Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
moore_94

EFL Statement - Club has no obligation to submit and agree business plan

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, ClaphamFox said:

In the article in the Telegraph, Percy writes:

 

“Last year they announced record losses of £92.5 million for the 2021-22 season, and it is understood that latest financial accounts are also likely to report a heavy deficit when they are announced this month.

And we could still be allowed a deficit under PSR. Remember there is a difference between financial accounts and PSR accounts. The accounts won't include the sale of Maddison for instance, they don't include all the allowable PSR losses. 

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimmy said:

go to the board members, keep asking them, even if they don't answer they may demand answers and actions from Top

I don’t think you realise how protected those people are. And also how much of a basket case the whole organisation is. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chocolate Teapot said:

It's a nice idea but several at the club, even senior people don't have that level of access.

I'm talking about the journalists. we are an asset of KPI, losing this much money but the people in charge not being hauled over the coals for it will look bad to them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Nolucklcfc said:

All this while Man City chill in the background. 

It is all a bit of a mockery though. Man City and Newcastle both are owned by people who have literally infinite amounts of money, so what's even the point of sustainability rules for them?

 

It also makes me wonder how long the likes of Villa, Wolves etc can go on for, and how on earth someone like Bournemouth can be fine given their fanbase size?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Will1981 said:

I think he was signed to replace Daka then Bournemouth pulled out of the deal. So strange to have 4 strikers on the books when Enzo never has more than 1 on the pitch at a time.

Not only that but with Nacho in his last year we couldn't be sure if he would be here either. There were various reports about Palace and Brighton being interested. Everton needed a sale and if he'd gone elsewhere we were going to pay more for him further down the line. He's an investment going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jimmy said:

I'm talking about the journalists. we are an asset of KPI, losing this much money but the people in charge not being hauled over the coals for it will look bad to them

The club will just ignore them as they always do. We're not important to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimmy said:

I'm talking about the journalists. we are an asset of KPI, losing this much money but the people in charge not being hauled over the coals for it will look bad to them

I don't think our club works like other businesses do. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SemperEadem said:

Ahaha these lot don’t talk to us mere minions.

I notice the Tigers CEO has been all over the media explaining to fans why prices have gone up on season tickets etc (aka taking responsibility).

 

Forest also have good comms when it comes to this sort of stuff.

 

We on the other hand, are basically in a footballing equivalent of Putin's Russia in the sense of 'we'll make your life as a fan easy, provided that you never question us'.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Chocolate Teapot said:

The club will just ignore them as they always do. We're not important to them.

I'm not talking about the club I'm talking about the board of the parent company King Power International, the people Top has to please in order to stay as Chairman of KPI.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Lionator said:

It is all a bit of a mockery though. Man City and Newcastle both are owned by people who have literally infinite amounts of money, so what's even the point of sustainability rules for them?

 

It also makes me wonder how long the likes of Villa, Wolves etc can go on for, and how on earth someone like Bournemouth can be fine given their fanbase size?

Newcastle are in the sh!t too. They are at the point of needing to sell Bruno and Trippier in June just to get back in the rules.  Wolves did what we did last summer and bought no-one. The difference is they hired a manager who can work on a budget.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimmy said:

I'm not talking about the club I'm talking about the board of the parent company King Power International, the people Top has to please in order to stay as Chairman of KPI.

What makes you think they'll entertain such thoughts or questions? 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, iancognito said:

Newcastle are in the sh!t too. They are at the point of needing to sell Bruno and Trippier in June just to get back in the rules.  Wolves did what we did last summer and bought no-one. The difference is they hired a manager who can work on a budget.

And this is exactly why it's stupid. I don't like the idea of buying your way to success but the very idea that Newcastle are putting their club's existence in danger by spending is crazy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I notice the Tigers CEO has been all over the media explaining to fans why prices have gone up on season tickets etc (aka taking responsibility).

 

Forest also have good comms when it comes to this sort of stuff.

 

We on the other hand, are basically in a footballing equivalent of Putin's Russia in the sense of 'we'll make your life as a fan easy, provided that you never question us'.

We hear from top, if you spend £3.50 on a programme 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ramadaone said:

John Percy burnt a few bridges there

Very strange

Yeah, not his usual style to be so sensationalist. Didn’t someone suggest his source was Rudkin, looks like he won’t be speaking with him any time soon! 😂

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, UniFox21 said:

Oh come off it, our issue is significantly simpler than the 115 charges brought against Man City 

The wording I heard was clubs being pulled/punished in "Real time", the point being their charges date back over many years, why weren't they pulled up way before now, meanwhile the 'lesser' clubs are being pulled up instantly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Leicester have been arguing with the Football League over whether they have to submit a business plan that will forecast their figures to the end of June. After a review by an independent panel, it turns out that they don’t.
 

(mirror)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Matt said:

The wording I heard was clubs being pulled/punished in "Real time", the point being their charges date back over many years, why weren't they pulled up way before now, meanwhile the 'lesser' clubs are being pulled up instantly.

Because back then the Prem had free reign to do what it pleased. 

Now the threat of an independent regulator to keep them all in order has them actually scrambling to police things 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its got to the point where FFP and these financial rulings are simply non-competitive unless of course you are part of the elite top 6 where those same rules do not apply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, CosbehFox said:

The journalists have tried multiple times. Even when successful to get Rudkin on record. 

Rudkin has absolutely everything to lose and nothing to gain from doing an interview with a journalist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...