Jackie Broon

There's only one United on this forum.

They've put in £400m on the books already, plus potentially other off the books stuff like the Sela Adidas partnership and associated party sponsorships. If we are an investment we're probably past the peak already, and they'd currently need to get £700m just to break even on the on the books investment.

I'm sure FMV rules will remain in place but it's the detail of those rules, how fair market value is assessed, that is important.

It really depends on the FMV rules though, if they are relaxed it would make it much easier for us to grow our revenue. We've voted against every other change to the FFP rules since the takeover as far as I'm aware, if we've voted for this change there's likely to be something advantageous in there for us.

Game over for what? We're clearly operating within the rules, the club obviously have no intention of just breaching them and taking the punishment. The goal is and always has been to grow our revenue to the point where we can compete financially with the top 6.

Where have you got it from that there would be no acceptable losses? The UEFA rules, which the PL will apparently mirror, have allowable losses of up to £78m over 3 years, which is slightly lower than the PL's current £115 over 3 years but it's not no losses. The likelihood is we've been working to the UEFA rules anyway, because we'll be aiming to be in Europe every year. The devil is going to be in the detail of what we can get away with in terms of related party sponsorships.

Nothing new or unusual, it's the seventh time they've done that: 07/10/2021 - £89.4m 09/11/2021 - £38.5m 24/01/2022 - £40m 26/10/2022 - £70.4m 10/02/2023 - £57m 22/08/2023 - £60m

No, the club runs at a loss so they need to inject money to cover that. They've periodically done that since the takeover, totalling about £400m.

And ticket prices, our most expensive season tickets are about the same as their cheapest.

Not as a result of the football regulator, even if they got rid the the PL's FFP rules clubs in europe would still be subject to UEFA's. The only way would be is if there's a successful challenge of the FFP rules which affects both the PL and UEFA rules. Even then, it would probably result in them changing the rules so they allow more scope to allow clubs to catch-up than it being a free-for-all.

Is this what you're referring to, at 8:50? She was responding to a question about where she wants to see us long term, Keith Downie says 5-10 years but she clearly isn't putting a timescale on it in her response. Across the whole interview she's actually pretty measured and talks about it being a long term investment, the need for patience and to work within FFP.

That's kind of my original point, I was replying to a suggestion that NDM being involved means we're dictating it from the background. Which it doesn't, Forest have just engaged one of the best from a very small pool.

It applies to all areas of law that barristers practice in as far as I'm aware. It's the other way around, the club can engage whoever they want but a barrister has to accept if they are free and it's within their knowledge and expertise.

Maybe, but NDM being involved doesn't mean anything specifically. There'll be a very limited pool of sport's law specialist barristers and the cab rank rule means they don't get to choose who appoints them.

They have a massive advantage from being in London. Also, timing is everything, if it hadn't been for us being terribly run post stock market floatation there would be a big 7 rather than a big 6, catching up now is a very different prospect.