|
|
Post by skip on Oct 8, 2024 11:54:25 GMT
Disagree. We're just on a 20 year long string. A Foucault pendulum club. Oof. This goes straight into my list of Things I'd Never Think Would Be Mentioned On The Oatcake. |
|
|
|
Post by thornestein on Oct 8, 2024 11:55:46 GMT
I’m not convinced the Daily Mail even read the findings before they published their article!!! Seems a strange headline though typically misleading for them. The headline seems a bit off the mark. This seems to mean that the PL will mainly tighten up a lot of existing rules, where there were loopholes. Another example of don’t just read the headlines! it could actually hurt a lot of clubs , they’re on about stopping interest free loans , so if teams have to start paying interest on owners loans that will effect them with psr |
|
|
|
Post by skip on Oct 8, 2024 11:59:59 GMT
Regarding the landmark decision, does this mean Man City have had their one hundred plus 'offences' chalked off?
|
|
|
|
Post by BristolMick on Oct 8, 2024 12:14:28 GMT
Blackburn Rovers won the league when Jack Walker decided he’d pour in his personal wealth to compete with the big clubs. The big clubs didn’t like that. The big clubs with their millions of glory hunting parasites funding them will always be the big winners from the so say FFP rules. Financial fair play sounds great but presently the only thing it achieves or probably even wants to achieve is to keep the big clubs big and make sure that they always have the best chance of winning all the trophies! As a Stoke fan I detest any regulation that is designed to stop my club from competing at the highest level other than as a make weight every now and then! BM And when Walker's money ran out Blackburn Rovers went into decline. That's the problem with a sugar daddy owner - if they pump money in beyond what the club itself can sustain when the money runs out the club is screwed. FFP is there to stop clubs getting screwed by both unscrupulous owners and those with more money than sense. It screws the clubs when unscrupulous owners pump the money in secured on the assets of the FC like the Portsmouth owner did causing them to nearly go bust but it doesn’t screw the club if money is instead introduced as either share capital or sponsorship income. The current FFP rules are designed to keep the big clubs big and to prevent anyone else crashing their party. We have owners who are capable of funding the FC to achieve more than it otherwise would if it just relied on its normal income. Why can’t that be allowed provided it’s not capital introduced as a secured loan? BM |
|
|
|
Post by spitthedog on Oct 8, 2024 12:34:51 GMT
Regarding the landmark decision, does this mean Man City have had their one hundred plus 'offences' chalked off? Nope. This is nowt do with it as far as I can tell. |
|
|
|
Post by Ron on Oct 8, 2024 13:02:53 GMT
Exactly, rendering ffp futile. They'll ban betting sponsorship first  I am sure the coates will get their money into the club via sponsorship without the need for Bet365 to be emblazoned all over. |
|
|
|
Post by lordb on Oct 8, 2024 13:34:16 GMT
Regarding the landmark decision, does this mean Man City have had their one hundred plus 'offences' chalked off? no |
|
|
|
Post by Biblical on Oct 9, 2024 16:53:05 GMT
If the Premier League with all their money are having to spend untold amounts to try and enforce rules then it’s hard to see how an independent regulator will do much better.
|
|
|
|
Post by baconburger on Oct 9, 2024 17:53:12 GMT
I wonder where JC's money comes from ?? obviously his wages and dividends from bet365 , that doesn’t mean they’ll be funding us from now on I'm not really sure what you're getting through you. The only money invested in Stoke City will come from bet365 however you want to slice it. If there were no money coming out of bet365 there'd be no money for the club. Whether it comes out of John's slice of bet365 or Peter's or Denise's makes absolutely no difference to the club or it's fans. If the Golden Goose were to stop laying there'd be no money regardless of the name over the door. |
|
|
|
Post by skip on Oct 9, 2024 22:31:54 GMT
Regarding the landmark decision, does this mean Man City have had their one hundred plus 'offences' chalked off? Nope. This is nowt do with it as far as I can tell. I daren't ask, but, ok, so what has happened here then? |
|
