It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
The Man City case is to complicated for one hearing - Only 1 set of charges thrown at Forest and Everton -115 for City
The issue with City is they are not actually making a loss on paper - Unlike Forest and Everton whose losses are declared by the clubs accounts - City are effectively cooking the books with complex transactions to make it look like they are actually making a profit
Look at the sponsorship of the stadium - Which happens to be another company owned by the same company- They can create a false figure of sponsorship to create additional funds and avoid losses, but it is not a true figure - It is a complex situation and not to dissimilar to a big firm or rich individual with various tax avoidance schemes in play
I think the PL are scared of taking on City until they know they have a cast iron case - No use turning up at hearing, losing then blowing their chances of a 2nd case later - Plus of course City have more resources and probably better lawyers to take on the PL
Hard to comment on the old days of Chelsea under Roman , but their next set of accounts, under the new owners are expected to show a 150 million lose in a 12 month period- So that will be punishment, as per Forest, very quickly
The question I have is that do Forest now start at zero - And on that basis they can see what happens over the next 3 years to see if they rack up losses over 105 million before any new set of punishment is due for exceeding the guidelines
Or do they now get rid of the oldest set of accounts which are 3 years old - But if the next set of accounts is also negative and over 35 million, which then added to the last 2 sets of accounts will take them over 105 million again - Yet they have already punished for 2 of those years - hope that makes sense
ie year A lose 40 million - year B lose 40 million- year C lose 40 million- total loss is 120 million - you are now punished
move on and year A is now irrelevant as the rules are based on the last 3 years - But year D ( new and latest set of accounts) you lose 40 million - Are you now punished for years B C and D so effectively punished again for B and C - as I say I hope you can see my question
More than once now you see them going back to check for offence A B or C that happened earlier in the build up / goal as well- As though search long and hard enough we might find an offence- As you say so much for clear and obvious
To be fair, in the EFL we have no VAR - watched a Sky match recently and it was on the red button so no replay at all - Yet it was thought Leeds should have had a penalty- After the game I saw an X/twitter replay of the incident - I watched it 5 times and couldn’t decide ‘clearly ‘ either way - So not always easy for VAR but again as you say ‘clear and obvious’ and decide after X amount of time or move on
Ebay mark7777_1
IMO worse in that they have not submitted recent accounts on time - Derby went through this whilst cooking a set of false accounts which ultimately led to admin
Lack of accounts on time to the sport authorities should be instant points deduction- If 90 odd other teams can submit accounts on time then so can you - Like failing to turn up for your drug test, it means you are probably guilty and hiding something
The issue here is that the PL can’t issue a points deduction via the EFL and vice versa
how the he’ll are we supposed to be inclusive and support the Uk teams if you won’t even show it?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68632034
What is that England colllar? The other teams break it up with other colours at least, but looks as if its badly sewn (France home)
All the kits seem very retro this time, some even give me knock-off vibes. Maybe its the enlarged logos (Adidas) and crests.
http://www.thefretboard.co.uk/discussion/57632/
Most clubs, who ever they are, receive between 7.5% and 15%of the actual shirt sale - But remember this is on top of the sponsorship deal the club have created with Nike/Addidas etc etc - ie Liverpool received £150 mill from Nike for a 5 year deal - This deal was unusual in that LFC actually make a 20% on each shirt sold - As I say most deals are between 7.5 and 15% commission, once a certain number of shirts have been sold - I believe LFC got a better deal as at the start of that deal/campaign, they were the only club (major club) in the CL wearing Nike - Hence they negotiated a 20% commission
Such an arrangement is essentially a licensing deal. Kit providers such as Adidas, Nike, Puma, pay a club for the right to produce and sell merchandise - On top of the licensing fee, these providers then give the club a cut of the sales, usually once they pass a certain threshold
It is still a good deal for the club - Sell a million shirts at £80 a piece - 15% commission - £12.00 - equates to 12 million - Plus the stock is owned by the manufacture, so LFC, Man U etc do not have to buy the stock
I like a bit of TinTin. Not the unpleasantly racist old stuff, I'm quite happy that they revised it all.
A nice game to watch on terrestrial tv. Always good to see brazil playing and seeing how the english cope. Not even looked at the english squad, but they all look like 6th formers.