. And it will get worse. When the new Champions League format begins in 2024-25, it will include two additional performance-related places. Originally, these were going to be awarded to the clubs with the highest five-year co-efficient that had not already qualified through league position but, rightly, there was uproar. This could have resulted in an established elite club skipping from domestic sixth place, over the fifth placed team, and into Uefa’s marquee competition. No prizes for guessing who was keen on that but, for once, the word fairness was applied in its correct context and Uefa backed down. Now the two extra places will go to teams from the countries with the best co-efficient ratings from the previous campaign. Next year, that would have been England and Italy. Most years, let’s be frank, it’s going to be England and somebody. Nothing taken for granted, of course — reliable Spain has underperformed in 2022-23 — but it is probable the Premier League will get five over the line with some regularity. The more English clubs the merrier. Yet this season that would have ruined one of the more compelling narratives towards the end of the season — will Liverpool catch United or Newcastle? — and with ten-year historical co-efficients so important, it helps to maintain the dominance of the cabal. Instead of missing out on the Champions League next season, Liverpool would continue their run of six straight years in the competition, building on their historical ranking as they go, and making it harder for smaller rivals to get their share. This all then bleeds into calculations around FFP. It is why some observers refuse to be weaned off the idea that clubs like Newcastle — and City before them — should not meekly continue to be feeders for the elite. Last week the former Liverpool midfielder Dietmar Hamann was discussing the midfielders needed to bolster Jürgen Klopp’s team for next season. “I’d like a player like Joelinton, who’s got a physical presence,” he said. But why would Joelinton leave Newcastle, who have edged Liverpool out of the Champions League, unless it was felt there was a limit on what a player could achieve there? Witness the debate around Newcastle’s proposed £25 million-a-year shirt sponsorship deal with Sela, who are majority-owned by the Saudi Public Investment Fund, as are the club. Sela are the IMG of Saudi Arabia, organising events such as motorsport’s Race of Champions. This deal would fall into the remit of the Premier League’s related-party transactions. Yet no such scrutiny would be applied if Sela went into business with United. The longest-standing commercial partner at Old Trafford is Saudi Telecom. And this again seeps into the fabric of FFP. It’s fine for United to make money from Saudi Arabia, but if Newcastle do it, there’s suspicion. In the meantime, nobody looks at the elite clubs and Uefa’s ten-year historical co-efficient payments and spies related parties. Yet they might as well be joined at the hip.

It’s still in the fridge Monday being a school night but Sunday, win, lose or draw, that cork will be popped

It’s simple really. I put a bottle of Veuve into the fridge at half-time thereby bringing about the Firmino substitution and subsequent equaliser. It happens all of the time

McGinn has impressed me. There, I’ve said it

Get in!

I am so glad that I haven’t got a hot-line to Eddie. I know fuck all about football