Page 9 of 9

Re: Statement

PostPosted: Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:44 pm
by the boss
dog rout 21 wrote:
the boss wrote:
dog rout 21 wrote:
the boss wrote:Have I missed something :?:


Plenty 8)



so these rules don't apply to us :?: How far will the FL bend before they break 8)


eh?



this chappie from theFL said the new owner could fund the club for the 5 years away from the City even if no fans turned up. So how does this fit in with the 'spending only your income plan' they have for clubs :?: If there is no income, how would they pay for things like wages and the rest without breaking the rules :?:

Re: Statement

PostPosted: Mon Aug 19, 2013 6:54 pm
by AD
I've largely been without t'interweb for the last week. What's this story about the league admitting there have been some huge errors resulting in the administration essentially being a massive balls-up?

Re: Statement

PostPosted: Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:00 pm
by The Yid
I can only see a wage cap relating to revenue being implemented based on previous season figures. It couldn't run 'live' as you couldn't say a player can't play one week as you didn't make enough money. Likewise it couldn't work on forecasted revenue as clubs would make all kinds of shit up. So our wage cap might be based on last seasons revenue - which means next season if this isn't resolved we could be really fucked!

One question I was wondering is if sponsorship falls into the 'revenue' category for the purpose of FFP?

Re: Statement

PostPosted: Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:06 pm
by The Yid
AD wrote:I've largely been without t'interweb for the last week. What's this story about the league admitting there have been some huge errors resulting in the administration essentially being a massive balls-up?


Basically the error relating to where golden share was, and where players registered caused flaws in admin process. Bascially bidding for Ltd without knowing for definite what was in it. Might be opportunity to stop liquidation with new CVA and possibly even get points back??

The comments suggest that mistakes will have no impact on football team, but I was talking to someone and they said insolvency laws may force admin process to begin again.... but not sure if that will happen.

Re: Statement

PostPosted: Mon Aug 19, 2013 7:22 pm
by billythefish

Isnt he the same chap that was on the board for years yet knew nothing of what BR was up to or any of the details of the sale of HR?

Let's get this straight - I don't think JE is a massive loss to CCFC and he has some serious questions to answer himself. It is amazing he has this wealth of info about one thing but when it comes to other areas that require just as much, if not more. scrunity he's strangely quiet.

But that doesn't mean to say any info he does have should be ignored out of hand. At the very least it should be investigated and either debunked or accepted.

Just had a read of a statement on the club site about this, and basically says it's nonsense. But there is absolutely no explanation as to why the accounts of the two companies totally and utterly contradict this stance. Either the auditors, directors and finance dept are all totally and utterly incompetent or those in charge are lying. So which is it?


None of BR cronies (including JE) should be let near the club again IMHO. Like most people in football he will answer the questions that he can answer and not the ones he is asked. He and others at that time will hide behind confidentiality clauses etc.

I am all for investigation but at some point it will come back to what happened years ago and people will hide behind the confidentiality clauses etc. The whole picture will never be known and I am guessing that we will never know exactly what happened and why. Neither side will disclose fully and why would they? Its all PR stunts and smoke and mirrors.

Re: Statement

PostPosted: Mon Aug 19, 2013 8:10 pm
by Des
It's practically impossible to get a complete picture of events that happened this year. What chance of getting an honest appraisal of the Richardson era? More chance of finding out who killed JFK.

Re: Statement

PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 7:37 am
by billythefish
Des wrote:It's practically impossible to get a complete picture of events that happened this year. What chance of getting an honest appraisal of the Richardson era? More chance of finding out who killed JFK.

SISU did it!

Re: Statement

PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 9:35 am
by The Englander
The Yid wrote:One question I was wondering is if sponsorship falls into the 'revenue' category for the purpose of FFP?


Not sure if this is relevant to your question, but fairly sure the rules changed partly to stop, for instance(!), Man. City's owners from sponsoring the shirts for multi-millions so their FFP revenue wasn't artificially boosted....

As for JE, I've been told for a long time he's not quite as saviour-ish as he's been painted.

Re: Statement

PostPosted: Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:01 am
by AD
The Yid wrote:I can only see a wage cap relating to revenue being implemented based on previous season figures. It couldn't run 'live' as you couldn't say a player can't play one week as you didn't make enough money. Likewise it couldn't work on forecasted revenue as clubs would make all kinds of shit up. So our wage cap might be based on last seasons revenue - which means next season if this isn't resolved we could be really fucked!

One question I was wondering is if sponsorship falls into the 'revenue' category for the purpose of FFP?


I read it was based on a three year historical average, and thus easing any massive changes due to relegation. However, I think this is itself problematic as it effectively makes the Prem a closed shop, with any teams going up not being allowed to get decent players using the Prem league cash until the year after, by which time they've got hammered and gone back down. I guess the best they could do is offer massive bonuses and pay increases for the next year, hope they stay up and if not keep them to go for promotion the year after if possible.

But I do think it's better and more workable than using 'live' or projections, although I'm sure there will be ways around it, like advertising, wages not being paid as wages etc

Re: Statement

PostPosted: Wed Aug 21, 2013 4:54 pm
by Des
The Englander wrote: as he's been painted.


I thought it was his sun-tan...

Re: Statement

PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:41 pm
by Nick
Image

Re: Statement

PostPosted: Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:46 pm
by Nick
Image

Image

Image

Image

Re: Statement

PostPosted: Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:57 pm
by The Englander
[smilie=icon_mrhappy.gif] [smilie=icon_mrhappy.gif] [smilie=icon_mrhappy.gif] [smilie=icon_mrhappy.gif] [smilie=icon_mrhappy.gif]