Jump to content

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums

Welcome to One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums, like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information for you to signup. Be a part of One Team in Bristol - Bristol City Forums by signing in or creating an account.

  • Start new topics and reply to others
  • Full access to all forums (not all viewable as guest)
  • Subscribe to topics and forums to get email updates
  • Get your own profile page and make new friends
  • Send personal messages to other members.
  • Support OTIB with a premium membership


OTIB Supporter
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


Recent Profile Visitors

715 profile views
  1. From personal experience of both Academy players and 'trialists' from local leagues I would blame the parents in all cases. The expectation of parents and family far execeeds the real chances of success as explained by numerous individuals in the clubs, creates pressure on the individual and generates complaints against a club.
  2. I hope so. I would expect a club to work from the pre-covid estimates sent to the EFL and then on a line by line basis adjust in respect of the impact in respect of covid. For example - Stadium income down by £5 million, casual staff costs down by £2 million would be a net adjustment of £3 million.
  3. @Mr Popodopolous I get roughly the same FFP numbers for to 2018/19 ending up with a FFP loss of say £5million to carry forward to 2019/20/21. The total FFP loss that can be made in that period will be £68 million. The accounting loss in that period could be many millions higher, and the club will still meet FFP due to the regulations, due to the adjustments. As regards future years I can't see anything other happening than 2019/20/21 always been merged as one, otherwise I suspect that most clubs will break the rules in 2021/22. So the club's worst case position going into 2021/22
  4. It is unbelievable, the text of the EFL regulation says it is. 1.1.7 COVID-19 Costs means lost revenues and/or exceptional costs incurred by a Club that are directly attributable to the COVID-19 pandemic and that are identified and calculated in accordance with such guidance as issued by the Board; The arguments will be about what that includes, but the principle is agreed.
  5. As another great Mark said - Twain in this case - "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."
  6. Thank you @Mr Popodopolous or maybe they just read my post and stole it! The problem with Stoke is the £50 odd million they spent in 2017/18 on players in their first season back in the Championship. The 'Something or Bust' sensation is a lesson to all the 'Spend - Spend - Spend' posters on here. At the end of 2018/19 they had intangible player assets of £80 million with amortisation running at £25 million a year. How successful have Afobe, Ince, Vokes etc been for Stoke? The amount that they needed to write off their players for 2019/20 and onwards is more than the remaining value of
  7. If you look at successes and failures and then compare with your comments you get some interesting comparions - I would rate the managers as: Gary Johnson - Success Coppell - Disaster Millen, McInnes, O'Driscoll - Failures Cotterill - Success Lee Johnson - Success Holden - Failure I can fully understand the hiring of Millen after the whole club was burned badly by appointing a big name in Coppell. I can also fully understand the appointment of Holden in the circumstances existing at that time.
  8. Houghton. You need to bear in mind that the football world is a completely different world than it was in July last year. Oh I can imagine the uproar on here if Houghton arrived and only spent a couple of million! He'd be labelled a cheapstake yes man in seconds.
  9. Well they didn't want to spend £60 million odd on new players and wages in the middle of a pandemic with their only role being to write the cheques. You can call that going for a cheaper yes man option, or you can call it a sensible decison for the preservation of the club. I suppose it depends on whether you are paying the bills or not.
  10. Excellent article - sums up my view and that of SL - football is a long game
  11. The rules for red cards and VAR are interesting: The VAR will also check for possible red-card incidents for which the on-field referee has awarded a yellow card or no card at all. The VAR will look to identify a “clear and obvious error”. The on-field referee will explain his decision to the VAR and what he has seen. If the evidence provided to the VAR by the broadcast footage does not accord with what the referee believes he has seen, then the VAR can recommend an overturn. The final decision will remain with the on-field referee. So pret
  12. The only point that I would make is that unless anyone on here has read the actual contract and can state what it actual says no one can actually state what the contract terms are, regardless of what it is called by someone else.
  13. I've no doubt what I would prefer as well, my complaint was about the quality of the journalism, not the morals or ethics of football finance. Publishing badly researched and written pieces does no one any favours, least of all the fans.
  14. Starting with the Burnley cash. That may well have been used as suggested, the point is that if Burnley FC Holdings Limited (or a subsidiary of that company), the old parent co, lent the money to Calder Vale Holdings Limited (the company which acquired Burnley FC Holdings Limited) then it would have a debtor equal to that sum on it's balance sheet, so it is no worse off at all. The £40 milllion still exists, it just sits somewhere else. Then the alleged MSD loan. There is no loan to Burnley FC Holdings Limited. There was a loan to Calder Vale Holdings to presumably fund the purchase o
  15. As I said on the FFP thread: "So I'm a Guardian journalist and I am bored so I will write a non-story and dress it up as something else. I can't read and understand what is detailed on Companies House, but I use that as a source to justify my meaningless conclusions. "That makes it difficult not to conclude that just to pay for ALK to take over, the club is now approximately £90m worse off, with interest to pay" Or as an alternative the club is utilising it's cash resources by getting a far better rate of return than it was under the old management, so in fact the company is be
  • Create New...