Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

31 Excellent

About Shez

  • Rank
    Sheffield Wednesday Youth Team

Profile Information

  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. It’s not about punishing the club it’s about removing any advantage financial irregularities or actions that break financial fair play may give. The drawbacks are parachute payments (should be factored into financial fair play) and the vagueness (or lack of specifics) in the rules. Selling the ground etc to the current owner to purposely circumvent financial fair play shouldn’t be allowed (regardless of which year it shows up on the accounts). It should have been removed from profitability calculations for Wednesday, Reading, Derby and Villa and then any breaches dealt with as per
  2. Derby looking to put a bid in for Tyler Roberts..would likely be £7m To £10m...looks like they’re all clear to crack on
  3. It’s like getting caught drink driving then suggesting the police force need disbanding because it’s not fit for purpose because you’ve now got points on your license
  4. Yep.....Guardian is full of lies, The Sun’s SWFC agenda is the truth...
  5. Arthur Daley’s poo apprentice more like
  6. Astonishing.... Agenda against SWFC? Lol....12 points was a birthday present
  7. Parachute payments are needed to bridge the gap between the divisions....it absolutely shouldn’t be factored into FFP giving those clubs extra resources. Either increase amounts clubs can lose to match parachute payments or remove parachute amounts from relegated clubs P&S calculations
  8. -12 or -24.... what’s the difference?! fizz it....
  9. Buying the club would be like buying an engineless wooden boat full of holes for what you’d pay for a yacht....
  10. There is no agenda, just an unwillingness to accept blame lies with the club. Guess it was the corrupt/incompetent FL that signed the backdated signatures. They also failed to bring action in a timely manner so that punishment could be arbitrarily issued in a season that would have not punished the club after the accounts were issued promptly (as usual) and no attempt to avoid punishment or delay the hearings by the club....
  11. Wages for those £150m worth of players would likely hamper any club for years to come and recurring embargos/penaltys. The two teams getting parachute payments went up....yeh, but one did in a one off game v a team that finished above them and sold 2 players for £30m so that they could invest in their squad (compounded with good recruitment and a good manager) and the other finished 10 points behind the league winners who sold £30m worth of players to balance the books and help further squad improvements (compounded with good commercial revenue and a great manager). The k
  12. 25% of the votes were for less than 6 games, which is 2pts per game (more than the top two had when lockdown occured)....lol
  13. It's a 'rolling' 3 year period...which means every year there is accountability for the previous 3 years....there's no such thing as a reset. Would imagine cost cutting to continue as to not fall foul again
  14. Also means there’s no team beating everyone else so more points picked up by lesser clubs
  15. Can’t do this, it’s a sliding scale. Either the sale is allowed on the accounts it was placed = 0pts or it isn’t = 12pts
  • Create New...