allani

Two teams who are good at exploiting space in behind the defence. I think we're doing the right thing but making sure we don't leave gaps at the back.

Decent half. Think we've had the better of the chances. Some of Konsa's passing has been "interesting" but I think both defences are slightly struggling that the midfield is pretty packed and so there are fewer easy out balls. Hopefully we can nick this 1-0.

Spurs have dropped the most points having taken the lead of any team in the top half. So conceding first isn't necessarily game over - but it would be really important to get the second. I'm not sure what to feel about this game - it could be 0-0, 3-0, 0-3, 3-3 or pretty much anything. Having beaten them at their place it's a bit of a free hit - important not to over-react if we lose. But a win would be huge. I'll be happy with a 1-1 I think.

Not sure that it is much of a formation change - more just a shuffling of players.

We did OK against Arsenal and Man City.

I was just reading one of the national papers and there is a whole thing in there about the Mayor of Manchester giving serious backing to the redevelopment of Old Trafford, the advantages it would bring to the city and calling on central government to get involved in funding some of the project (despite Man Utd being one of the biggest sports teams in the world - reputation wise). Whilst I know our redevelopment did get some coverage I don't remember there being anything like the political support from the city administration (it is possible that we did and my memory is failing me).

I don't think he will be coming as first choice. But I do think he'll be a regular member of the match day squad. There was just something about the way we signing him (and the way that Monchi operates) that makes me think that we believe we've made a bit of a transfer scoop rather than signed a development player. Fingers crossed.

That's what I thought.

Is that all the money it brings in or just ticket sales? I know the facilities aren't great in the NS to put it mildly (although to be fair I think it must be at least 25 years since I went in the North Stand so I am relying on respected third party feedback) but you would imagine that 7,000 fans should be spending a few more million in and around Villa Park on match days but even if that takes it up towards the £9m mark (which would be around £25 per person for 25 home matches a season) so closer to 4% income then maybe you are right that one its own it shouldn't break our FFP planning and so maybe I have over-stated this. Although by the same token even if we treble the income to £27m per year that still leaves us a long way short of closing the gap to the teams above us. But clearly an extra £20m per year is not to be dismissed lightly at all!!!! I still don't believe that NSWE would have allowed Heck to scrap the plans just because he didn't like it.

Agreed. Especially as the rules are there to improve sustainability (allegedly!) and yet here they are indirectly (or not) impacting decisions that would make it easier to do exactly that. Obviously the direct costs are exempt from the considerations but you'd think that it would be possible to fairly accurately calculate the indirect costs and make an allowance for those (after all most teams will have a decent record of historic attendances and average spend per fan).

Except the coefficient is amended based on the number of teams that enter. So each point gained is then adjusted by the number of teams in competition. So each win for Germany's 7 teams earns them slightly more coefficient points than a win for England's 8. (At least that is how I think it works but it's a bit complicated!)

OK. In that case yes - it is better to have 5 teams that will progress deep into the competitions they are in, than 8 where 3 teams drop out early and the other 5 progress deep (as I think the coeffecient points are pro-rataed based on the number of team who entered European competitions rather than the number left). I had been thinking more in terms of minimising the impact on our league campaign of playing more games than our rivals.

OK - this is a pointless conversation as you are completely ignoring the point that I keep making. Conversation requires listening as well as talking.

Agreed. But that isn't the point. The question is whether we can afford to reduce any revenue in the 2 years that EVERYONE is saying will be the two hardest seasons for clubs to hit their numbers because of the way that the rules are changing. Mid-long term it makes sense but we can't be throwing away 10 points for non-compliance or having to sell better players to balance the books. That would be an even worse decision.

FFP.

If it is a tiny hit in the short term to close the stand whilst it is being redeveloped why do you think it will be a game changer when it opens? The additional capacity is not double or treble what we'll miss in the next two seasons. I don't disagree with you that it needs doing - the question is whether we can afford to take the hit in the short term in the two exact years when FFP compliance is projected to be hardest to achieve (for all clubs). Mid to long term it makes sense absolutely (unless there are other thoughts). But that's not the issue. The issue is whether now is the right time when every £ matters over the next 2 years. After that we should be over the FFP hump caused by the news rules and be in a better position to consider options (even if they have a short-term hit).

More of our rivals also playing weekend - midweek - weekend and having to manage those extra games rather than being able to rest between league matches. Newcastle and Brighton have both struggled at times this season in part because of the extra matches they've had to play, the quick turnaround and the extra demands that puts on their players and squads. Emery's been able (so far) to balance this to an extent by us not having to play at the same intensity in our European matches - which will be more difficult next season assuming we qualify for either the CL or the Europa.

The direct cost of redeveloping / building a new stadium should be excluded from FFP (allowed exemption). However, the indirect "costs" for things like reduced capacity during any transition period won't be. I don't think we've got a problem with the £100m redevelopment costs - but it's the cost of reducing our capacity / match day income by 20% for 2 seasons that could impact on the FFP numbers (I think the actual cost of this is harder to calculate because of the way it seems like different income streams on match day feeds into the accounts). I suspect that there might also be a view that we could absorb that loss but let's say we also had a poor season then could we absorb two hits at the same time without unhinging the plan/strategy or being at risk of having to sell players at well below their market value and not being able to reinvest that money in replacing them. Hopefully if we can get a few good deals in place to follow on from Adidas then it gives us a bit more leeway to either invest in the squad or review the stadium plans. Ultimately, we will struggle to match the revenues of the "Big 6", Newcastle, West Ham and potentially Everton if we're getting considerably fewer bums on seats per match (unless of course we are playing more matches due to European / domestic cup runs). But at the same time we need to make sure that we don't end up with a half-full stadium that has significantly higher overheads that then become a millstone around our necks. I would be surprised if the latter happens given the population of Birmingham and the neighbouring areas where there isn't an "obvious", successful, local, alternative team.

I don't get why you think it is embarassing. Maybe poorly communicated - but again I think it's hard for the club to be completely honest about all the reasons as I suspect their are a few commercial, contractual and political (not club politics by the way) factors that either impacted the decision or might be impacted by it. I don't see how redeveloping a stand which will mean reducing our capacity significantly for two seasons (at a time when the FFP rules are tightening significantly) is feasible UNLESS we get explicit permission from UEFA and the PL for missing our financial targets. If we can't do that then effectively we're going to struggle to fund the loss in revenue during the redevelopment phase - and if we are not going to struggle I am slightly confused how adding more seats is suddenly going to mean we have a massive boost in revenue - without impacting on the current squad - i.e. having to sell players to cover the cost of the redevelopment (in terms of the revenue lost over those 2 seasons not the construction costs). I am hopeful that we'll significantly increase other revenue streams in the next few months (sponsorships / partnerships / etc) and maybe that will give us a bit more headroom so that the redevelopment can be reconsidered. But like I say it is difficult to see how we can redevelop VP to the extent that I think most of us would like without taking a revenue hit over an extended period UNLESS we can move to a temporary home (but there aren't exactly a wealth of large stadiums in the area who would be willing / able to host a PL team) and that's assuming that we could get a 55,000+ stadium onto the existing site with all the required infrastructure upgrades to the surrounding area that would be required.

Was he hurt? I only saw a close up of him on the bench a couple of times in the second half and both times he looked pretty relaxed and content. I was trying to work out whether his thumbs up at one point was to someone in the seats in front or whether he'd spotted that the camera was on him and was sending a message to us...

We could also have gone out there super-aggressive and conceded on the break, burnt out a load more energy ahead of the weekend and then had to play even harder next week to overcome a first leg deficit. A 0-1 away win in second gear would have been the perfect result. I think we've seen all season that there is very little correlation between a low tempo away leg in Europe and the following league match. I mean a win against Spurs, a comfortable 1-0 win at Villa Park in the return leg and our key players still having some gas in the tank for West Ham is much more likely than losing to Spurs and Ajax at home and away at West Ham. The biggest issue today was the red card for Konsa and so not having him available next week. On the flip side it means that he can play "full out" against Spurs and West Ham - which is probably good as he's just back from injury.

Almost spot on. 0-0 draw in second gear. A few players got a decent rest. Two youngsters getting starts in a big match. Nice position for the return leg. Players shouldn't be too knackered ahead of the weekend. The referee's performance was utterly bizarre. Zaniolo's booking was probably the most bizarre yellow I have ever seen. He protects the ball, gets fouled and somehow gets booked. And then 5 minutes later their defender catches Ollie in the face and doesn't even concede a free-kick. Hopefully the ref is nowhere near the game at VP. Kaplan looks like a good target for the summer. Good on the ball and decent in the air too.

Big game on Sunday. A 0-0 with few chances either way isn't a poor outcome.

Let's not forget (as you have pointed out in your previous posts on here) that some of the costs in our accounts were down to getting rid of Gerrard and his team and bringing in Emery and Monchi (I think estimated at over £17m all told). We're very unlikely to be sacking off our manager in the next couple of seasons so that's already a considerable "saving". Especially when you add in the increased value from the Adidas deal and potential / probable revenue increases elsewhere in areas where we've fallen a long way behind our rivals. I think there's plenty of reasons to feel positive about the future both on and off the pitch. Plenty of scope too for improvement and also a few areas where we need some pretty huge decisions in the not too distant future. But overall it feels like we're being run by people who know what they are doing, have a proper, well-thought through plan and are confident in their ability to deliver against their (considerable) ambitions.

We are backed by 3 billionaire owners and indirectly by a corporation worth almost $300 billion. There will be some huge opportunities to land some big commercial deals. Also worth noting that none of our owners have had to use debt to finance their purchase and NSWE have already seen a huge (paper) increase in the value of their investment. I am pretty sure we're going to be well backed and that we will see new deals land that significantly enhance our revenue position. Player trading will be a choice / strategy not a necessity.