Hxj

I'd get to a much less generous figure. Loss per 2023 accounts - £22.2m Deduct Transfer Profit - £9.5m Add Intangible w/o w/d - £7m Add 2x End of year - £4m Deduct 2 x Concert - £2m Net Loss £22.7 12/13ths Loss £21m Add AS sale £20m Deduct Intangible £2m Deduct End of year £1m Add Concert £2m Net Loss £2m Salary saving - net of cost of NP's team leaving?

I get to the numbers with Semenyo going for £9 million, with three equal payments, which is not unusual. Bentley going for £1 million or so upfront payment. The balance is the £500k receipt from previous add-ons (Note 26 para 2, page 42.) The problem (as ever) is that 'transfer cash received' is not the same as 'transfer profit' and cannot be directly reconciled from the information available. I suspect that the £140k is the loss on Wilson. I doubt that Towler, McAllister and Szmodics were material.

Gosh - Christmas pub trips celebrations and looking at Bristol City Holdings Ltd accounts - as others have said not a good combination! A few initial comments. 1. Comparing 13 month accounting periods and 12 month accounting periods can be entirely unproductive for a lot of stuff as balances fluctuate wildly. This is particularly true where the additional month is one where there is no 'football income', yet annual/end of contract bonuses tend to be paid. The implication is that two years of such wage payments are included in these accounts. 2. Increased debtors in relation to player transfers of £6 million (note 16 page 37) implies a significant deferral of the cash from Semenyo. 3. Commercial income of £19.5 million is very impressive. All of which feeds into the FFP figure. 4. As regards increased staff numbers, these are averages across the whole accounting period. So 365 people working for one day at a concert increases your average staff numbers by 1 a year. The increase implies that Ashton Gate Ltd has moved from the original 'property only' rent to a 'property, plus services' model which should produce higher returns. 5. This looks like the last year of significant amortisation charges.

I'm on my third without my F who rescued me back in 2014. I had a lovely email from one of her sisters today who reminded how much she and her family appreciated how much better F's life was with me than it was before, and I thought F was looking after me! It will always hurt, but the good times will break through.

You should go to to the City Ground and see the worship of things which happened 50 years ago - speaking as someone with Forest fans as close friends!

I don't usually comment on match day threads - but that was dire as was Huddersfield. Somethings not working.

Is Robinstv working for anyone internationally?

They could have been told by Counsel that they were having 'a laugh' and that their case would be dismissed with costs of the other party awarded against them. The agreement could therefore simply be that each party meets their own costs, it happens regularly.

No evidence yet that Cardiff received a penny in compensation. The terms of the agreement are confidential. It could be that Cardiff got nothing.

A demi-god near me, worshipped - but a long, long way behind some bloke called Brian.

I do love these rabbit holes that OTIB goes down sometimes To add to the fun it doesn't matter if you call it a lease or a licence or something else, it is the terms of the contract which determine what you have. Plus, to give some context, imagine being asked to explain the differences between a lease (commonly understood term) or a licence (commonly misunderstood term)at a Fans Forum in the pub. Using 'audience appropriate language' is a good skill.

This is the only interesting part of the statement - take care we are watching you!

It won't. It has already been determined that the PL Disciplinary Commission can award compensation to clubs in respect of Everton's breach. There will be one hearing (with lots of parties) and a decision will be made. The PL rules prohibit PL clubs suing each other in court over such matters.

10 points for a £19.5 million breach on a £105 million limits seems fair enough to me. The other published decision is interesting. Leeds, Forest, Southampton, Leicester and Burnley can in principle be awarded compensation by the Disciplinary Commission.

It's private property. Acting on behalf of the owners, if they want to search you to let you in they can, you have the option of refusing the search and in that case they are perfectly within their rights to stop you entering their property.

Has to go through Arbitration with limited recourse to the Courts - Part X of the Premier League regulations - in particular X.2 and X.37 on pages 281 and 286. Arbitration is generally confidential between the parties. PL_Handbook_2023-24_DIGITAL_29.08.23.pdf (premierleague.com)

I am aware of a local development (to me) where a 'heritage railway' sold off land for housing development. Within 24 hours of moving in three new occupants tried to get the railway closed down for the reasons stated, despite the contracts they entered into when purchasing their house, and the railway operating entirely legally,. Apparently buying a house with a 'seriously asthmatic 2 year old' next to a steam railway was the fault of the railway not the purchaser.

Never intended to imply that the only purchasers would be 'middle class snoops' - more than happy to accept that you don't have to be middle class to be a snoop and not all middle class people are snoops. My recent experience of 'affordable housing' is that the four two bedroom units were acquired by two single junior doctors, a single police sergeant (graduate entrant) and a single mechanical engineer with a Masters. More about how much their parents could lend as a deposit than the true need for 'affordable housing'. This was in an area where the house prices are significantly less than Bristol. So I wish everyone luck in their application.

Thanks. I have a degree of sympathy for ETM on this. They are in a highly regulated industry and all of a sudden they will have hundreds of new middle class snoops neighbours all looking through the fence to try and get them closed down because of little Oliver's asthma and sleeping patterns. Well actually it will be so they can brag about how much their house has gone up in value as it is no longer next to a waste processing plant. However each compliant takes time, effort and expense to deal with. As to the actual case then the test for Judicial Review is pretty high, plus you have to demonstrate, even if you win, that the likelihood is that the same decision wouldn't be made again. Unless there is a 'smoking gun' in the planning decisions I doubt that ETM will get permission from the Court to bring the case. That said it all takes time, probably a year, and lots of money to deal with.

Unless you are 'in the know' you will need to check the following on a regular basis: Royal Courts of Justice daily cause list 16 October 2023 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

It is, but I should have been more specific. Wembley Stadium has the right, but not the obligation, to host all England Internationals. The Macedonia Old Trafford match clashed with another event at Wembley.

Because there is a contract between the FA and Wembley Stadium (which is owned by the FA) which currently states that all England Internationals will be played at Wembley. It covers the huge redevelopment costs.

Is that effectively £30m million once the loan is repaid then?

Or alternatively personally I'm happy to sell my house to anyone for £5 million, if I don't sell it fine because I like living there, but if you want to buy you have to pay top price plus an awful lot extra.

I agree However any interest paid forms part of the cash flowing out of the group. So currently Pula would need to hand over a demand for say £3 million in interest with one hand and a cheque for £3 million to pay the bill with the other. So overall (and at that time) Pula, asset wise, is no better off.