Jump to content

Bigger Guns

Member
  • Content Count

    1,087
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bigger Guns

  1. I don’t think all players will get a club. You seemed to suggest that we can basically name our price with out of contract players though. The point I’m making is that in reality we won’t be able to do that because other clubs will likely be in for these players. Of course there will be players who don’t get a club and we could name our price. But, and it’s a big but - clearly no one wants these players so why would we? I actually think when a player is out of contract, clubs often pay them more and/or pay a signing on bonus because they have saved on the transfer fee. Time will tell but this may not happen this year given the current climate.
  2. That is what free agent means yes. You are also correct that if we are the only option we can name the price. However, if we are the only option I’d be asking why no other team wants them. Anyone worth signing on a free transfer will have plenty of options and 9 times out of 10 the player will go to the highest bidder.
  3. What do you expect him to say? If he says in a press conference it’s a meaningless game it gives the players a license to not put a shift in (queue the jokes they don’t anyway). Do you really believe that he hasn’t got a plan in place with regards to who he wants to stay at the club and potential targets? There will be a lot of work going on behind the scenes. I suspect we have a list of targets drawn up whether that’s down to Monk, the recruitment team or a combination of both. I think it’s pretty clear those out of contract know where they stand too. For example those on short term deals I’m 99% sure will be leaving the club, otherwise they would have just signed a 1 year extension when Pelupessy, Penney etc. did.
  4. Why have you excluded penalties? Rhodes refuses to take them so think it would be appropriate to include
  5. Nice first post. Absolutely not Peter the blade...
  6. We’re missing 18 players like Semedo. He’d run through a brick wall for Wednesday. In response to a few saying he was a limited player - aren’t this lot?
  7. Who has called them criminals? I certainly haven’t. Leeds (and every club in the country) have a set of rules which try to prevent fans from going on the pitch. They hire a team of stewards to enforce those rules. No one is calling for criminal charges and I suspect the lad got kicked out and that was the end of it.
  8. When you say ‘load of boll0cks’ you might want to read my post again. I agree there is a difference between what the Leeds and Birmingham fans did and what the lad did yesterday and as I said I don’t think for one minute he would have gone and punched a Leeds player. Stewards can’t take chances though and nor should they.
  9. Do you remember when that idiot from Leeds ran on the pitch and punched Kirkland in the face? And the idiot from Birmingham who punched grealish last season. Those two examples are the exact reason people get chucked out, because it may compromise a players safety/wellbeing. I’m not saying the lad you refer to would have gone and punched a player but the stewards are there to protect the players from idiots and they shouldn’t take any chances. It’s quite simple just don’t go on the pitch. Do what the other 3,000 Wednesday fans did and celebrate in your seat. Going on the pitch to celebrate doesn’t make you any more passionate. It does make you more of an idiot though.
  10. Yes but the EFLs terms and conditions are based on audited pre tax profit. I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand for you.
  11. Funnily enough that’s also a requirement for the auditors (the transaction at fair value). Take it from someone who actually knows what they’re talking about. I’m sure you will have seen the article on the BBC tonight. As I predicted in an earlier post Wednesday are going to sue the EFL for an unlawful charge. I will repeat again. The EFL cannot make Sheffield Wednesday restate their accounts. They must take them at face value. They’ve bitten off more than they can chew here and have picked the wrong guy to have a fight with.
  12. Yes I remember that, but I think it’s a completely different situation. Suspending someone for a few games is not going to dramatically change the outcome of a season. Docking points where there are no grounds for doing so brings the integrity of the competition in to question. Like I said previously this could all get very ugly for the EFL if we are not made to change our accounts.
  13. Some of the comments on here such as fraud and fudging the accounts are an overreaction and quite frankly ridiculous and could land one or two in bother. I’d urge anyone to be careful in making such comments. No denying that we have been reckless in our spending and we shouldn’t have to sell the ground to maintain compliance with FFP. However, it is a loophole and there’s nothing to say we can’t do it and according to the auditors it’s in the correct financial period at an appropriate value.
  14. I’m a chartered accountant and trained in audit. As far as I’m concerned until someone makes Sheffield Wednesday restate their accounts, which the EFL cannot do, there is no case to answer.
  15. Not if we aren’t made to restate our accounts. Could you imagine in court the EFL trying to argue they know more than a professional firm of auditors. They would get laughed out of court and it could turn ugly for the EFL because what they are accusing us of is defamatory. Would not be surprised if nothing comes of this and we sue the EFL.
  16. Same perspective. The EFL start with audited pre tax profits prepared on an FRS 102 basis.
  17. If you see my response to Kameron, there is no evidence that any regulatory body is involved at this stage that has the powers to make us restate the accounts. If that remains the case, our defence should be water tight.
  18. The EFL start with audited pre tax profit. The cash doesn’t have to be transferred for the sale to be included in the pre tax profit. Like I said so long as there is a legally binding contract as at the end of the 2018 accounts then it is correct to be included in the 2018 accounts. I would be staggered (being an ex auditor) if the auditors signed off the accounts without sufficient proof of sale being provided. If it turns out to be wrong then the auditors are finished because this will be massively in the spotlight. But, as I mentioned before the EFL do not have the powers to make us restate accounts. That is way above their powers and there is nothing to suggest that the regulatory bodies that could make us restate are involved at this stage.
  19. That’s not correct. Accounts are prepared on an accruals basis not a cash basis, that’s why there are debtors and creditors on a balance sheet. For a sale to be recognised all Chansiri has to do is prove that the risks and rewards of ownership have transferred from Sheffield Wednesday to Chansiri i.e. by having a legally binding contract of sale in place at the year end. It is irrelevant when the cash is transferred, when land registry was updated and whether Sheffield 3 was even incorporated. On the latter point Sheffield 3 could be unincorporated at the date of sale but still be in existence and nobody can prove otherwise. Regardless, Chansiri as owner of Sheffield 3 just needs a contract in place that he is going to purchase the stadium. That information won’t be in the public domain but if it exists (and I presume it does otherwise the auditors wouldn’t have signed off the accounts) then the EFL haven’t got a leg to stand on. The EFL does not have the power to make Sheffield Wednesday restate their accounts. They aren’t accounting experts and their powers start and end with the audited pre tax profits.
  20. Why do we have to have a thread every time Dawson makes a decent save. As brilliant as it was, any keeper in the football league is capable of making good saves - that’s why they are goalkeepers. It’s not just being a shot stopper that makes a top keeper and no one has ever said Dawson isn’t a good shot stopper. It’s the rest of his game that needs work i.e. distribution and claiming crosses. Not trying to bash the lad. He’s inexperienced in keeper terms and these things can be worked on, but why the need to point score because he made a good save. People have reservations on his other attributes and rightly so.
  21. That would be my 2 at present if we were to opt for a 2
  22. Fleck and Norwood have similar physical attributes to Bannan and hutch and have done it successfully as a 2 at times. You make a good point about supplementing with a narrow winger but again this is down to their tactics. The point is they have the ability to play as a 2 but for one reason or another our managers in recent times have not been able to get that out of them.
  23. Agree with a lot of what you say. Hutch dropping deep is to do with our tactics though which is kind of the point I’m making. Under Bruce we played 2 in midfield and hutch played higher up the pitch and was at times brilliant. These players are capable of playing in a 2.
×
×
  • Create New...