Saint Pete

I agree if West Ham have a dip for a few games it is very likely the fans will turn on the manager just as they have with previous managers. So I definitely don't think then going up in the top 2 is the done deal that some seem to assume.

Save from the rebound was outstanding.

Good result to start the weekend. 👍 We can narrow the gap to West Ham to just 3 points if we win Sunday.

Thank goodness it's finally done and surprisingly a pretty sensible outcome from the FA, albeit has taken them a ludicrous amount of time to get there. Vindication also for the Dragan's decision to stick with Tonda, we have had a reasonable if not prefect start to the season given the distractions and now we can look forward again. Time to move on now, ensure that lessons have been learned and focus on what really matters starting at the weekend and then on to improving our poor away record.

My sources tell me we are now being linked with Frank Sidebottom. Might be bobbins though.

This is the main bit that probably explains the majority of the £900m quoted, "sponsorship" contracts that were basically a means of City's owners paying massive amounts of money into the club against the rules:- "The independent Commission found that Manchester City arranged ‘sham’ commercial deals with a number of its sponsors during the period, which were part of a disguised funding scheme, whereby those companies were only required to pay a portion of the relevant sponsorship fees. The remainder was funded by Abu Dhabi United Group Investment & Development Ltd (ADUG), which owned the club. As part of the scheme, further ‘sham’ arrangements, funded by ADUG, were entered into to enable the club to record lower operating expenses than it actually incurred, as well as a ‘sham’ circular arrangement with Fordham, an entity that purchased the club’s players’ image rights, that was funded by ADUG."

On the face of it, they have to throw the book at them after what they have said there, you can't sweep £900m of artificial income and the advantage that has given them under the carpet surely! But let's see what the Premier League do next and what further legal hurdles City can put in their way. This bit in the PL CEO's statement made me properly laugh though:- “It is a key responsibility of the Premier League to ensure that the Rules, approved by the clubs themselves, are upheld to protect the integrity of the competition. It is paramount that the League remains competitive and fair for all clubs and for the fans. We take that role extremely seriously." If that is their responsibility, they have utterly failed in it as they have allowed this situation to continue and completely ruin any notion of fairness and integrity in the competition for a decade!

I think that's quite likely, think with City it was also mentioned there was supposed to be a non disclosure agreement on both sides (obviously not adhered to by someone in that case!), so there may be similar with Tonda until any appeal has been heard.

Portugal leave Ronaldo as unused sub on the bench tonight and lo and behold they beat Norway 2-1 away!

There's that but then why pursue them in the first place and bother to charge them 115 times? I think the Premier League wanted to go after them in this case, but the issue with the big rich clubs is the fear of litigation, which often results in them bottling out of implementing serious penalties on them.

Don't think that's what they want though, they want to be noticed! If anything, might mean they delay their announcement longer now?

BBC has picked it up now, main headline on BBC Sport and BBC news sites.

Yes, right decision to stick with him in my opinion. And I still think a more sensible ban length of say 6 to 8 games (which is still pretty harsh) we could cope with without getting rid, I'm sure the club knew a ban of some sort was more likely than not. If the worst happens and it's a ridiculously long ban, then I guess what happens next will hinge on appeals process and whether he can still continue while we appeal (if we do). Doesn't mean we have handled the situation well in other ways though.

Let's hope our guys are switched on enough to argue it that way if FA start using the Canada precedent and talking 12 months as if that is fair.

If he gets even a 6 month ban, it seems laughably extreme. It could have the EFL thinking they should review their punishment on the club again, as that starts to look lenient in comparison!