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

Recommended Posts

Posted
5 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

It's almost like they charge us, we evade the charges.

 

So they change the rules and we still evade the charges.

 

So they change the rules again...

 

Constantly out to get us while Man City and Chelsea wave their bare asses in their faces.

This is what it’s reading like to me. What a mess. Sack the board 

Posted
2 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

 

@Les-TA-Jon add backs are around 20-25m per annum for health deductions. 

What is a health deduction? 

 

My understanding is that add-backs are typically: infrastructure, youth development, women's football, community investment, depreciation of assets 

Posted
57 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

What the hell can we use otherwise?

 

As I said, our loss is £119m more than the allowance. I'm not saying we've breached by that much, because we don't know what add-backs we've got - but it's a starting point. 

We don’t! 
 

I’m just saying that financial results don’t necessarily equal out on a ratio on PSR in the two examples of Forest and Everton; and therefore allow to us predict the size of the breach. Those two clubs add backs are so peculiar to them; Everton with new stadium development for example 

  • Like 2
Posted

It's incompetence from Top down. Rudkin must be an absolute tool. They deserve everything they get frankly. The only people I sympathise with the fans who pay good money for these goons to bugger up the club. 

  • Like 2
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

What is a health deduction? 

 

My understanding is that add-backs are typically: infrastructure, youth development, women's football, community investment, depreciation of assets 

They are what's called healthy deductions = add-backs 

 

Depending on whose term you use. 

 

I have us on -133m after healthy deductions, so a breach of around 28m if you use the 105m limit. 

Edited by coolhandfox
  • Like 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

Can’t wait to find out which shitty deal it was that pushed us over

Patson Daka's appearance based instalment 

Posted
1 minute ago, Fazzer 7 said:

It's incompetence from Top down. Rudkin must be an absolute tool. They deserve everything they get frankly. The only people I sympathise with the fans who pay good money for these goons to bugger up the club. 

Its insane that this has been going on for 3 years and we’ve still breached in every set of accounts. We got relegated the first time around because we didnt spend in the summer to comply and delayed sacking Rodgers. We ended up not complying and getting relegated anyway. Yet despite that hard lesson we’ve gone on to fail again? Despite riding our luck with a fortunate technical decision? 
 

I cant get my head around why the football club is being run in such a way and who finds it acceptable? 

  • Like 4
Posted
7 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

They are what's called healthy deductions = add-backs 

 

Depending on whose term you use. 

 

I have us on -133m after healthy deductions, so a breach of around 28m if you use the 105m limit. 

Ah OK. I wonder how you've got to that figure or what info informs it. 

 

And I think we're using £83m limit for period ending 23/24 right, since that final season was in the EFL? '£39m allowable loss + £22m for each PL season in the period' 

Posted
19 minutes ago, Les-TA-Jon said:

What is a health deduction? 

 

My understanding is that add-backs are typically: infrastructure, youth development, women's football, community investment, depreciation of assets 

We’ve got a very healthy depreciation of assets.

  • Like 1
Posted

Simon Jordan surprisingly a bit more conciliatory towards us and takes a bit of aim at the absurdity of the Premier League and EFL’s rules.

 

 

The irony here being they also discuss the finalists of the Europa League, one of whom lost £85m MORE than us over the same period but were given a £40m COVID allowance that no other club was allowed. 

  • Like 1
Posted
24 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

That’s an allegation that hasn’t been proven, and they have a history of demanding documents they didn’t have the authority to demand

It's a deadline, either we returned them on time or we didn't, it's black and white. Do you think they're charging us with submitting them late, knowing full well we didn't? 

 

And they're very much documents that they have the authority to demand, and everyone else seems to be able to submit them on time without a problem. 

  • Like 2
Posted

Just sat here thinking genuinely don’t care. I even sat there on Sunday just thinking how much I didn’t care…. Other than being there to see Vardy, the whole lot just left a sour taste in my mouth. This club is dead and buried. 

  • Like 2
Posted

Could be the Premier leagues way of getting Man C out the brown stuff, they get docked 50pts go 18th then they hit us with 11pt deduction we go back in 18th...conspiracy  conspiracy :P

 

That would certainly be 1 for the history books looking back on this season & seeing Man U, Spurs, Man C in 15-17th

Guest Bilo
Posted

Right, now I'm confused.

Screenshot_20250520_152700_BBC Sport.jpg

Posted
42 minutes ago, LCFCCKEANO said:

Hate to be the bearer of bad news but if we are forced to sell it will mainly be BEK/Nelson/Monga/anyone who is wanted who can produce a good profit for the books.

I guess it depends how much we need to do to comply really, ideally we want to get rid of of Vestergaard, Kristiansen, Ricardo (😭) Daka, BDCR, Ayew, Winks, Coady, Hermansen for the profit and then look at the names mentioned if we still fall short, my guess would be if we could get those players above off the books (even at a book loss) it would stand us in good stead to keep hold of the likes of BEK/Nelson etc. We only broke PSR by a small amount in 22/23 despite having a wage bill that was £30m above anyone else through player sales and big earners leaving, hopefully we can shift some on. I know they’ve been largely awful this season but I think players like Faes can get a move for a few million somewhere in Europe, and Kristiansen did a good job in Serie A last season. 
 
Fingers crossed. 

Posted
11 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

It's a deadline, either we returned them on time or we didn't, it's black and white. Do you think they're charging us with submitting them late, knowing full well we didn't? 

 

And they're very much documents that they have the authority to demand, and everyone else seems to be able to submit them on time without a problem. 

The EFL charged us in 2023/24 for failing to provide a business plan which was then proven they didn’t have the authority to demand. This may well be a similar situation of jurisdiction and the leagues (again) overstepping the mark. Neither league have a shred of credibility. 

Posted
19 minutes ago, urban.spaceman said:

Simon Jordan surprisingly a bit more conciliatory towards us and takes a bit of aim at the absurdity of the Premier League and EFL’s rules.

 

 

The irony here being they also discuss the finalists of the Europa League, one of whom lost £85m MORE than us over the same period but were given a £40m COVID allowance that no other club was allowed. 

I mentioned that on Facey, and Forest selling that nobody keeper for £25m, there's crooked deals all over 

  • Like 1
Posted
40 minutes ago, moore_94 said:

Can’t wait to find out which shitty deal it was that pushed us over

I’m going for we got scammed into paying a £2m fee to undergo Sensi’s medical.

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

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