I think you're right that for a Saudi citizen to make any money there they probably need to be closeish to the government. I thought their financial problems were cashflow - they couldn't make transfer payments that were due - but that's not an FFP issue as the limits would kick in when the transfer was initially concluded.

Saudi is a country where I suspect the founder will have an awful lot of grandsons. I think if this guy was now part of the government it wouldn't be the case that the club had run in to financial problems.

Yes, I think pretty much everybody recognises him as the most important footballer in the club's history, and given his length of service and success he can reasonably be regarded as the greatest figure in the club's history.

I think the distinction between the ownership of the two clubs is that it is suggested that the owners of Newcastle are a front for the Saudi government whereas nobody is suggesting that about Sheffield United.

Thinking about it, perhaps you were thinking of Jimmy Forrest who did play in all the FA Cup wins in the 19th century.

Harry, Bob Crompton wasn't in the FA Cup winning teams - although he managed the team that won the Cup in 1928 - but he captained the title winning teams of 1912 and 1914.

Having had a look at the fixture schedule it does look like that is the first available date.

Manchester United were formed as Newton Heath in 1878 and changed their name in 1902 so I don't think that's quite right.

The claim for negligence arising under the law of tort, which is separate from the law of contract, requires that the party being sued owes a duty of care to the injured party. I can't see how Blackburn Rovers could be regarded as having a duty of care to either Nottingham Forest or Lewis O'Brien.

Negligence is a concept governed by the law of tort where simply put a case can only be made where one party owes a duty of care to another. That isn't going to be applicable in this case.

Forest have put his career in to regression by signing him and then swiftly arriving at the conclusion they'd rather have Andre Ayew in their squad. I think to be sued by Forest we have to be in breach of contract. If say right at the last minute we had changed our minds and said we don't want him is there anything they could do then ?

I think to suffer financially we would have to have been in breach of contract and the other party would have to prove loss. That's not trolling - that's the law. It's obviously down to O'Brien that he hasn't made the grade at Forest. There was no guarantee that he would get appearance money with us.

O'Brien was passed over for inclusion in Forest's squad in favour of a 33 year old journeyman in Andre Ayew who had been playing in the Qatar league and hadn't scored a goal in the Premier League for 5 years. He would be better advised taking a long hard look at himself and establishing why Forest are happy to move him on after just half a season .He signed a long term contract with Forest so is not losing out financially.

They would have to prove loss to have a case against us.

All games off at the same time in those days so he wouldn't have known what was going on elsewhere. Law was an all time great.

Yes, I suppose I am a cut above...........

Not celebrating against your old club is another sign of a bit of class. That all time great Denis Law scored the goal that relegated Manchester United in 1974 but didn't celebrate.

I also want to see us win the FA Cup but as no team from outside the top flight has done so since 1980 I think getting back in to the Premier League gives us the best chance.

Those 3 players you mention in the last line of your post were all "chucked in" for our win at West Ham so it doesn't have to be a case of holding the white flag aloft.

We would have to prove loss - which would be difficult.

The manager must prioritise the game on Saturday over this one which should mean several fringe players are selected - as they were for the win at West Ham.

Will he know yet what budget the owners want him to work to ?

No, the statement says the deal keeps him at the club "until at least June 2024" which could be interpreted to mean that there are provisions in the contract to keep him longer. Perhaps I have missed something but I can't see anything in the club's statement above that contradicts that as a possible interpretation.

I think it is based on the statement that he is with the club until at least June 2024 which does imply that there is an option for longer.

If he's here until 2025 if we want him to be there's hardly any rush and why distract him now with contract negotiations when he should be focused on his football. Leave it until the end of the season.