Daggers Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March 31 minutes ago, coolhandfox said: Rich people rarely use their own money. Is this true @Finnegan? Whose money do you use, Rich bach? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BertFill Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March 33 minutes ago, coolhandfox said: Rich people rarely use their own money. Which is probably why they're rich. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuchsntf Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March 17 hours ago, coolhandfox said: It could be us, Everton and Forest all starting with -6 if we go up. It's an awful look for the PL; there's a real stain on their product. If so ..this stain is caused by the clubs themselves….Many fans missing this point. DONT blame FFP-EUEFA..PL,..championship…EFL-P&S… Like in all juridical Democrocies,Agreed laws are set down and in this situations the clubs have to abide,but also can contest any given set of charges.. The chaos is not from the organisations,but by Club bias media outlets,putting out their perceptions of charges & actions that their relevant club can be taken against them. Don’t forget the bias individual Journalist(s),who have the power of the press to lobby through that press their own opinion…which in turn fans incorrectly feed off. There is the stand up journalist who reports the given facts,then there are a bunch of them that shit stir around given permutations,and regurgitate through their various outlets,or competition outlets,that want to play one-up-manship on the permutations and not the facts.. instead of going on the Relevant arbitational parts of the Governing bodies sites we prefer has fans to read & take the bite on the clickbait…We are not any better. And a very big And, these discussions on our forums, are just bellowing forward, and forgetting all the cases are seperate in the various & different accusations. Everton accusations,do not Mirror our or Man.city’s,Ours do not mirror Chelsea‘s or N.Forests…And each individual clubs Lawyers will argue using first, different situations and different charges…then later discuss if similarities exsist. The fans forums are tending to run around the Mulberry bush by creating their own agendas without reading the Governing bodies given charges and Clubs status of which phases they have either gone through or will be taking.. For the media…it’s never juicy enough,so they throw in the easiest of curve-balls. Simple repetition of the charges & cases phases.Which then from forums creates their next snowballing got legs story… The human being is like a Mackerel…it always takes the bait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murphy Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March 2 hours ago, JimJams said: Said it before, we gambled on establishing ourselves in the money spots (European places) and it didn't pay off. Question is, would you rather gamble it and risk losing out or not take the chance at all and play safe? Did we though? Fact remains that when we were relegated, we sat bottom of the five year net spend PL table for all clubs that had PL status for that period. During that period, we have had the likes of Barnes, Thomas, Hamza, Chilwell and KDH all coming through for free and got our goals scored by a one million pound striker and saved by a one million pound keeper. I think that we had a great model that allowed us to compete. Buying potential such as Maddison and Fofana and selling an asset each year. When we were going for CL qualification, no one could accuse us of having 'bought it'. We regularly out performed money clubs. I think it went wrong because our recruitment went wrong. First thing Rodgers did was to overpay to sign Perez, which did not suit the model that had served us so well. I strongly suspect that was a Rodgers' deal. We had several terrible windows during Rodgers' tenure, compounded by spiralling wages for mediocre players that made them impossible to shift and allowing the contracts of our assets to run down. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysalis Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March 3 hours ago, CosbehFox said: The whole line of do have money to spend - questions the repeated need for liquid cash for the Australian bank Its also easy to lie when information is fed anonymously via the press. I dont consider it fact unless there is a credible name to the claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrysalis Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March (edited) 3 hours ago, st albans fox said: You would assume that the owners could loan the cashflow to the club rather than via a bank at commercial interest rates. however, it may be that owners are only able to invest the allowable amounts each season and anything else must be at arms length. The Macquarie stuff could be at very advantageous rates via agreements between themselves and KP ?? They can invest what they want, the restriction is the spending on first team activities (and what is claimed to be revenue). Edited 9 March by Chrysalis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimJams Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March 5 minutes ago, murphy said: Did we though? Fact remains that when we were relegated, we sat bottom of the five year net spend PL table for all clubs that had PL status for that period. During that period, we have had the likes of Barnes, Thomas, Hamza, Chilwell and KDH all coming through for free and got our goals scored by a one million pound striker and saved by a one million pound keeper. I think that we had a great model that allowed us to compete. Buying potential such as Maddison and Fofana and selling an asset each year. When we were going for CL qualification, no one could accuse us of having 'bought it'. We regularly out performed money clubs. I think it went wrong because our recruitment went wrong. First thing Rodgers did was to overpay to sign Perez, which did not suit the model that had served us so well. I strongly suspect that was a Rodgers' deal. We had several terrible windows during Rodgers' tenure, compounded by spiralling wages for mediocre players that made them impossible to shift and allowing the contracts of our assets to run down. I'm not sure the points you put forward do anything but back up what I said. We gambled because instead of selling off assets we tried to keep them with improved terms/wages to the point that our wage to turnover was one of the highest in the league. We had terrible windows because we changed the model, or at least the model just wasn't as effective because it only takes one or two signings for big money to go wrong for it to completely hamper your ability to improve the squad in following transfer periods. We gambled by changing what worked on the assumption that the current system wouldn't work at the level we were aspiring to be at. And tbf I think most people would expect that change. You don't expect that we could continue to unearth million pound gems on the regular that would be ready to compete at the top end of the Premier League so we spend more on supposedly more proven players and put our manager on an inflated contract to stave off potential interest and it collapsed. We could have sold the likes of Maddison, Tielemans, Soyuncu after great seasons and put that money back into the squad and tried to improve that way, but had we done that and ended with the same result, people would have said it was due to selling our best players when we should have broken the wage structure etc to keep them and the club would have been pilloried for selling our best players and lacking ambition. So we gambled on a change of philosophy, and fxxked up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Doctor Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March 4 hours ago, ALC Fox said: "Leicester have money but can’t spend it under PSR restraints, and could now face a points deficit at the start of next season as a result." - Rob Tanner, The Athletic Honestly that just makes it clear how much these rules aren't fit for purpose. If a company has money to spend it should be free invest it how it sees fit (provided that investment doesn't breach e.g bribery laws). Blocking teams from investing to compete is obviously anti-competitive laws and would be illegal under uk law as far as I understand it. I'd just love to see clubs like ourselves and others who get pinged on it challenge the legality of these rules. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fazzer 7 Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March How come the likes of Chelsea can spend whatever they like? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March 2 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said: How come the likes of Chelsea can spend whatever they like? They’re in trouble this season. - have to sell £120m of academy players to stand still in June 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March (edited) 15 minutes ago, The Doctor said: Honestly that just makes it clear how much these rules aren't fit for purpose. If a company has money to spend it should be free invest it how it sees fit (provided that investment doesn't breach e.g bribery laws). Blocking teams from investing to compete is obviously anti-competitive laws and would be illegal under uk law as far as I understand it. I'd just love to see clubs like ourselves and others who get pinged on it challenge the legality of these rules. We can spend what we like on infrastructure - it’s doesn’t count on psr given how we’ve spent on players last few seasons I guess the PL would say they’ve done us a favour by limiting that! Edited 9 March by st albans fox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthStandUpperTier Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March 4 minutes ago, st albans fox said: They’re in trouble this season. - have to sell £120m of academy players to stand still in June Which they could probably do with no bother. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March 17 hours ago, SouthStandUpperTier said: Just to pick you up on that. We didn't vote for it as we weren't in the Premier League when PSR was voted in (Feb 2013) 13 clubs voted in favour Man Utd Chelsea Arsenal Tottenham Everton Liverpool West Ham Norwich Stoke Newcastle Sunderland Wigan QPR 6 clubs voted against Man City West Brom Swansea Fulham Southampton Aston Villa Reading mysteriously abstained from the vote, which gave the motion the 2/3 majority required (13 votes out of 19) to implement PSR. Yep, you're right. I clearly hadn't done my homework! The point I should have been making, then(!), is that it looks like we've infringed and, while we can guess at where the responsibility lies (does JR involve himself much in the financial side of things? Does SW outrank him, or have any footballing responsibilities? Was there a failure to communicate the predicament to BR or Enzo which pulled the rug from beneath them?) ultimately it'd be the owners' responsibility. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see whether that's the case, or we get over the line. I know it's not a very enlightening assessment, but it just seems like a statement of the obvious. It's interesting to learn that their hands are clean, however, when it comes to the advent of PSR. Which is a crock of crap, for what it's worth. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthStandUpperTier Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March 3 minutes ago, inckley fox said: Yep, you're right. I clearly hadn't done my homework! The point I should have been making, then(!), is that it looks like we've infringed and, while we can guess at where the responsibility lies (does JR involve himself much in the financial side of things? Does SW outrank him, or have any footballing responsibilities? Was there a failure to communicate the predicament to BR or Enzo which pulled the rug from beneath them?) ultimately it'd be the owners' responsibility. I suppose we'll just have to wait and see whether that's the case, or we get over the line. I know it's not a very enlightening assessment, but it just seems like a statement of the obvious. It's interesting to learn that their hands are clean, however, when it comes to the advent of PSR. Which is a crock of crap, for what it's worth. True. You have to play by the rules, even if they were drawn up by someone else, and you don't necessarily agree with them (I'm fairly certain Vichai would have voted against PSR). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inckley fox Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March Do we know if Vichai was one of those who opposed FFP in the FLC back in 2012 or 2013 or whenever it was? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fazzer 7 Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March Cardiff you beauts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March 52 minutes ago, SouthStandUpperTier said: Which they could probably do with no bother. Broja matsen gallagher colwill Chalobah gilchrist There are others out on loan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SouthStandUpperTier Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March (edited) 1 hour ago, inckley fox said: Do we know if Vichai was one of those who opposed FFP in the FLC back in 2012 or 2013 or whenever it was? I believe that the EFL Championship's vote to implement PSR took place in the summer of 2014, just after we had become a Premier League club. Didn't we have to pay a fine (or some sort of settlement payment) for breaching the EFL's FFP regulations (as they were in 2013/14) - which allowed a maximum financial loss of £8m in any year? Edited 9 March by SouthStandUpperTier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fazzer 7 Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March I thought Whelan was an award winning businesswomen. How has she allowed this to happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Always Next Year Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March We won’t need a points deduction if we continue to get shit refs like the one today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March 7 minutes ago, Fazzer 7 said: I thought Whelan was an award winning businesswomen. How has she allowed this to happen Be interesting to see if the finance guy survives all this …… 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moore_94 Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March 1 minute ago, st albans fox said: Be interesting to see if the finance guy survives all this …… The Finanace guy for the period we are in trouble for actually got a move to Newcastle last summer! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March 15 minutes ago, moore_94 said: The Finanace guy for the period we are in trouble for actually got a move to Newcastle last summer! Oh yes so he did Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Nacho Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March The "Rudkin Out" chants need to be kept up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urban.spaceman Posted 9 March Share Posted 9 March Why has nobody made the connection with the fact that the current CEO of the EFL, Rick Parry, is a former CEO of the Premier League AND Liverpool, colluded with Liverpool and Man Utd to try and implement Project Big Picture during 2020, which was designed to give the Big Six almost complete control over English football? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts