chinapig

I see, thanks. Even the EFL now accepts the fit and proper test is inadequate and it is being amended but somebody could pass a stiffer test then indulge in the uncontrolled spending he advocates and bankrupt a club. You need something like FFP to protect clubs from reckless owners "living the dream".

Then he doesn't understand that the Bolton and Bury problems are not FFP issues. What he suggests would lead to some clubs being even more reckless than they already are and perhaps one of the big clubs his suggestion would give an even bigger competitive advantage to going the way of Bolton. He is right to criticise the EFL but you don't solve a weakness in one area of governance by making another weaker. Perhaps he should read David Conn's piece to get a better understanding.

Well said, hear, hear!

A good piece from David Conn. https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2019/jul/30/football-league-shows-teeth-bury

Yes, a desperate move on his part precisely because he knew the financial danger he had created.

My comparison was with Phil Gartside, very much Bolton's Steve Lansdown at the time, who poured a fortune into the club but with an unsustainable model. He was both their benefactor and their downfall.

My mistake, apologies. Derby are a bit of an unknown, depending on what players they bring in, having lost their loanees. Morris has been gambling on promotion for more than the one season mind you. It is the cumulative effect of that that led to the ground sale to get them out of a hole of his making. If he gambles again and fails he doesn't have that fall back any more. It will be interesting to see how it pans out this year.

I'm afraid not, FFP is designed to prevent owners simply pouring their money directly into fees and wages. Steve has done that in the past and it ended in relegation. Phil Gartside did the same at Bolton and look at the state they are in. If you were a Bolton fan would you have been cheering him on? Morris isn't a good example as he gambled and failed. Not a role model for anybody I would think. Of course if you aren't bothered if we get into financial trouble again and have to sell assets to pay the bills that's a different matter. Personally I prefer a more responsible approach that doesn't put the club at risk.

Will those of our fans who demand that we spend money we don't have and accuse Steve of using FFP as an excuse take note I wonder?

The question you have to ask in circumstances like this, and the way controls over agents were introduced then swept away 5 minutes later is another example, is who benefits? In other words, follow the money. To use your example, the UK media has been largely silent on the Man City issue. The bottom line is they are not going to upset the various cash cows they benefit from, however corrupt they are. In their defence, most fans don't give a toss either, particularly if their club is a beneficiary. So stuff like this is left to people like Football Leaks but of course the football authorities combined with the Portuguese public authorities to turn the law on Rui Pinto. Again, virtual silence from the media.

And still football journalists continue to ignore the issue. It couldn't be because it would take some actual work as opposed to regurgitating stuff from Pogba's Instagram and other such fluff surely?

Quite. After all if their average home attendance was 2 and 1 of them went to away games they would have a 50% rate. Numeracy isn't their thing is it? No wonder Wally finds it so easy to pull the wool over their eyes when it comes to finances.

Preferably Villa. Please.

I'm inclined to agree, except football, and especially the football media, has lost any sense of its history. After all, the game began in 1992. If Bury went there would be a few crocodile tears then it would be quickly back to talking what Paul Pogba has posted on Instagram.

If you are suggesting it is run for the benefit of a minority of big clubs then I'm shocked. Surely nobody could believe such a thing of an organization of which Shaun Harvey was the custodian? It is like suggesting that Boris Johnson is a proven liar for heaven's sake.

Indeed, I read this earlier: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jul/25/efl-warns-bury-league-one-fixtures-could-be-suspended A real chance they could be expelled. Which will of course lead to the EFL getting its act in order and ensuring that its clubs are run in a financially sustainable way. Or possibly not.

Ah, but Steve lives in a lair hollowed out of a volcano I expect.

Agreed, except the EFL is more likely to create more loopholes. That is what some clubs are after and if they are big enough they will get their way, with only Steve Gibson resisting I suspect.

Yes, they have to show they will be able to fulfil their fixtures. Mind you, this is the EFL, a note from their Mum will probably do.

A fuller picture from the same source is here: http://priceoffootball.com/tag/bristol-city/ Note the net sales of £13m are to appear in the latest accounts. Presumably the sales of Kelly and Eisa will appear next year.

I thought players had the right to walk away if they haven't been paid for a certain period? Edit: thanks @Sleepy1968 I have mixed feelings about this whole situation. On the one hand I think the game needs significant clubs to fold to come to its senses. On the other, I suspect it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference and clubs would carry on in the same reckless way. Goaded on by fans demanding they spend money they don't have. Paraphrasing Gareth Southgate: love the game, hate the business.

It's not just preferring them to us, it's agreeing that they are the country's greatest fans. Like all irrational belief it is wholly without evidence.

A case of if you pretend to build it they will pretend to come.

Fortunately, OTIB is a meathead free zone.

They went on to say he had been sending them threatening texts and emails. Doubtless he would pass the fit and proper person test, when you consider some others who have.