ClaphamFox

On what grounds could they possibly justify even attempting to do it?

They never increase deductions because teams have appealed.

From Oxfordshire…

You are aware that headline financial losses are different to PSR losses? And also that Forest's PSR loss was greater than Everton's but they received a lower points deduction?

That literally can't happen. Everton's points deduction for its second breach was only two points because the two periods overlapped - ie, the second points deduction was much lower because they'd already been punished for two years of the three-year period. Plus, it has been suggested by a number of journalists that even if we breach for 2021-24, because we were in the EFL last season our punishment for the second breach would likely be just a fine. Why do you think our losses are 'much bigger' than the other clubs? Do you have evidence for this? It's not exactly surprising you see no cause for optimism if your perspective is distorted by a complete ignorance of the rules combined with lurid guesswork over the extent of our PSR losses compared to other clubs...

We successfully challenged the PL and EFL because they were breaking their own rules. I'd love to see them try to justify punishing us for entirely correct legal challenges. The PL can ask for what it wants, but it is the panel that decides - and the biggest points deduction they've given for a single offence is six points. Forest got four and there's no evidence to suggest our case is much worse than theirs...

Pretty good. He's played 30 league games, scored nine and assisted six. So a goal contribution precisely every two games. Not too shabby for one of the 8 positions...

Apparently next season the charge will be £50 and those carrying physical tickets will be made to go through a separate entrance at which specially-trained stewards will punch each ticket holder in the face before they're allowed to go through the turnstile.

You're being a little bit melodramatic here. The future is not 'very bleak'. Yes, we will have a points deduction next season for the 2020-23 breach, but if we're smart in the transfer market this summer there is a good chance that there will be at least three worse teams than us. Survival is a very achievable aim. July 1 marks the beginning of a new accounting period and a number of high earners will come off the books, freeing up some space for new players. We will be active in the transfer market this summer even if we're not shelling out £30-40m on one player, which hasn't really worked well for us anyway. As for the owners, 'getting away with it', what do you suggest? They're still the owners and that isn't going to change. And regarding your claim that any other club being 'up in arms' about their PSR breaches, I haven't seen much evidence of that at Everton or Forest...

Great shout. We could nickname him Volpone.

I think the discussion of Mason Greenwood's conduct can be held without casting aspersions about Harriet Robson's character. We don't know why she went back to him. Maybe she genuinely loves him? Maybe that incident was actually a one-off and their relationship is otherwise strong? To just assume she's chosen to have a child with him because he 'paid her off' seems unfair. The evidence of the tape stands and people are free to make their own minds up about Mason Greenwood (and I personally would never want to see him in a Leicester shirt), but this constant insinuation that Harriet Robson is solely motivated by money seems incredibly mean-spirited.

You think Norwich would beat Southampton/West Brom in the final?

Exactly. This is precisely why the frequently-heard claim by some folk that we're in deep trouble because 'The Premier League are going to throw the book at us' is a tad melodramatic.

Indeed. Yet Harriet Robson's father refused to condemn Greenwood after it emerged what had happened to his daughter, preferring to go on about how much 'in love' the couple were. I guess those hospitality seats must have been really good....

Man Utd apparently want £40m for him, so this is a pretty moot discussion as far as we're concerned. I'd be willing to bet a large amount of money that we're not one of the two clubs mentioned by the Times.

It would not have just been Rudkin that signed off on those things - Top and the board will have given the green light too. I'm no fan of Rudkin and like many others I'd prefer it if we had a different Director of Football, but this tendency to regard him as an omnipotent cartoon villain who is responsible for every bad decision the club makes is a bit silly.

Barkley is a no-brainer given the way Enzo likes to play, but we'll do very well to get him - there will be a lot of interest in him on a free after the season he's had. I'm not personally convinced by O'Hare, but I'd be happy with Sensi as an addition to the squad provided we're not planning to rely on him playing week-in, week-out...

I don't get the impression Maresca is demanding the removal of Rudkin, but rather additional roles in support of the first team. I think Top will go as far as he can to accommodate him because Maresca was Top's choice and he will be very keen to keep him - especially as he has delivered exactly what was asked of him in his first season. I suspect anybody hoping for an announcement of Rudkin's departure will be disappointed, but I do believe we will see a number of additions to the managerial structure this summer to give Enzo the support he has asked for. Just my sense.

If he is realistic about our financial constraints and mainly want changes to the support set-up and personnel around the squad, I think he’ll get his way and will stay. It doesn’t sound like he wants to leave.

I think there is a lot of truth in this. A few years ago a study from Cambridge University found that people who tend towards extreme views may simply have brains that are wired differently. According to a Guardian article covering the study, researchers found that "people with extremist attitudes tended to think about the world in black and white terms, and struggled with complex tasks that required intricate mental steps". Another finding was that "people with tendencies towards extremism appeared to be not good at regulating their emotions, meaning they were impulsive and tended to seek out emotionally evocative experiences." Seems plausible to me.

We’re obviously going to spend some money when the new accounting period begins on 1 July. The club has no intention of getting relegated again and it knows it will need to spend money to avoid that.

I would absolutely love it if, having successfully argued that the PL/EFL had no right to impose a deduction on us last season, we then argue that they have no right to punish us next season because in reality we should have been dealt with last season.

Hull fans seem gutted about it. They did not see it coming at all.

They have to get there first.

Our deal with FBS was apparently worth £10m per season, which wasn't bad for a club of our size. I would hope any new deal would be north of that.