FFP charges? | Page 106 | Vital Football

FFP charges?

Pope John XXIII said:
Yeah, that is wrong.

But it is not cheating.

Cheating is moving the ball during a free kick. It is diving for a penalty. It is doing something where there is a victim and you are trying to hide it.

That isn't what we've done is it? Are you saying we cheated by buying Chris wood? Despite being allowed to lose £44m less than everyone else in the first place?
Click to expand...
cheating
  1. 1.
    act dishonestly or unfairly in order to gain an advantage.
 
pebble said:
Do you actually agree with the EPL that selling Johnson 3 months later to get a fair price deserves an eight point deduction?
Click to expand...
No of course it doesn't but knowing in January that we were the wrong side of the rules & still continuing to spend against the warning of our finance officers is a bit of a worry, someone high up in the club, very likely at the very top decided to ignore the advice, & the rules & carry on spending which is fair enough it's a choice you make, but its no good when you get caught out moaning that the rules aren't fair.

We can all see that the rules aren't fair, but those were the rules that clubs signed up to like it or not. I can't understand why the clubs outside the "big 6" keep signing up to these rules when they are designed to keep them in their place.

I can't understand why these same clubs have signed up to these new rules which as I see it will restrict spending even more but they have & having done so it will be no good moaning if they fall foul of them
 
BlackGold said:
Oof, makes those praising Forest's reckless spending, management and statement look rather silly:

"The Commission does question the use of “unique” in Forest’s submissions. It was clear from Mr Brown’s report that 12 other clubs over the last 10 years of the Premier League (so 13including Forest) had been promoted without the benefit of a Parachute Payment the year before. They then joined a league where the other 17 teams all had a Premier League squad and, in the main, would have the benefit of the full £105m PSR Threshold. This is not a unique occurrence, rather it is something that has happened every season in the previous 10 seasons, on average"
Click to expand...
Completely irrelevant. And why make the statement at all other than of course the real reason for it. They couldn't print " why don't you just shut the fuck up" we've made our minds up.
 
BlackGold said:
Oof, makes those praising Forest's reckless spending, management and statement look rather silly:

"The Commission does question the use of “unique” in Forest’s submissions. It was clear from Mr Brown’s report that 12 other clubs over the last 10 years of the Premier League (so 13including Forest) had been promoted without the benefit of a Parachute Payment the year before. They then joined a league where the other 17 teams all had a Premier League squad and, in the main, would have the benefit of the full £105m PSR Threshold. This is not a unique occurrence, rather it is something that has happened every season in the previous 10 seasons, on average"
Click to expand...
In other words, 13 out of 30 in the same situation

Do you know how many of those survived more than 2 seasons?

Four
 
pebble said:
I asked if you agreed with it.
Click to expand...
I only agree with it if it is a sanction that is allowed for under the rules. If they are legitimately permitted to argue for an 8 point deduction then that's fair enough for me. I'm sorry but I don't have the points scale and how significant breaches are dealt with
 
seasider red said:
No of course it doesn't but knowing in January that we were the wrong side of the rules & still continuing to spend against the warning of our finance officers is a bit of a worry, someone high up in the club, very likely at the very top decided to ignore the advice, & the rules & carry on spending which is fair enough it's a choice you make, but its no good when you get caught out moaning that the rules aren't fair.

We can all see that the rules aren't fair, but those were the rules that clubs signed up to like it or not. I can't understand why the clubs outside the "big 6" keep signing up to these rules when they are designed to keep them in their place.

I can't understand why these same clubs have signed up to these new rules which as I see it will restrict spending even more but they have & having done so it will be no good moaning if they fall foul of them
Click to expand...
I was asking Toms, but fair enough.
I don't agree that we were reckless based on what I know, but that's very little.

All I can see is a club getting promoted, giving it a go and trying to stay within limits which penalise newly promoted clubs, and having the absolute gall to both maximise profits on selling their prime asset and maybe respect his wishes about the club he wanted to join. That all seems commendable to me, and I'd hope the people who set the rules would see that and act accordingly. Instead, they appear vindictive.
 
seasider red said:
No of course it doesn't but knowing in January that we were the wrong side of the rules & still continuing to spend against the warning of our finance officers is a bit of a worry, someone high up in the club, very likely at the very top decided to ignore the advice, & the rules & carry on spending which is fair enough it's a choice you make, but its no good when you get caught out moaning that the rules aren't fair.

We can all see that the rules aren't fair, but those were the rules that clubs signed up to like it or not. I can't understand why the clubs outside the "big 6" keep signing up to these rules when they are designed to keep them in their place.

I can't understand why these same clubs have signed up to these new rules which as I see it will restrict spending even more but they have & having done so it will be no good moaning if they fall foul of them
Click to expand...
Most of them sign up to make sure no-one can do what we have done. This protects their premier league status
 
pebble said:
I was asking Toms, but fair enough.
I don't agree that we were reckless based on what I know, but that's very little.

All I can see is a club getting promoted, giving it a go and trying to stay within limits which penalise newly promoted clubs, and having the absolute gall to both maximise profits on selling their prime asset and maybe respect his wishes about the club he wanted to join. That all seems commendable to me, and I'd hope the people who set the rules would see that and act accordingly. Instead, they appear vindictive.
Click to expand...
I can see what you're saying mate, & in many ways I agree, but it's just the unfairness of life isn't it we all (or most of us) have to abide by rules & laws some of which we don't like, we can all choose to ignore those we don't like but have to suffer the consequences if we get caught out
 
pebble said:
I was asking Toms, but fair enough.
I don't agree that we were reckless based on what I know, but that's very little.

All I can see is a club getting promoted, giving it a go and trying to stay within limits which penalise newly promoted clubs, and having the absolute gall to both maximise profits on selling their prime asset and maybe respect his wishes about the club he wanted to join. That all seems commendable to me, and I'd hope the people who set the rules would see that and act accordingly. Instead, they appear vindictive.
Click to expand...
Spot on.
 
EM should please sell up after today. Please don't tell me we didn't know what we were doing. I just dont believe it

How long did Cloughie take to build our reputation up? We'll now be remembered for the team that won the European Cup twice and breached the rules. Either we will go down and everybody will laugh at us or we'll stay up and everyone will claim we knew exactly what we were doing

I acknowledge the game has moved on but Cloughie won Div 1 with a team of apparent nobodies.

Horrible day for our club today? It can never be erased
 
jbacsta said:
That's some statement even for a football forum. Any evidence to support that claim?
Click to expand...
It was tongue in cheek, so I feel no need to provide evidence.
The idea of EM starting a war with the EPL, given some of the more outrageous accusations against him, does conjure images of him becoming a supervillian, trying to destroy football.
 
CornishForest said:
Not when it’s our club that will face the fallout from it.
EM maybe be a big deal in Greece, but versus the Prem….
Click to expand...
We will just have to see won't we? Oh and remember HM government ( who are a big deal in this country) aren't very happy with the state of football governance at the moment either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.