Jump to content
IGNORED

Newcastle Preparing For Life In The Championship/Steve Bruce Resigns (Merged)


fishy

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Davefevs said:

I’m not clear on our own situation in 82 to compare it to what Villa and Wednesday have done...but we were trying to save the club, getting rid of players, cutting costs left right and centre....and we ultimately left a set of unpaid creditors who got virtually zilch or zilch, so we can’t take complete moral high ground, but it appears vastly different to what Villa and Wednesday have done.

Derby I have a bit of sympathy because they have tried to control costs by selling some players.

What do we think about Reading....have they done a sell and leaseback too?

Do the sins of the father pass on to the son? Should Germany be punished again for the wars? 

What happen to us was 35 years ago when football on and off the field was immeasurably different those that cheat should be punished!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some strong words here.

I’m not sure it’s cheating if it’s in the rules. If the rules are wrong, blame the rule makers, not the clubs trying to do their best within the rules.

if SL was able to take advantage of the rule, do we seriously think he wouldn’t, and what would be our view of him then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, REDOXO said:

The clubs concerned probably knew the rules and knew if they sold there stadium, effectively to themselves, they would comply with FFP as a last resort, IMO. This was not a case of a last minute Hail Mary it is a case of clubs lawyers telling them there was a get out of jail free card if necessary 

Obviously it might be a case of one of them knew and the other two said FLI CK Me what a good idea, but I doubt it. 

You only have to look at the multi billion dollar business soccer is to know the boards of directors get very good advice...What I don’t understand is why people seem surprised by that...Look around you, you know there is at least ONE multi billionaire at every game we play within 150 yards of you where-ever you sit!

EFL lifted the regs for reasons unknown it appears- you only have to read the old and new regs to see this is quite possibly the case. Under the old ones it wouldn't have counted towards FFP calculations, whereas now it does.

Dunno why you're defending these people--they're cheating the competition, but more importantly us. Glad Hirst left Sheffield Wednesday via a loophole, glad they're being disrupted via this Bruce shit, glad they quite likely lost out on Bidwell while under a soft embargo.

1 hour ago, HitchinRed said:

Some strong words here.

I’m not sure it’s cheating if it’s in the rules. If the rules are wrong, blame the rule makers, not the clubs trying to do their best within the rules.

if SL was able to take advantage of the rule, do we seriously think he wouldn’t, and what would be our view of him then?

Strong but fair IMO.

Cop Out that- these rules, lifted for reasons known it would appear, question is when, why and by whom?

Well I'd dispute that- I would because SL with his accounting knowledge, hell he's a chartered accountant by trade would be able to work this one out easy, and probably many more beside. I like to think he has a bit more integrity- dare I say looking for workarounds not so uncommon in the regulatory environment of a lot of these owners, dots to be joined etc?

Sounds like @Lewisdabaron happy for the competition but quite specifically us to be cheated here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

Not quite, only if someone had managed all their rivals too, think you missed the point a bit - Wilson has managed both Sheff clubs, Barnsley and Chesterfield ... as well as City and Swindon ...

I didn't miss the point, there's no need to patronise.

I'm just saying your trivia question answers would depend on how you define 'rivals'. I made a tongue in cheek comment about Barnsley because to me, despite them being 'South Yorkshire' derbies, Barnsley v Sheffield clubs isn't a true 'rivalry'.

Personally, I would say you need a black and white definition to make it a good quiz question. For me that would be clubs who's main rivals are each other. So Sheffield United and Sheffield Wednesday, Barnsley might hate Sheffield Wednesday the most, but to Wednesday, Barnsley are a distant second (if that), so I wouldn't count it. Otherwise where do you draw the line? Are us and Swansea rivals?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

EFL lifted the regs for reasons unknown it appears- you only have to read the old and new regs to see this is quite possibly the case. Under the old ones it wouldn't have counted towards FFP calculations, whereas now it does.

Dunno why you're defending these people--they're cheating the competition, but more importantly us. Glad Hirst left Sheffield Wednesday via a loophole, glad they're being disrupted via this Bruce shit, glad they quite likely lost out on Bidwell while under a soft embargo.

 

I wasn’t defending them. That was your interpretation of what I said, however the point I was making is that football clubs like any other company in a multi billion dollar industry will have a damn good idea where the loopholes are in the regulations and take calculated risks when necessary!

Newspapers and media dumb down contracts and deals for the short attention span of the stakeholders, particularly supporters, however there is to much at stake for clubs not to be intimately aware of where the get out of jail free cards lay.

The letter of the law is muted if the spirit of the law is ignored, but that is how it is in most big industries. Football is now among the biggest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

I wasn’t defending them. That was your interpretation of what I said, however the point I was making is that football clubs like any other company in a multi billion dollar industry will have a damn good idea where the loopholes are in the regulations and take calculated risks when necessary!

Newspapers and media dumb down contracts and deals for the short attention span of the stakeholders, particularly supporters, however there is to much at stake for clubs not to be intimately aware of where the get out of jail free cards lay.

The letter of the law is muted if the spirit of the law is ignored, but that is how it is in most big industries. Football is now among the biggest.

Would help if the EFL didn't open a closed loophole, would it not?

Why did they open it- because it appears that they did.

SL didn't do it- because he has more respect for the spirit of the regulations than those from certain jurisdictions let's say.

Without wishing to stereotype in any way, it is notable that 3 of the 4 who have done this are from certain jurisdictions. The rumoured 5th to have done it is also from a similar to the other 3.

If anything the EFL should be tightening the loopholes, not loosening them- I don't believe there are all that many- they should always be looking at shutting off potential ones though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Would help if the EFL didn't open a closed loophole, would it not?

Why did they open it- because it appears that they did.

SL didn't do it- because he has more respect for the spirit of the regulations than those from certain jurisdictions let's say.

Without wishing to stereotype in any way, it is notable that 3 of the 4 who have done this are from certain jurisdictions. The rumoured 5th to have done it is also from a similar to the other 3.

If anything the EFL should be tightening the loopholes, not loosening them- I don't believe there are all that many- they should always be looking at shutting off potential ones though.

Problem with closing the loophole now is that other clubs will try and do the same prior to the amendment to the rules. The issue then becomes if Villa Derby Sheffield Wed etc can do this why can’t we. Thus the look of bias continues. However if they find the clubs guilty of breaches of the rules, disqualify their company accounts and deduct them 15 points and bring Villa back down a league then change the rules that would be consistent....Point is the EFL like the FA are a gutless institution who will only find against smaller clubs under any circumstances and will apply loopholes to the benefit of certain clubs. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, REDOXO said:

Problem with closing the loophole now is that other clubs will try and do the same prior to the amendment to the rules. The issue then becomes if Villa Derby Sheffield Wed etc can do this why can’t we. Thus the look of bias continues. However if they find the clubs guilty of breaches of the rules, disqualify their company accounts and deduct them 15 points and bring Villa back down a league then change the rules that would be consistent....Point is the EFL like the FA are a gutless institution who will only find against smaller clubs under any circumstances and will apply loopholes to the benefit of certain clubs. 

 

 

 

My compromise then is to let all clubs do it once then close the loophole- but the truth is the loophole was closed but the EFL opened it, one Tweet suggested they "deleted it in error"- yeah right.

Think the best we can hope for in terms of Aston Villa would be some sort of deduction in waiting or carried over. In terms of Derby, it's a grey area because I'm still unconvinced they broke it necessarily, in terms of Sheffield Wednesday there are big red klaxons all over this- look at the accounting period of transaction v accounts, look at the fact there is no transaction on the land registry and the fact that it still states owned by Sheffield Wednesday FC, look at the fact the accounts were signed "21st June 2019"- for an accounting period that a) Ran to July 31 2018 which is fine but what is very interesting in that is b) Which is that the accounting period as said ran to July 31 2018, accounts due May 31 2019 yet accounts signed 21 June 2019- I have very little faith that it fell in the correct reporting period.

It also transpires that the new owner of Hillsborough is not listed and- see the FFP thread actually- Sheffield Wednesday when quizzed on this earlier by BBC journo said they "Did not know when the transaction occurred" or words to that effect. EFL should be all over this one as a high priority and an urgent one- not pissing about with MK Dons v Wimbledon!

Then clubs should be lawyering up against the EFL, either clubs who have complied or been punished. Gibson suing Derby is an interesting start but not quite sure he's got the right strategy there.

Oh yeah, hope Steve Bruce goes- always had more inclination towards Sheff Utd anyway and nothing this week has disabused me of the view.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Hi @Pheasant plucker

You are another apologist I see. What it basically means is that we sold certain playerd when maybe in light of all this we didn't need to sell all.

Seems like you and @Lewisdabaron are happy for us to be at a disadvantage to financial creativity so just you crack on. :yes:

 

 

 

 

 

 

Think you have the wrong end of the stick old boy.

My laughing emoji was aimed at your rather clumsy and aggressive post......not the content of it. For the record I agree with most of what you say regarding FFP.

Has someone pissed in your beer or something Mr P? You posting style is pretty aggressive today, when it's usually just quite aloof. May one kindly suggest you go and find something else to do if your in that frame of mind?

I gather you feel strongly about this subject - as do I, but don't have a pop at your own pal.

Kind regards xxx

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/07/2019 at 07:58, HitchinRed said:

Some strong words here.

I’m not sure it’s cheating if it’s in the rules. If the rules are wrong, blame the rule makers, not the clubs trying to do their best within the rules.

if SL was able to take advantage of the rule, do we seriously think he wouldn’t, and what would be our view of him then?

We love Steve, and all he has done for us, but he is a bit "front row of the class, tie done up neatly, shoes polished, homework done on time, hand up waiting to answer teacher's question" while yer Wolves, Wednesday, Villa, Derby owners are at the back of the class sniggering, lobbing things at Steve, and, we fear, getting snogs off the girls later while Steve/we stay in to do our arithmetic, before watching University Challenge.  

In football, is it the keeners at the front of the class playing by the rules that prevail, or the jack-the-lads messing about at the back, getting away with what they can get away with? 

Or can it be both?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/07/2019 at 09:34, Pheasant plucker said:

Think you have the wrong end of the stick old boy.

My laughing emoji was aimed at your rather clumsy and aggressive post......not the content of it. For the record I agree with most of what you say regarding FFP.

Has someone pissed in your beer or something Mr P? You posting style is pretty aggressive today, when it's usually just quite aloof. May one kindly suggest you go and find something else to do if your in that frame of mind?

I gather you feel strongly about this subject - as do I, but don't have a pop at your own pal.

Kind regards xxx

Right fair enough, I'm frankly glad I got off the subject and gave this place a bit of a swerve this weekend- reviewed my posting style last couple of days of the week and it wasn't great at times, freely admit to that.

Fair.

Aloof? Not sure if I agree but fair to say I won't argue the toss- did enough of that and aggressively at times earlier in the week. Indeed I did, and my posting style was reviewed and has been moderated accordingly.

Agreed yeah- I was getting pretty riled about thinking of the players we sold and how we did it by the book- certainly noted and amended.

Apologies to yourself and others I had a pop at.

PS, your Rovers emoji is of course not a true reflection because I'm obviously not ? as I'm sure you know, but once more I won't argue the toss as I've done enough of that.

ON the subject of Bruce, given Mike Ashley's renowned tightness I do wonder if he maybe stuck there- time will tell I guess.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/07/2019 at 11:55, Moments of Pleasure said:

We love Steve, and all he has done for us, but he is a bit "front row of the class, tie done up neatly, shoes polished, homework done on time, hand up waiting to answer teacher's question" while yer Wolves, Wednesday, Villa, Derby owners are at the back of the class sniggering, lobbing things at Steve, and, we fear, getting snogs off the girls later while Steve/we stay in to do our arithmetic, before watching University Challenge.  

In football, is it the keeners at the front of the class playing by the rules that prevail, or the jack-the-lads messing about at the back, getting away with what they can get away with? 

Or can it be both?

 

Steve spent his business career building one of the Uk's for most financial services companies. In so doing he was subject to stringent regulatory and compliance requirements. 

Unlike the EFL, financial reegulators police thir rules and rather than favouring big players, look to make examples of them for breaking their rules. I know someone who dealt with SL over a long period of time and he says Steve is one of the straightest me. You could wish to deal with. 

I doubt many other wealthy owners built their fortunes in such a heavily regulated environment and while not suggesting that any of the are crooks, suspect that many have bent the rules when it was to their advantage. 

I can't imagine SL changing his attitude from the one that brought him success, and would hope he never will.

There is little e ough integrity left in the game as it is. If SL holds on to his and this reflects on the club, then I for one am glad. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Right fair enough, I'm frankly glad I got off the subject and gave this place a bit of a swerve this weekend- reviewed my posting style last couple of days of the week and it wasn't great at times, freely admit to that.

Fair.

Aloof? Not sure if I agree but fair to say I won't argue the toss- did enough of that and aggressively at times earlier in the week. Indeed I did, and my posting style was reviewed and has been moderated accordingly.

Agreed yeah- I was getting pretty riled about thinking of the players we sold and how we did it by the book- certainly noted and amended.

Apologies to yourself and others I had a pop at.

PS, your Rovers emoji is of course not a true reflection because I'm obviously not ? as I'm sure you know, but once more I won't argue the toss as I've done enough of that.

ON the subject of Bruce, given Mike Ashley's renowned tightness I do wonder if he maybe stuck there- time will tell I guess.

Fair enough Mr P.

We all get a bit OTT at times on here. Won't hold it against you. ?? As for the aloof bit, maybe that was a bit harsh, possibly just your posting style, and/or my interpretation of it?

I do agree though that it's more than a tad frustrating to play by the rules, and see other clubs bending and even breaking them with what seems, more than often, little to no sanction applied.

Your posts, on the whole, I find very informative and I thank you for the effort you put into a lot of your FFP posts.

Keep posting!

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/07/2019 at 07:58, HitchinRed said:

Some strong words here.

I’m not sure it’s cheating if it’s in the rules. If the rules are wrong, blame the rule makers, not the clubs trying to do their best within the rules.

if SL was able to take advantage of the rule, do we seriously think he wouldn’t, and what would be our view of him then?

To a (much lesser) degree haven't we already done that?  We transferred ownership of Ashton Gate to a holding company meaning that the football club reduced operating costs greatly.  True we didn't brazenly sell the stadium to said holding company for a wildly over the top fee, but we have disposed of the stadium to assist with FFP compliance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Steve Watts said:

To a (much lesser) degree haven't we already done that?  We transferred ownership of Ashton Gate to a holding company meaning that the football club reduced operating costs greatly.  True we didn't brazenly sell the stadium to said holding company for a wildly over the top fee, but we have disposed of the stadium to assist with FFP compliance.

No, not really when you consider BCFC Ltd and AG Ltd are the only two companies under that Holding Company. 

All we’ve done is transfer reporting lines in effect. 

@Mr Popodopolous believes we report FFP at Holding Group level so no benefit gained. In fact AG Ltd made a loss in 17/18!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...