ClaphamFox

I guess Lisbon’s changed a bit, then?

If Rowett has any sense he’ll take account of how starting with Ayew will go down with the crowd, and the impact that will have on the atmosphere in the ground, and choose somebody else instead.

Isn’t it widely accepted that in high pressure situations (eg, a relegation scrap), having time off to recharge and avoid mental fatigue can be highly beneficial? I’m not convinced that making him go to Seagrave every day, even when the players aren’t there, will achieve all that much.

On Monday Portsmouth play Oxford and Blackburn play West Brom. So it’s impossible for all our rivals to win both of their games over the Easter weekend

Yes, it seems the club is trying to claim £46m in add backs in order to be compliant, which seems implausibly high. Various media reports have repeated the line that we've '"filed a PSR compliant submission" for the period, but it's not clear whether this submission has been accepted as compliant by the PL/EFL or we're just saying we're compliant and acting cocky about it as part of our defence strategy against a future charge...

This is from a Mercury article published yesterday: "However, while substantial, the loss is not expected to cause issues around Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR), with the club having filed a compliant PSR submission for the season. City received a six-point deduction for exceeding the loss limit for the three financial years ending in 2024. "The 2023 season saw them record a PSR loss of £63.8m but the 2024 season saw them post a PSR profit of £6.1m. It means that, once addbacks are included, City can post a PSR loss of £25.3m for these accounts, ending in 2025, and still meet the £83m loss threshold for the three years combined."

He will be if we stay up.

Sure—that may be the case. But I was referring more to the fact that the club has explicitly stated it was PSR compliant for the period and that most media outlets seem to believe it. Whether it’s true or not is another matter.

Observing that the club & large sections of the media believe we’re PSR compliant for 24/25 is not the same as saying a £70m loss is ok. You can be PSR compliant and still be in a terrible state financially.

The club is a shambles. We’re an object lesson in the stupidity of hereditary rule. I think we’ll probably scrape survival this season because I have a feeling Rowett will get us there, but I have no confidence in our general direction while Top is in charge.

What the **** are you going on about? Where have I said I’m on board with a £70m loss? What makes you think I don’t think a £70m loss is bad? Please feel free to quote me if I’ve said any of these things. Or were you just making them up? My only comment has been about the PSR situation, and all I’ve said on that is that the club has apparently submitted a PSR compliant filing for 24/25. Whether the PL accepts that filing at face value is another matter.

The club has literally filed a PSR compliant submission for the period in which we incurred the £70m loss. I don’t see how mentioning that fact is being ‘selective’…

I’m not faulting Borson’s logic, but the club has apparently filed a compliant PSR submission for last season and the media seems convinced that no more charges will be forthcoming. So there seems to be sharp disagreement on this matter.

Well it seems that we may actually be fine for PSR for 24/25 despite the £70m overall loss, so Tanner was right. It was my mistake for taking his comments on PSR to mean our accounting losses would be lower.

This is what I thought but apparently it’s not true. The option is ours to exercise or not—JJ will have already agreed the terms.

“Wales international Jordan James is having a scan after being taken off in the World Cup play-off semi-final against Bosnia and Herzegovina on Thursday night, but the initial diagnosis is not thought to be serious.”

Last year it was 10am (yes, I'm sad enough to have actually checked). If it is going to be today it will indeed be a late one...

I know

This sounds more plausible.

That was when we were throwing money at trying to get into the Champions League. In 24/25 we didn't even spend the money to stay up. And back to @jammie82uk's point, it would be very odd for the Independent Commission to reduce our PSR points deduction from seven points to six because of the "positive financial trend" we've demonstrated only for us to post a £70m loss a few weeks later.

Rob Tanner was on the BTG podcast yesterday saying that everything he has heard suggests that the club has finally got its finances under control from a PSR perspective & that we're in position for a proper reset. Obviously the headline accounts are not the same thing as the PSR position, but they are closely related. And it would be surprising to report a loss of £19.4m for the Championship season then report a whopping £70m loss for the 2024/25 PL season when our income would have been much higher and we spent very little on player acquisitions.

I very much doubt that it is.

I bet you're fun at parties

And what did they brief the press?!

Bit strange. They're not getting in the play-offs and nor are they going down. Why now? https://x.com/JPercyTelegraph/status/2037477797128437908?s=20