Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Put the seasons forecasted loss into Escrow at the start of the season. 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Grandad said:

Put the seasons forecasted loss into Escrow at the start of the season. 

Yes that could work...£2B in the account...of we go 😎

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, daveyboy66 said:

Yes that could work...£2B in the account...of we go 😎

Well we do have unlimited funds. It's just the EFL that's stopping him spending it

  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, bradowl said:

Agents are leeches of game, trying to push their players for a transfer all time knowing they're after a cut of money. 

 

Make the players pay their representative, what other industry does what football does? 

  • Like 4
  • Love 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, yeadonowl said:

Fairly easy I’d imagine

 

Start of season legal contract is drawn up so that owner underwrites proposed budgeted losses. 
 

The punishment can then be based if the club then exceeds these budgeted losses

 

Gives owner the right to invest as they see fit like they can in any other business

Sorry but that makes no sense. Owners are unwriting losses now. And they get punished now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Ian_D said:

Maybe we are innocent.


 

22F925CF-6737-45AA-9D59-57749F42645B.gif

  • Like 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Westfield Owl said:

 

Just to point out, when Fletcher got injured at Christmas, Monk still had Rhodes, Winnall, Forestieri, Nuhiu as options.  You could even throw in Murphy, who can play as a false 9.

 

Not an amazing selection but enough talent for any decent Championship coach to manage with.

 

Then we signed Wickham in January.  A Premier League striker.

 

The belief that any manager would struggle after losing Fletcher to injury is a myth.

 

Anyway, back to topic..

hahahahahahahaha!

talent my ar$e, there was only ff any good, and nuhiu for 15 mins a game.

ff had been a quite a while since stringing a few good games together .

winnall went to derby a decent striker, what we got back was short of what we sent out by some way.

rhodes was/is due another good game in 2 years time.

we hadn't a 9, we'd a squad full of 'false' ones.

wickham was woefully off the pace (matchfit?) when he arrived.

the belief that no manager would struggle (with our unbalanced squad) after losing fletcher is only a 'myth' to those who don't know a great deal, and those wanting monk out from the very start and growing sick of waiting to backstab our manager.

anyway, back to topic.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

That didn't work last time though

Chairmen were getting their clubs into all kinds of debt and massively overspending, and it meant clubs were going into administration 

& that should be the time to punish them

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, vulva said:

Sorry but that makes no sense. Owners are unwriting losses now. And they get punished now. 

But there is no way of a rich owner investing which is also unfair

 

Any other business an owner who wants to improve his business can invest capital. In football they are severely restricted 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, HarrowbyOwl said:

I think you’re probably right on that Kev. i guess it then comes down to whether the previous forward reporting can be squared with a late  change of ‘accounting strategy’

 

The whole process is quite complicated. There are lower limits than the 13m per season losses for the Club to be put on review. 

 

There are deadlines on 1st December and 1st March to supply past year info and current year info, another for the audited accounts. 

 

There are budgets to provide.

 

Be intriguing for someone like me to be on the inside to understand the mechanics of this process a lot more

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, yeadonowl said:

Gary Neville just hit the nail on the head 

 

FFP needs tweaking so that the test is based on owners affordability. If an owner has 1 trillion pounds why can’t he spend 1 billion as they can afford it. The issue is if the owner has 500k and spends a million that is the issue 

 

He speaks as an owner and he wants owner guarantees brought in to cover losses


Like others have said...difficult to police. Also, the purpose needs establishing...Profit and Sustainability suggests protection to the club which would suit your idea, but the previous guise, Financial Fair Play...suggests clubs spending linked to their natural revenue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, bradowl said:

Agents are leeches of game, trying to push their players for a transfer all time knowing they're after a cut of money. 

 

Agents should be banned from the game. If a player wants representing, then the PFA are there to do that. 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

 

Agents should be banned from the game. If a player wants representing, then the PFA are there to do that. 

 

PFA probably just as corrupt as the rest of them. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

 

Agents should be banned from the game. If a player wants representing, then the PFA are there to do that. 


Have you shared your thoughts with Mr G Taylor? Still in charge too, the last time I looked. Did the review ever get completed? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, yeadonowl said:

Fairly easy I’d imagine

 

Start of season legal contract is drawn up so that owner underwrites proposed budgeted losses. 
 

The punishment can then be based if the club then exceeds these budgeted losses

 

Gives owner the right to invest as they see fit like they can in any other business

This is exactly what I said weeks ago. Although I said for owners to put the whole expected expenditure in a holding account. 

 

I don't understand why this would be a problem or issue? 

 

Any other business can lose millions upon millions if they want. Why do football clubs need to be restricted?

 

It's not going to stop clubs going into admin...just ask Wigan. If owners pull the plug then clubs go under regardless.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, room0035 said:

But he's not investing capital in the business he's wasting million in players wages.

 

No business survives when their wage bill is nearly double their turnover.

 

We need controls so chairman don't use football teams as play things to then throw away when their bored.

 

You let DC spend what he wants, in a few years we will have £100m wage bill and still be no nearer the premier lesgue. If he leaves we then cease to exist as a football club after 150+ years because we cannot afford to pay the mess he has left us in. This happens if the EFL decided to let him spend what he wants.

 

It's a no from me thanks, tighter controls on spending not loosening.

Gary Neville spoke a load of sense today......said that if an owner agrees to signing a player for 4 years on £5million a year then he has to out £20m in an escrow account and so on

 

no problems with the owner spending £2 billion If he’s got a gazillion in the bank....but don’t let someone spend £100k if they only have £50k

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ian said:

Gary Neville spoke a load of sense today......said that if an owner agrees to signing a player for 4 years on £5million a year then he has to out £20m in an escrow account and so on

 

no problems with the owner spending £2 billion If he’s got a gazillion in the bank....but don’t let someone spend £100k if they only have £50k


Everyone thought Robert Maxwell and Allen Stanford had a gazillion in the bank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Ian said:

Gary Neville spoke a load of sense today......said that if an owner agrees to signing a player for 4 years on £5million a year then he has to out £20m in an escrow account and so on

 

no problems with the owner spending £2 billion If he’s got a gazillion in the bank....but don’t let someone spend £100k if they only have £50k

And pay all transfer fees upfront. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Ian said:

Gary Neville spoke a load of sense today......said that if an owner agrees to signing a player for 4 years on £5million a year then he has to out £20m in an escrow account and so on

 

no problems with the owner spending £2 billion If he’s got a gazillion in the bank....but don’t let someone spend £100k if they only have £50k

It makes sense if you have never run a business. No business owner of any type would accept to operate in this manner...it cuts right across the concepts of going concern and limited liability.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...