WALMOT

The Wendies doing a Derby and Villa with the owner buying the ground. From the BBC football website:- Sheffield Wednesday sold their Hillsborough stadium for about £60m to owner Dejphon Chansiri to try to ensure they did not breach spending rules. Sheffield Wednesday Football Club Limited sold the ground for a profit of more than £38m, helping them record a pre-tax profit of £2.5m for 2017-18. The accounts say an "income" of £61.2m is to come from "related parties". Chansiri, their only active director, had previously said the club broke financial rules by "eight figures". Without the sale of the ground, Wednesday would have posted a pre-tax loss of £35.4m. Thai-owner Chansiri, who in June set up a new parent company - Sheffield Wednesday Holdings Limited - registered in Hong Kong, said in December 2018 that he was putting the club up for sale and admitted they had "problems" with the English Football League's profitability and sustainability rules (previously known as financial fair play, or FFP). Both Derby County and Aston Villa have also sold their stadiums to their owners, who in turn have leased them back to their respective clubs, in recent months to help meet the spending rules. With information on Hillsborough at the Land Registry showing the ground is still registered to the Championship club, football finance expert Kieran Maguire from the University of Liverpool said Wednesday should "clarify the situation". He told BBC Radio Sheffield: "Wednesday needed to sell Hillsborough as they certainly would have breached financial fair play (rules) and been subject to a points penalty." Spending rules in the Championship allow clubs to lose as much as £39m over three years. In the previous two years, the Owls recorded combined pre-tax losses of more than £30.5m. Birmingham City were deducted nine points by the EFL last season for breaching profitability and sustainability rules. Analysis Mike McCarthy, BBC Radio Sheffield There are some confusing things about the sale. I've asked Sheffield Wednesday when exactly it took place and they haven't been able to tell me. That immediately sets off some alarm bells. In December, Mr Chansiri told a fans forum the club had broken the financial rules by an eight-figure sum - so at least £10m. Now for the same accounting period, Wednesday are showing a profit. So if the ground had already been sold, or a contract was in place to sell it, why didn't Sheffield Wednesday tell anyone about it at that fans forum and put fans' minds at ease? And why does the land registry still show Sheffield Wednesday as the owners of Hillsborough if it was sold months, possibly years ago? Already we understand Sheffield Wednesday are working under a soft transfer embargo - that means they can sign some players, but they can't go big on transfer fees or wages. And, long term, selling the stadium doesn't help much. You can only do it once, and that means Sheffield Wednesday's next accounts are likely to show another big loss. Without the stadium sale they'd have lost £35m this time. So they still have to cut costs, and that has begun this summer with the release of half a dozen players from the first-team squad. But there's probably a lot more work to do.

Allan Clarke can still recall vividly meeting Johnny Haynes for the first time. Still four months short of his 20th birthday, Clarke had left the family home in Short Heath to start a new life in London, after being signed by Fulham for £37,500 from Walsall. “I remember my first day, a Friday,” he says. “I walked out in the corner of the ground and there he was. “When I was growing up England matches were on Wednesday afternoons and I used to pretend to be unwell so I could stay at home and watch. “Johnny Haynes was a regular in the team. Now here I am playing with him. “He called over to me and said: ‘Clarke, I’m going to take three corner kicks, you tell me which part of the goal you want me to hit’. “I think ‘go on then’ and the first one I say: ‘Near post.’ “He takes a few steps back, runs up, bit of curl on it and BANG,” says Clarke, clapping his hands together as he says the final word of the sentence for added effect. “That’s impressive. Second one, I say ‘crossbar’ and BANG. Two out of two. “Now it’s the last one and I say ‘near post again’. BANG. Incredible. Just incredible. What a player.” The memory is among thousands which remain rooted in the mind of a man fascinated by footballers from an early age and who never wanted to be anything else. “I’m the little boy whose dream came true,” adds Clarke, whose illustrious career saw him become a key component of one of English football’s most famous teams at Leeds United. Now aged 72, it is fair to say the admiration he holds for his contemporaries is not reserved for many stars of the modern game. “I find a lot of football nowadays quite boring, I think the money has ruined it,” he says. “In my day it was a more level playing field. Look at Manchester City. They are the best team because they have spent the most money. “But I’ll tell you this, for all those millions they have had to pay to get those players at Man City, plus all those millions they have to pay them, that great Leeds side I was part of would bury them alive. We were better players.” He explains: “It’s all about touch and control. In our day, we stopped the ball dead. Our team at Leeds was a league team but we were all internationals.” Clarke will always be most closely associated with Leeds, the club where he scored 151 goals and won the league, FA Cup and Fairs Cup. But he is very much a product of the Black Country and remains proud of his roots. After all, it was here his talent was first nurtured, on the council pitches of New Invention. One of five brothers to play professionally, Clarke was an Albion fan growing up in the 1950s, yet it was actually Molineux where he spent most of his Saturday afternoons. “It was three bus rides to The Hawthorns from where we lived. But just one to Wolverhampton,” he explains. “To be fair, Wolves were the best team of the decade. I watched some great players. “Bert Williams, Billy Wright, Jimmy Mullen, Peter Broadbent, little Johnny Hancocks – I reckon he had a shot as hard as Peter Lorimer. “I used to go behind the goal, in the North Bank and I would watch the strikers for both teams. Then I would catch the bus back home to Short Heath and would be straight out on the council football pitch, practicing what I had seen. My mom could watch us from the kitchen window. We lived and breathed on there.” Those familiar with the image of Clarke as the tall, slender striker might be surprised to learn that for much of his childhood he was among the shortest in his class. “When I left school at 15 I was four foot five,” he says. “I’d play for South Staffs boys, bang in three or four goals and the newspaper reports would refer to me as Tiny Clarke. “I remember my dad telling me that when I left school, I would start growing. And I did. “When I was a trainee at Walsall I would go to bed at 8pm every night. When you are growing that quickly it saps your strength. By the time I was 19, I was six foot.” Growing pains didn’t denigrate Clarke’s eye for goal. He scored 23 times in his first full season after breaking into the Saddlers first-team and had 14 before Fulham made their move in March, 1966. “I would have loved Wolves, West Brom or Villa to come in for me. But it didn’t happen,” he says. “Fulham was good for me but the club was not ambitious enough. “It wasn’t about money. I wanted to win a trophy. The directors there were quite happy just to stay in the First Division. Well, that wasn’t good enough for me. I wanted to go and win things.” Clarke would eventually make it to Leeds via one season at Leicester. Things could have turned out very differently, however, had he accepted an offer to join Manchester United when they came calling in 1968, offering Fulham a then British record £150,000. So keen was Matt Busby to acquire Clarke’s services, he and assistant Jimmy Murphy travelled to London to meet with him. “I was told to go up to King’s Cross. I can see them getting off the train now,” he recalls. “They pointed to a taxi, so we got in they told the driver to just go around London. So that’s what we did. With them telling me about Manchester United.” Clarke, however, turned them down, instead choosing to join Leicester after being struck by the personality of their manager, Matt Gillies. But Gillies resigned just six months later and in the summer of 1969, after Clarke had been voted man-of-the-match despite the Foxes losing the FA Cup final to Manchester City, Leeds boss Don Revie came calling. “He came to my house and it was obvious he’d done his homework,” says Clarke. “Leicester were paying me £100-a-week and he asked me how much it would take to get me to Leeds. “God’s honest truth, I asked for £10-a-week more and he wouldn’t give it to me. He said all his players were on the same wage. Who was I to disbelieve him? “I signed a two-year deal at Leeds for the same money. Do you think any players would do that today? “But I wanted to play for Leeds and the rest is history. It was only when I got there I realised I had been told a bare faced lie. There were players on more. “But I didn’t go knocking on his door. I thought right, I’ll show you how good I am. “The first season I scored 26 goals. The next I got 27. Then I asked for a big rise and got it. By then I’d earned it.” You don’t really need to listen to Clarke’s words to sense the fearsome pride for what was achieved at Leeds, merely the tone of his voice. Revie is never mentioned by name, always “the gaffer”. “That’s the respect I have for the man,” says Clarke, who adds: “Every morning I wake up, I think of Billy Bremner.” Leeds a powerhouse, though they suffered their fair share of heartbreak, finishing league runners-up in each of Clarke’s first three seasons. There was also defeat to Bayern Munich in the 1975 European Cup final and two Wembley defeats in the FA Cup. “If you wanted to win anything, you had to get past us,” he says. “Yes, we should have won more. But back then it was a more level playing field.” There is a pause and a sigh, before he continues: “It was special. The fans were phenomenal. Unbelievable. “I don’t want to sound big-headed but when you look at it now, Leeds is one of the biggest clubs on the planet. “The gaffer, with the help of us players, put that club there. In many respects it was easy, playing with those players.” Clarke, who was also capped 19 times by England and played in the 1970 World Cup, is not afraid to talk about his own talents. “Your great strikers, I put myself in that category,” he says. “I was born with that gift. No manager can teach a player how to score goals. You can teach a lad how to defend. You cannot teach them how to score, that instinct. I had the gift. So did Jimmy Greaves and Denis Law.” Clarke believes no club would have been able to afford the combined wages of Revie’s Leeds team, had they played in the modern era. “I’m not envious of the money the players get now,” he said. “People say: ‘By Christ Alan, if you played today you would be a multi-millionaire. But I played in the best era, with and against great players. It was never about money for me.”

Nottingham Forest have sacked manager Martin O'Neill, replacing him with former France international Sabri Lamouchi as their new head coach. O'Neill, 67, won two European Cups with the Reds as a player and returned to the City Ground as boss in January. Forest were four points outside the Championship play-offs when O'Neill took charge but he was unable to guide them to a top-six finish. Lamouchi, 47, has previously had spells in charge of Ivory Coast and Rennes. He was capped 12 times by France in a playing career that saw him feature for Monaco, Parma, Inter Milan and Marseille. Forest said that he will be "assisted by six new members of staff". O'Neill, who made 371 appearances for Nottingham Forest as a player, won eight of his 19 games in charge of the club after replacing Aitor Karanka. The former Leicester City, Celtic and Aston Villa boss had spent almost six years out of club management prior to taking over at Forest. Alongside assistant Roy Keane, who left the club last week, he guided Republic of Ireland to the last 16 of Euro 2016 before leaving in November 2018 after a poor Nations League campaign. In a short two-sentence statement on the club website, Forest said they "would like to thank Martin for all his efforts during his time at the City Ground and wish him well for the future". Another club legend departs A Nottingham Forest legend, O'Neill was seemingly back at his spiritual home when he took over at the start of the year, with his appointment a popular one among many supporters. However, much like the fate of former Reds skipper Stuart Pearce, another idol of the Trent End who lasted just 32 games in charge, he exits the club prematurely - before any tangible impact can be observed. He first joined the Reds in 1971 and went on to play 371 games, winning league championship and European Cup medals as part of Brian Clough's all-conquering side of the late 1970s. His understanding of the club ensured an immediate rapport with fans - despite mixed results - and this summer was expected to see the squad shaped in his mould. Instead, the departure of assistant Keane came out of the blue last week and has been swiftly followed by O'Neill's exit. O'Neill's greatest successes have come with former Forest team-mate John Robertson as assistant, but the old combination has been absent for his past three roles at Sunderland, the Republic of Ireland and now Forest, all of which have ended in disappointment.

Sky's new darlings 1st cup tie to be shown live. Leeds United’s Carabao Cup first round tie with Salford City will be shown live by Sky Sports. The fixture will take place at Moor Lane on Tuesday 13th August (7:45pm).

Seems strange that Monk goes but his backroom staff all remain in place, with Pep Clotet taking over as manager. Think this will backfire as Clotet seems to be a good number 2 but when he took over Oxford as manager he was dreadful and nearly relegated them.

Former Leeds United midfielder Lee Bowyer's Elland Road return next season is back on, after the Charlton Athletic manager penned a new contract with the club less than 24 hours after the Addicks issued a statement saying they were unable to reach an agreement. The 42-year-old, who began his career at The Valley before moving to West Yorkshire in 1996, has now signed a one-year extension to confirm that he will remain with the newly promoted Championship outfit until the end of the 2019-20 season. Bowyer, who initially took the reins in March 2018 on a caretaker basis, led Athletic to the second tier this year with victory in the League One play-offs. “We went on a real journey last season," the former Whites man said in a statement. "The club came together - the players, the staff, the fans and we achieved something special. The journey hasn’t finished yet and I’m delighted this has all been agreed. “This has been a long process and I never wanted to leave, I love this club. I’d like to thank the owner for giving me the initial opportunity and now for continuing to believe in me. “We have a fantastic fanbase here and my focus continues to be getting our squad in the best possible shape for the Championship next season.” Bowyer had previously been unable to reach terms with the club and as recently as last night, Charlton issued an erratic statement that suggested his tenure was over. "Charlton Athletic have been unable to reach an agreement with manager Lee Bowyer regarding the extension of his contract," the club posted on Monday afternoon. "The fact the club is for sale has not helped with finding an agreement. The current owner needs to take into account that a new owner may want to appoint his own manager. However, this concern did not stop the current owner proposing a contract extension of one year to Lee Bowyer, even though the club may be sold in a few weeks. Under those circumstances a multi-year extension would not be good business practice." But that statement appears to have been the catalyst for action, with an agreement being confirmed early on Tuesday morning.

Hull City go back to the 90s with Umbro:- https://www.hullcitytigers.com/hull-city-reveal-new-2019-20-home-shirt/

Thursday 20th June at 9am.

From the Guardian today by Barney Ronay Tommy Robinson made an appearance in Guimarães on Thursday night and there are reports of England fans chanting his name in bars but together we can fight this influence ‘This is not just pride or celebration. It is certainly not sport. It is identity politics, planted in whatever ground it can find’. Illustration: Matt Johnstone Back in the mid-1980s, when English football was a wild, rust-caked, occasionally frightening place, a group of Leeds United supporters noticed that the National Front had gained a small but significant foothold around Elland Road. Football was seen as a fertile seeding ground for far-right politics. On matchdays the NF had begun to sell its magazine, Bulldog, outside the ground. They became a visible presence, gained a little traction, took a share of the day. Eventually there was a reaction. Rob Conlon wrote an excellent article about this on the website Planet Fútbol a couple of years ago, recalling the founding of the fanzine Marching Altogether, which staged its own counter-campaign. Tommy Robinson filmed punching man outside England match Marching Altogether was funny and waspish. Its goal was to mock, challenge and ultimately reduce the racists. The club weighed in. Howard Wilkinson was a vocal supporter of inclusion not division. Vinnie Jones went out to pubs in the city’s mixed areas and met the locals. It was not perfect, of course. But football did stand up for itself. A line was drawn. And on that occasion they did not pass. Fast forward 30 years to the storm-soaked Atlantic coast of the Iberian peninsula and something else is stirring. Yes, it’s here again. England and abroad; the itch that never seems to get scratched. Happily there was no real trouble at the Estádio D Afonso Henriques on Thursday night. The Henriques is a sallow, low-slung corrugated hanger of a stadium. The England end was crammed with the usual flags and sheets and proclamations. They came, they stood, they sang about Gareth and coming home and being England till we die, which is a given in any case under current citizenship rules. Even a shameful crush at the train station passed, by all accounts, without incident. The England fans were just part of the spectacle. But the fear now is that they will be back and in greater numbers in Porto when England’s third-place game becomes just a sideshow for a weekend in the sun. There has been plenty said and written about the antisocial behaviour of some English people in Porto and Guimarães this week. There is general agreement on the main point . Standing arms-spread in a rococo town square, paunch straining out beneath a St George’s Cross vest, singing songs about bombers you never flew and Irish colonial fall-out you never studied at school, teeth bared at the centre of a sun-beaten, booze-addled face the shade and tone of a collapsed Halloween pumpkin: this is not a good look. Generally the tone has been either despairing or punitive. How did we come to this? And what are we supposed to do now? And yet there are of course things that can be done, because this is not taking place in a vacu Police patrol the Estádio D Afonso Henriques stadium in Guimarães before England’s Nations League semi-final against the Netherlands. Photograph: Carl Recine/Action Images via Reuters Tommy Robinson was also in Guimarães on Thursday night, dressed in a non-combatant’s camouflage jacket on the 75th anniversary of the D-Day landings and as ever up for the fight in every sense. He was as usual snapped and papped and projected across social media. This was not a random day trip. Tommy Robinson goes places in order to be Tommy Robinson. His presence is a political act in itself. It works too. The occasion responded. There are reports of England fans chanting his name in bars in town, not to mention sightings of those familiar political symbol The poppy has of course been borrowed extensively in recent times, a symbol of remembrance routinely added to football banners as a statement of patriotism. There are flags around referencing the 600-year old battle of Agincourt – not the real Agincourt, an expert military victory for an army of professional soldiers, but the propaganda version, first floated by William Shakespeare, of noble underdog Anglo-resistance to the evil beyond the water. This is not just pride or celebration. It is certainly not sport. It is identity politics, planted in whatever ground it can find. It is no secret where it is coming from, a spill over from a wider sore in the wider politics. The Brexit movement has long since been co-opted around England football (some travelling England fans were even seen heading pointedly through the non-EU queue at passport control: oh yes, that’ll teach ’em). It is of course a very small group of people we are talking about. There are broadly three main types of travelling England fan these days. First the large majority, who are just there to watch football and have a bit of a trip. On Friday lunchtime Porto was full of these England fans, shopping peaceably, eating in cafes, enjoying the sun. Second and far more visible is the new brigade. Here they come, the twenty-something dorks in shorts, the Generation Z football-casual on a spree: singing the songs, doing the walk, taking on the culture like a 1980s mod revival. It is hoolie-lite stuff, stag-do culture, boorish but not exactly sinister or organised. And finally there are the others, those for whom this is, however dimly grasped, a political thing: the ones in the EDL shirts, the ones who like Tommy. It is those moments when group three exerts a critical mass over group two that things might turn ugly; and when group one, the larger majority, can have an influence. The weekend will, hopefully, pass off with nothing more than a sing-song, some sunburn and a little light-to-moderate banter-vandalism. But this is not a random travelling show these days. There are those in our domestic politics who take an interest in football’s young male sub-culture. The story of Leeds and a hand-printed fanzine suggests it really is possible to reject this influence, that standing altogether can have an effect if there is genuine support at every level – from the FA, to the admirable Gareth, right down to the powerful, peaceful majority. This is about more than simply bad behaviour. Football has resisted before. Don’t let it pass.

Huddersfield’s prospective new owner Phil Hodgkinson has admitted a misconduct charge for betting on matches and been fined £1,500 by the Football Association. The case relates to 99 bets he placed on games between September 2015 and February 2019, during which time he was a football agent and a director of non-league club Southport. The matter could have derailed his Huddersfield purchase, as “participants” in the game are prevented from betting on football, but Press Association Sport understands the matter has effectively been closed and Hodgkinson’s takeover should be approved at the English Football League’s annual general meeting in Portugal later this week. Last month, shortly after the club’s relegation from the Premier League was confirmed, the Terriers’ current owner Dean Hoyle announced his plan to sell a 75-per-cent stake to Hodgkinson. Hoyle explained he was giving up control of the club after a decade because of ill health but he also said he believed Hodgkinson was the best candidate to build on his legacy. Since that announcement there has been no further news, with most observers assuming it would be a formality for Hodgkinson, the chief executive of legal services company Pure Business Group, to pass the EFL’s owners and directors test. But the reason for the delay can be found on the FA website, buried in a list of disciplinary charges for April. The note says Hodgkinson “breached FA Rule E8(1)(a)(i) in placing 99 bets on the result and/or progress and/or conduct and/or any other aspect of a football matches between 29 September 2015 and 19 February 2019…charge admitted – paper hearing requested”. The result of that hearing, which took place last month, was that the FA panel accepted that Hodgkinson was not aware of the ban until it was brought to his attention, the bets were small and they were not on games or clubs in Southport’s league. It is also understood that Hodgkinson told Huddersfield about the case at the outset of talks with Hoyle and has kept them informed of the situation throughout.

How much Championship clubs will receive in parachute payments this summer Cardiff £40m* Fulham £40m* Huddersfield £40m* Stoke City £35m** Swansea City £35m** West Brom £35m** * First year parachute payment ** Second year parachute payment

Delighted Andrea Radrizzani has issued a rallying call to staff, players and fans for next season’s promotion push with Marcelo Bielsa at the helm. The Whites have announced the Argentine has signed a one-year extension to his Elland Road deal with unfinished business in the Championship ahead. In a statement following the announcement, Radrizzani thanked everyone involved with the club for their role in 2018/19, which saw the club finish third. The Italian chief, who was linked with Qatar Sports Investments on Saturday night, also called on players, staff and fans to give more once again with the Premier League goal so close. “As the dust settles on the campaign that has passed, I can reflect and say it was a good season and I’d like to thank all fans, staff and all friends related to Leeds United for their continued support,” he said. “We were close and next season we will work harder to achieve our goal. “The players have made me proud every week and the staff at Thorp Arch and Elland Road have gone above and beyond day after day to ensure we are a well run football club at the heart of the community. “A special mention also for the academy and for their achievements over the past two years, the quality of the home-grown talent we have seen this year is outstanding. “Finally, the support from our fans has been the best in the country once again. “So, let’s have another go. I am delighted Marcelo has agreed to stay for another year. We have unfinished business. “Enjoy your summer and next year once again we all need to give more, the players, the staff and all of the fans because our goal is close.”

Leeds United are delighted to confirm that Chairman Andrea Radrizzani has officially exercised the option to extend Marcelo Bielsa’s contract for a second season. Marcelo has met with the Board of Directors on a number of occasions over the past few days and has confirmed his intention to continue on in his role of Head Coach. Bielsa penned a two-year deal with the Whites in June 2018 with the club maintaining the right to extend or terminate the deal at the end of year one. During Marcelo's debut season in English football, the team amassed a total of 83 points - the highest points total since promotion from League One during the 2009/10 season, playing an attractive brand of football which has helped Bielsa to become a popular figure amongst supporters. Vamos Leeds Carajo.

Andrea Radrizzani has hinted that Leeds United won’t be able to spend a lot over the upcoming summer transfer window, and will have to lean on their academy again. During the season’s near miss, Marcelo Bielsa handed senior debuts to more than ten players under the age of 21, including the likes of Jack Clarke, Jamie Shackleton and Tyler Roberts. The Italian has praised the academy for the quality of the players it produces, as graduates Kalvin Phillips and Bailey Peacock-Farrell went on to play a significant, regular role in the first team. Speaking at the Financial Times Business of Football summit in London, the Leeds United chairman sensationally stoked up his war of words with Derby chairman Mel Morris , but also spoke briefly about next season following the play-off heartbreak. “We will have to run a difficult summer in terms of transfer market but we have a great academy,” said Radrizzani. There has been already been plenty of speculation about the summer transfer window and the players that Leeds might be able to target, but high earners and established players such as Dwight Gayle are extremely unlikely to make the move to West Yorkshire. Clarke received rave reviews for his explosive impact midway through the season, while Shackleton impressed during the ill-fated play-off semi-finals. Supporters will be hopeful the pair of teenagers can play more of a role next season, but there are plenty more highly-rated names from Carlos Corberan’s league-winning Under-23s. Striker Ryan Edmondson, only just 18, scored 19 goals, while Leif Davis and Mateusz Bogusz may yet make the step-up after featuring on the bench for Bielsa’s side. Senior Leeds debuts given to players aged 21 or under by Marcelo Bielsa: Jack Harrison Jamie Shackleton Will Huffer Tyler Roberts Aapo Halme Jack Clarke Leif Davis Kun Temenuzhkov Clarke Oduor Jordan Stevens Huge belief in youth. Averaging an U21 debut every 3.1 matches

Jon Howe's Leeds live article:- Of the seven stages of play-off defeat recovery I am currently hovering somewhere between two and three, past the arbitrary yelping of obscenities in empty rooms, but nowhere near being able to objectively dissect what the hell happened last Wednesday night. This is still very much an emergency situation of blunt emotions and sticking plasters. Every Leeds United fan has been branded with the unshakeable hangdog appearance of someone who has been sucked in and spat out twice in less than a month. Navigating everyday life is an attritional introduction to the meagre joys of a nuclear winter. This is the worst hangover ever, with cognitive processes encumbered by the dense application of cotton wool to the brain. Even a cup of tea doesn’t taste nice, and for that, someone should have to pay. We want to be mad at Leeds United. On the list of heinous crimes they have committed in our lifetime this is not merely an irritable misdemeanour. This is not leaving the jam knife in the butter, this is buying us a ticket to the adventure of a lifetime and putting it through the 90C wash. Twice. This is a self-inflicted misery that would be laughable were it not so unyielding and unescapable. Leeds United really are relentless. They never relent. Then the problem comes in being eternally conflicted. Of course we also want to cuddle them. And there is the critical factor of separating the here and now from the long ball game we’re all helplessly embroiled in. While this season has brought countless moments of unprecedented joy, satisfaction and kinship, what was once paracetamol for the soul is all now reduced to the status of meaningless footnotes to another abject failure. The supporting narrative, the gulps of air we caught amid preposterous drama and the left of leftfield plot twists are what could have made up the best end-of-season DVD review ever. Instead we are left adrift and unfulfilled and raging at persons unknown that, if all this didn’t constitute a promotion season, I don’t know what on earth one of those looks like. The answer comes in looking at things in the round, rather than dwelling on the individual moments. Ruminating the apportionment of blame for Derby County’s first goal or the second half v Wigan Athletic is a fast-track queue jump to an existence of acute paranoia, cyclical anguish and daubing your bedroom walls in a dirty protest. Looking at things on the whole is the only way to safely navigate that transitional step from where we were 12 months ago to where we are now. Yes, right now, the thought of another attempt at promotion feels as palatable and utterly depressing as a documentary on what Neil Warnock thinks Brexit actually is. It feels too gargantuan a task, like your laptop has crashed four-fifths of the way through an online job application, and the enormity of starting again from scratch is something you simply can’t fathom. Why would we willingly go through this again? In fundamental terms, as football fans we have no choice, but also, there’s some comfort to be found in the general health of our club and certainly from the apparent willingness of Marcelo Bielsa to have another go. People find comfort in different things of course, but my football club in the hands of Marcelo Bielsa gives me an almost child-like warmth and security. Quite apart from the fact Bielsa’s football has offered me the chance to enjoy the primal rudiments of the game as if I was falling in love with it for the first time, his considerate and compassionate managing of every aspect of the footballing side brings a blanket of serenity, reassurance and refuge. As a child I would be allowed to stay up late on a Saturday night to watch Match of the Day and within five minutes of its end I would be tucked up in the safe, snugness of my bed as the Parkinson theme tune played from the TV downstairs. I can hear that music now and still feel the same drifting sense of calm. I had everything in life I ever needed. And having Bielsa evokes feelings like that now. Whatever life throws at you, everything’s going to be OK. It would be wrong to suggest Leeds United have the perfect platform from which to address next season. There are fundamental flaws that have contributed to why this season has ultimately failed. Recruitment has to be better and some tough decisions have to be made, but it is a long time since we have faced up to the interminable void of the close season with some confidence we might vaguely recognise what we are presented with at the end of it. Bielsa will bring some continuity where we have perpetually reached out for the reset button, even if there are key positions that have to be strengthened. This season might feel wasted in the sober light of day, but there has been a sea change in culture and outlook that feels more profound simply because it is Leeds United. To have an ambition beyond merely a positive goal difference is a novel concept in LS11, but that is what we have now, tangible progress from one season to the next and no earthly reason why that shouldn’t continue. Football works in cycles and every dog has its day. True, we have been bypassed by breeds of dog we didn’t even know existed, but when was the last time Leeds United made a credible and sustained attempt to join them? Our problem is one of fulfilment, delivering the goods and creating a culture of success. For that you need the sea change to also result in a different quality of recruitment. The 2018/19 play-offs have reinforced the notion Leeds United are the eternal bridesmaids. We might catch the bouquet, but we think it’s just a consolation prize, not the golden ticket to ensuring next time it is our day in the sun, but there is an inkling, for once, there is a plan at Leeds United, we can take what nearly worked and actually make it work. So it is okay to be mad and frustrated and consumed by anguish, but think about where we have been during the last 15 years, think about how we allowed ourselves to be hoodwinked into fanciful aspirations, think about how mediocrity was sold to us as acceptable for Leeds United. Think about how this is not the end for once. It is not wholesale change, new regimes and a new culture across the board. It is the end of the beginning. This is just the start. So think about that and be thankful we made it through.

Accountant denies knowing Blades' 'link' with bin Laden An accountant has denied knowing Sheffield United might be getting money from a Saudi businessman related to Osama bin Laden. Jeremy Tutton told a High Court judge analysing a control battle between the club's co-owners on Friday that the suggestion was "rubbish". The club's co-owners, Mr McCabe, 71, and Prince Abdullah bin Mosaad Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, a member of the Saudi royal family, have fallen out after starting to work together six years ago. Prince Abdullah has said the person behind a £3m sum was Saleh Mohammed bin Laden. He said Mr McCabe and his associates knew that, and claims the name was mentioned at a meeting in Dubai in 2017. Mr McCabe disputes Prince Abdullah's claims. The hearing is due to last several weeks.

Sheffield United Football Club was funded by a £3million loan from Osama bin Laden's family, a court has heard. A High Court judge is currently analysing a battle for control of the club between co-owners Kevin McCabe and Prince Abdullah Bin Mosaad Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, who is a member of the Saudi royal family. On the fourth day of the hearing a sensational revelation was read out in court, seemingly linking the newly-promoted Premier League club to relatives of the former Al Qaeda leader. It relates to an investment opportunity within the club which became known as Project Delta - a £3million loan that McCabe said would never have to be repaid. In court on Wednesday, McCabe and Abdullah argued about whether or not the money would have to be paid back, with the Saudi prince insisting it would have been paid back through sponsorship. But on Thursday, Barrister Andreas Gledhill QC, who is leading Abdullah's legal team, said McCabe "knew the money had come from another source, namely a member of the Bin Laden family," according to the Sheffield Star. The court heard of emails in which McCabe's colleague at a property business Jeremy Tutton mentions that he would hate the headline in the Sheffield Star to be "Blades launder money for extremists". Mr Tutton was also added to the board of directors at Sheffield United in 2017. McCabe dismissed this as "banter", but Mr Gledhill told the court the email confirms that the co-owner knew where the money was coming from. Mr Justice Fancourt began to oversee the trial in the High Court in London on Monday, but went into private session on Tuesday, after hearing lawyers representing rival camps outline their cases, and ordered members of the public and journalists to leave the courtroom. The judge gave no indication of what issues were being discussed behind closed doors, but said the public hearing would resume later. Mr Justice Fancourt has been told that Mr McCabe and Prince Abdullah control ownership of the club on a 50-50 basis. He has heard that 71-year-old Mr McCabe is "a wealthy Yorkshireman", and "lifelong" Sheffield United fan, and Prince Abdullah is a Saudi Prince and grandson of King Abdulaziz, the founder of modern Saudi Arabia. Mr McCabe was born in Sheffield, had long been associated with Sheffield United, who are nicknamed The Blades, and had invested about £100 million. He had met Prince Abdullah in 2013 after looking for new investors. They started working together after agreeing that Prince Abdullah would invest £10 million but "fell out" in 2017. Sheffield United Ltd, a company controlled by Mr McCabe and his family, has alleged "conspiracy" and "unfairly prejudicial conduct". UTB LLC, a company controlled by Prince Abdullah, wants declarations in respect of its rights under an investment and shareholders' agreement. The trial is due to last several weeks. Why are The Blades' co-owners in court? The two businessmen behind the running of Sheffield United are facing off in the High Court after their relationship broke down. On day one, Mr Justice Fancourt was told Mr McCabe and Prince Abdullah started to work together in 2013. The Saudi prince was first approached by Mr McCabe in 2012. By then, the Yorkshireman had reportedly sunk £70million into his local club and was looking for options to reduce the financial burden being put on him. Mr McCabe thought that Prince Abdullah was "minted", but their relationship soured when it transpired this was not the case, the court heard.The judge heard how Mr McCabe had long been associated with Sheffield United and they agreed Prince Abdullah would invest £10million. They "fell out" in 2017 and became involved in a dispute over control, the court heard. Sheffield United Ltd, a company controlled by Mr McCabe and his family, has made allegations of "conspiracy" and "unfairly prejudicial conduct" and wants damages. UTB LLC, a company controlled by Prince Abdullah, wants declarations in respect of its rights under an investment and shareholders' agreement.

Mansfield part company with David Flitcroft after their play off failure:- https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/48267475

1- 1 at half time. Tranmere lead 2-1 on aggregate.

In MB we trust.

Not according to this:- Meanwhile, defender Andrew Taylor - who is Bolton's Professional Footballers' Association representative - says players have still not been paid the wages they are owed for March and April. BBC Sport understands the PFA agreed to loan the club money to cover part of the unpaid wages earlier this week. But Taylor told BBC Radio 5 Live Breakfast: "We still haven't been paid for March and April. That's all the professionals - first-team lads and under-23 lads - and five of the first-team management. "I believe all the staff in the club haven't been paid any money for April and the hotel [at the stadium] is still shut as staff walked out due to lack of pay. "It's difficult times for everyone at the club."

Another MB epic press conference that lasted an hour:- Team news? Bamford won’t be in. We have a doubt with Tyler Roberts. The same thing with Stuart Dallas. About these two doubts we might have a positive outcome with Stuart Dallas. With the problem of Tyler Roberts it is more complex. Will they miss the play-offs? No, because they are not serious injuries. Bamford reaction I tried not to judge those who are here to judge us. It’s a fact Bamford simulated he received a kick. There is no point in talking about it. Anyway, you have conclusions that are important to underline. These kind of behaviours, conditions, situations, you can have in the future. In some way, in my work, I sometimes have the obligation to make justice. I mean I have to manage the interests of the players fighting for the same positions and sometimes I reward with a decision and punish with decisions. Why I have to take a decision to punish someone, I have in mind, a principle you always have to remember when you make justice: all the acts with the same nature must be judged with the same severity. This is a conclusion that offers this decision against Bamford. After the decision against Bamford, all the same acts have to be judged with the same severity. Otherwise the opposite of my principle is to punish but making differences. Important risk for those who make justice. I’m talking about myself because if I judge and don’t apply the same criteria for the same situation it’s not right. Another conclusion that is important, when we make a mistake you have to assimilate the details in the same conclusion. Punch becomes an aggression. According to the capacity of resistance of the one who receives the punch. If the the recipient is strong it’s not an aggression. If the recipient is not strong it’s an aggression. We can understand we can’t feint the punch when we receive it, but we can’t judge the strength of the punch based on the recipient. Obvious conclusion is if you punch someone and this person is strong enough it’s not an aggression and if you punch someone who is not strong, this is not an aggression. That is the conclusion. Another conclusion you can draw from this case, when the authorities on the pitch, referees, can’t judge what happened inside the pitch during the game, of course, regarding this episode, the possibility the referee makes a mistake, the same way when a referee is afraid of a mistake and asks for help to take the right decision, when we receive a sanction we are allowed to ask for help to solve possible mistakes of the referee. The referee can go to a commission and tell he needs their help because he had to manage many things during the game and we all know it’s not true. He knows he made a mistake and that’s why he asked for help to justify the mistake he made because he hadn’t made the mistake he would have found someone cheated, if he found out he would have red carded El Ghazi. As the referee made a mistake, he doesn’t say I made a mistake, he says I had to take into account many things and maybe made a mistake. This is not the case. Immediately after the game the referee knew he made the mistake. He asked for intervention of the commission saying he had to manage many things and maybe he made a mistake, and this is not true. Of course, these are my conclusions, I’m not discussing the decisions taken, but we have the obligation to describe the procedure of those who judge us. The conclusions are very clear: the ones I just gave and the system works like this. I’m not discussing it because I have to submit myself to their judgement, but not to criticise them. When the authorities take decisions they send messages we have to assimilate. All this interpretation you can find out by the decisions taken because they don’t give an explanation. They don’t tell the public how they reached their conclusions, but as those who have to respect the rules, we have the obligation to interpret them in order to not make the same mistake again. The messages are the three I gave: I’m not discussing anything. I have to say how we should behave again to avoid this again. Hopefully the conclusion of this boring explanation. I’m not saying I’m against the norms, I am interpreting the norms. The interpretation is an obligation I have for a norm which is not clear enough. We have 15 people here. If I’m wrong I would be thankful you tell me and there may be some details I am not aware of. I don’t want to make a mistake because all the conclusions we draw for what happened in the last game allow us to educate the public. I’m not saying the rules are wrong, I’m saying ‘these are the rules’. I wouldn’t like to risk describing, in a bad way, the rules. I want you to tell me if I’m wrong. I can be wrong. I went to the limits of the rules to draw these conclusions. It doesn’t mean you can’t ignore this aspect or your explanation is wrong because you haven’t accounted for these facts, If this was the case I apologise. What we can’t say is this is my interpretation and yours is different. Nothing changes if we say this. From the decision taken, the conclusion must be, if you receive a punch, if it’s a punch, if it’s just a push it’s different, you can’t analyse the strength of the punch. You know it’s a punch, not its strength. Measure the effect and the only one who can measure is the recipient. The conclusion from the decision means the player receiving the punch falls down it’s strong and if it’s not it’s not an aggression. When you punch someone, the conclusion from the decision, and it’s not strong it’s not an aggression, but if it’s strong it is an aggression. In this case, if the player is strong it cannot be an aggression and vice versa. You're never boring All that matters is if I’m right or wrong because when I communicate it’s important, not for our relationship, talking about you because of special respect for you. I feel free to tell you I’m not interested in your opinion, more the message you transmit to the public. Interested in your opinion in the case and, like I’m interested in others, because I have the hope if you don’t tell me I’m wrong, to allow me to exchange opinions, you’re telling me I’m right, but of course, there’s another authority. Another aspect. My job is not to argue with you. Imagine my ambition is to say all the people agree with me here, but it’s very hard to obtain this. Issue over transparency for all of us - Ipswich and Roofe ready? Yes. He’s fit completely. We can’t ignore the fact he has spent time without playing 90 minutes. Thank you As we’re clarifying things. The sanction I received of £200,000 is a financial sanction the club received. Sanction against the club and not me, but I’m responsible. That’s why I paid from my pocket. I never said this and I never said the opposite, what I’m saying now. I have never said if we don’t get promoted I won’t carry on my work here. I haven’t said I would leave or stay. I just said it was not the moment to discuss it. I just said it’s receiving the proposal and accepting or not. I would never say if we don’t go up I will leave because otherwise you would say the importance of this club is linked to the division it plays in. For me, this team and club are important in any of the top three divisions and I am not saying this with demagogy. I don’t want people to think I’m not thankful because after the year here I only limit my evaluation of Leeds to the fact they play in one division or the other, it would mean I am not thankful. Play-offs - thoughts on concept? We should put a limit somewhere. If the third place is promoted you will only have possibilities for three teams. With the play-offs you have expectancies for the two promoted and the four between third and sixth. I’m not the right person to make an opinion, but from what I saw I saw you have few teams with nothing to play for in the last games because many played for sixth or avoiding relegation. For me, it’s an unforgettable experience in this Championship because I discovered many pitches, many fans and lived many experiences. Analysed play-off opponents? There’s a big important head coach I admire and love, Edvaldo Berisso (?). He told me one day you take the risk of being paralysed because of the excess of analysis. I think I have responded with this. I always have more data than what I need. See what happened when I went through this data. Tempted to change? Every day. As I have been doing the same things for many years inside myself I can’t change it. When you’re old as me sometimes we tend to give advice as conclusions. The obsession doesn’t improve people it makes people worse. There is an ideology that links obsession with efforts and work. You know in which segment are the workers and those who make efforts and a class tells workers if you work hard you will get rewarded. Of course, the effort has a reward, but the message is not transmitted like that. This message is interested in one class to give to the workers. That’s why the obsession for the work is well done is as bad as the absence of effort. We do agree on Hourihane being ignored was wrong It’s clear why he was not cited by the authority because they treated the subject. It’s not it hasn’t been judged. It has. They think his punch was not an aggression. That’s why I make my conclusions because otherwise I would deeply mistaken. I don’t know what information you and the fans have, but I’m giving you my opinion based in the conclusion given by this commission this punch is not an aggression. As I accept the decisions of the authorities I explain from this conclusion I reach my own to say if the recipient is strong it’s not an aggression. This is the conclusion I reach based on their explanation. The only person measuring intensity is the recipient. Only think to evaluate is the resistance of the player and I’m going to tell you something I shouldn’t. This interpretation invites people to say ‘what is the conclusion you can reach?’ You should go to the ground with every punch, even if they just touch you and simulate the strength. The only way to get justice. At the same time, they sanction those who simulate, they invite people to simulate. Am I wrong? (No). I’m not saying that to strengthen my position, just to see if I am mistaken. On Lionel Messi's performance this week What could I say that hasn’t been said so far, if you want to talk about Messi? If I had to talk about Lionel Messi and say something new, I would put the picture where the ball goes through the goal and the position of the goalkeeper. You just have to feel admiration for this goalkeeper, because how did he reach this position? And by doing this thing, someone can say, ‘yes but he lacked a centimetre’. And at the same time he did that hundreds of times. So there is nothing new you can say. What are your conclusions of a year here? Christian, as you work in Argentina, I would love to give you two details to clarify things. In the Villa game, our players had a black band because they were mourning something. Jansson was not the captain, it does not change anything. It’s wrong to say Jansson was the captain and took this decision. The second aspect to clarify, the episode has nothing to do with the referee. We can’t link between the referee and the decision we took. What explains the rival was right is the moment of doubt we all had when Roberts stops playing and makes the pass. This episode, which is decisive, could not be sold by the referee. It made it easier for us to score a goal. Without this detail it would be harder for us to score the goal. There is something evident. How we would have felt in the rival’s position? That’s why we took the decision. Regarding your question: the English fan, all those in the pitch, those who work in the industry, we are all affected by it. Nobody is natural. We are all infected. Those working in the industry are all infected and the only pure people are the fans. The English fan is different to the fans in other countries. I don’t know how English society is outside football. What I am sure of is the English fan rejects undeserved advantages. All over the world, the extraordinary thing about the fan is, especially in Argentina, the unconditional love. This is not very frequent in other aspects of life. What I have seen here in England, the fan says, even if I love you a lot, I’m not ready to accept something if you don’t do sportsmanship. I don’t know if this is right. I don’t know about society in general when I put this concept in other aspects of not accepting undeserved things, but in football it felt like that. What do you think about Argentine football from afar, the national team, the clubs compared to his own experience? It’s difficult to evaluate it from outside it. I love Argentina and it’s football. It’s always means a lot to me Argentinian football keeps its importance. I’m full of hope because fans always love their clubs even more and care about their clubs even more. I have read the other day NOB sold 600,000 shirts. Maybe it’s not important for people here, but for someone who loves Newell’s it’s an expression of love for the club. In football which is professional here it might not have importance, but this fact is something moving because their sacrifice to buy the shirt is important. They only afford to buy the shirt by sacrificing many things.

Interesting article from the BBC football website:- Thrilling. Nerve-jangling. Dramatic. Play-offs are part of the furniture of English football, with an entire season's work coming down to one game in the quest for promotion. Or that is how it usually works. But Sutton Coldfield and Bedford Town are competing in this season's eighth-tier play-offs knowing they cannot be promoted, and could face each other in a final which neither could go up from. A Football Association restructure of the non-league pyramid means that of the seven play-off winners at that level, the two with the lowest points per game ratio in the regular season will remain in their current division. "How bizarre would it be if our two teams are in the final on Monday and neither of us can celebrate?" Neil Murrall, general secretary of Southern League - Division One Central club Sutton Coldfield, told BBC Sport. "We have the Walsall Senior Cup final on Tuesday (7 May), so our manager may want to put fringe or young players into the play-off final to keep the first-team fresh - it makes a mockery of the Monday game." Clubs were informed of the rules before the start of the season, with the restructuring "designed to cater for easier-to-understand promotion and relegation processes and address travelling times, distances and associated costs", according to the FA. "By having the temporary measures for the 2018-19 and 2019-20 seasons only it allows for a gradual restructure rather than causing too much disruption in any one playing season," explained the FA. However, that has not stopped some from questioning the unusual circumstances. "I don't think there would have been a good solution," said Murrall. "We're happy to be involved, but there's a bit of a bad taste knowing we can't go up." Sussex side Haywards Heath also went into the play-offs without a chance of promotion, losing their dead-rubber semi-final at Horsham on Monday. 'It's an absolute disgrace' Bedford said they are one of "several clubs" to have informed the FA and Southern League of their "disappointment" at the situation. They play Corby in their play-off semi-final on Wednesday and say they will follow an FA request to "uphold the integrity" of the competition. "The football world has already seen North Ferriby United and Thamesmead disappear this season, and uncertainty surrounds many clubs up and down the leagues including Bolton and Bury," the club said. "This opens up the possibility for a sixth or seventh play-off winner to be promoted, should the vacancy become available." Only eight of the 28 sides went into the eighth-tier play-offs knowing they would actually go up if they were victorious, including Cheshunt, whose manager Craig Edwards is nonetheless unhappy with the setup. "There's 20 teams that don't know, if they win the play-offs, if they're going up which is to me an absolute disgrace," he told BBC Three Counties Radio. "It says everything to me about the FA and the way they treat football at this level, they don't give a monkeys. They wouldn't do this at a higher level, they wouldn't dream of doing this in the Football League."