Hxj

My original response seems to have disappeared, so let's try again. I am sure it has, but announcing that you have £x million to spend results in 'Oh - everyone has doubled in price'. On a simple level I think that the recruitment since Pearson has taken over has been above average. There will always be players that fail, given the pool we paddle in, but generally things have been good. We all know that Pearson likes to run a lean squad and likes to promote from within. All in line with what Lansdown says. I also note that Lansdown has been criticised on here for stating that Luton were promoted whilst spending less than Bristol City did, why criticise someone for telling the truth? I had the privilege of being in the same room as Pearson when he managed Leicester City, and listening to him as a person. He loved playing football and loves being a manager. He isn't motivated by talking b******** or money. He wouldn't be at Bristol City if he didn't want to be. Coincidentally I went to a Group Board meeting today. The owner/chairman (who paddles in the same wealth pool as Lansdown) said that he didn't like me, didn't see the point of what I did, but really appreciated what I was doing for the group and that you should never recruit people you like.

If you say so. But I doubt you know,

Hate to disappoint you that NP has always been aware of the reality, since before he signed up.

Nothing better than than an OTIB meltdown on a Saturday after three games in the season. Well done! Completely irrational - but well done!

Regardless of that the head of the FRU clearly had a bad day at the office: What on earth does he think notes of meetings/calls/discussions are for, particularly when such an important issue is raised. The EFL went for an EIGHT point penalty - 4 immediate and 4 suspended - given the total 4 day delay in payment over three occasions that is clearly ridiculous. That is why they ended up with a one point immediate penalty and three suspended. Tribunals hate authority over-egging the case or the sanction.

I'd say a lot of a pipe dream. Currently it is technically possible to get an 'in year' deduction if you are failing FFP and fail to agree or don't keep to a budget, but not actually for an FFP failure. I still believe that on principle you can only penalise FFP failures once you have passed the end of the accounting period, as until then nothing is final. I think it's a neat way of giving another level of review allowing an alternative view. The interesting point is that there is no time limit on a 'call in' so for instance a dodgy club is never really safe.

It's a move in the right direction, but very slow. My preference would be to force all clubs to have an accounting date of 31 May, submit final accounts by 14 June, and resolve all FFP issues by 14 July. Anyone who thinks that 14 days is way too short should work with a US listed company where 7 days is normal. This interested me in respect of FFP limits in the regulations, not sure if there is a misprint or an actual change, I've changed the formatting but they seem to have lost a year!: 1.1.15 P&S Calculation means, save as indicated below, the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T, T-1 and T-2. (a) Season 2020/21 only, the P&S Calculation shall be the aggregation of: (i) the mean of the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T and T-1; and (ii) the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T-2; and (b) Season 2021/2022 only, the P&S Calculation shall be the aggregation of: (i) the Adjusted Earnings Before Tac of T; and (ii) the mean of the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T-1 and T-2. (c) Season 2022/23 only, the P&S Calculation shall be the aggregation of: (i) the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T; and (ii) the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T-1; and (iii) the mean of the Adjusted Earnings Before Tax of T-2 I also like the timescales for CFRP hearings, effectively the rules say 2 months from the CFRU decision.

This is clearly where the club are moving to. Pearson has been abundantly clear that there is an agreed wage budget and that needs to be adhered to. It is also clear that we are not in the market for 'marque' signings or any large transfer fees. If you look at Group turnover that is say £30 million in 2022, half of which is football income and the rest commercial income. Assuming a profit of 1/3 on the commercial income gives you a starting point for any SCMP rules of £20 million, 70% of which is £14 million plus say £10 million SL contribution takes you to £24 million to cover salaries and the net cash flow out on transfer fees. That to me is entirely possible, especially as the current SCMP wages exclude everyone aged 20 or under at the start of the season. But you will be looking at transfer fees out of only a few million a year.

Yes - some supporters simply hate SL.

Not working here either, on Opera.

The club have just spent two years managing down the squad size and the wage bill, I would be amazed if all that good work is ripped up overnight. They have also made it perfectly clear what pool we are fishing in for players, and so far it seems to be working very well. Nothing will change. Pearson knows all this and has enthusiastically signed up to it.

have you unmuted it?

I can't either I used to login to Robins TV using 'Google' but the option seems to have disappeared.

Minor correction - this company owns the rugby club's training ground.

That would depend upon the conditions. Just can't see it happening on this basis for obvious commercial reasons. What if Scott has a serious injury? All too complicated.

A loan with an obligation to buy has the same accounting treatment as an outright purchase - so it won't help Wolves.

I don't agree for the reasons stated earlier, but would be interested in why he thinks that (other than because it's a 10 year season ticket (which in itself is incorrect)).

Feels more like an act of desperation than anything else.

I suspect that the tickets fall outside the terms of the agreement between the club and the credit card service provider. Given that a service is being purchased and the terms are such that it could go on for an indefinite period, the credit card service provider is potentially liable to refund the whole cost during that indefinite period (if the services are not provided or the season tickets terminated) then the risks far outweigh the benefits of a 1.5% fee.

Ah - but what are the correct accounting standards - this is not a standard season ticket by any stretch of the imagination. The tickets run until the end of the tenth season following Sheffield Wednesday's next promotion into the Premier League. That could be 11 years if Wednesday get promoted in 2023/24 or 61 years if they get promoted in 2083/84, or forever if they never get promoted. The club has therefore incurred, potentially, an unlimited cost (assuming the club always loses money) for a limited income. Therefore for accounting purposes the company should include all the income as income in the year the ticket is sold and in the same year an amount significantly higher that the income as costs relating to the provision of those services in the following years. I suspect that the tickets are more of an indication of need to generate cash, than a detailed study of the accounting standards.

Although the revised EFL regulations for 2023/24 mean that the sanctions for late payment of HMRC debts will kick in before HMRC issue any winding up proceedings. In particular a total of 30 days late HMRC payment will result in a transfer ban for three periods. That will result in clubs paying HMRC on time unless they are financial basket cases.

It is - but the club have made it perfectly clear by action which market we are in, it's spending 0-£1.5 million. To be spent mainly on those the club can develop, with the odd older wiser head where needed.

It's so easy to spend someone else's money.

The question is, would you have signed Kalas if Kelly had stayed? Is he not a replacement? This isn't an accounting issue, but an FFP issue. As I said I have no idea where this view comes from but it persists in my head. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

I'm not sure that it does. My understanding is that where you have two deals in the same transfer window, but either side of an accounting date that are connected you can treat them as connected. For example the cost of Kalas is set against the income from Kelly. The profit on Kelly for FFP purposes is reduced by the cost of Kalas and the Kalas costs are therefore not deductible in future accounting periods. I have no idea where this belief comes from, but it makes sense from a commercial viewpoint.