gazzer Posted 28 February 2015 Posted 28 February 2015 You don't have to be a genius to see that if we'd stuck with the approach of say Sven, or just stuck with his average overpaid players (Beckford for example), then we would be in a much worse financial position. I mean not only has he taken us up and as a result undeniably earnt us a shit load of money, but he's replaced undeniably average Championship players with top Championship players while spending no more on average per player than his predecessor. I think in terms of our finances, it's pretty clearly a fact that Nigel Pearson has done an awful lot to improve them. you my friend are a pearsonite. i am not. we're unlikely to change each other's opinions. so let's just leave it at that.
Stadt Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 you my friend are a pearsonite. i am not. we're unlikely to change each other's opinions. so let's just leave it at that.I wouldn't consider praising Pearson's work for sorting out the financial side of things makes somebody a pearsonite.Even if you didl kid him which you evidently done you can't deny what a brilliant job he's done salvaging the mess that Sven made.
st albans fox Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 I think we sometimes forget the mess of our finances made by Sven Whether that makes pearson a saint is another matter
Vicki Vixen Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 I've suggested before that Terry Robinson's dismissal was connected to our FFP failure, after he wrongly told the board we were compliant. Until I see anything different, I stick by the theory.
Mark_w Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 you my friend are a pearsonite. i am not. we're unlikely to change each other's opinions. so let's just leave it at that. That doesn't sound very fun. Surely the whole point of threads like this is that we debate it. You might not change my mind but I'd still like to see your response to the points I've made and tell me which are specifically wrong so that I can at least understand where you're coming from. If 'facts are useless when trying to defend him' now then one would have thought you could shut my argument down quite easily.
sylofox Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 Yep, definite bs. There'd be about 15 premier league clubs more likely to break it than us. It has nothing to do with the premier league it's a football league ruling. So unless you were in the FL in the season the figures equate to ie us Burnley and QPR it has nothing to do with Prem sides. Does the prem operate FFP or is it only the sisdes in europe that have to worry about it. or just cough up the fines and carry on spending like Man City and PSG.
Guest ttfn Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 I've suggested before that Terry Robinson's dismissal was connected to our FFP failure, after he wrongly told the board we were compliant. Until I see anything different, I stick by the theory. Why would Terry Robinson, a football person, be charged with updating the board on our FFP compliance? That would be the FD's job. It's like asking Knocky to produce a marketing campaign for the club shop.
st albans fox Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 It has nothing to do with the premier league it's a football league ruling. So unless you were in the FL in the season the figures equate to ie us Burnley and QPR it has nothing to do with Prem sides. Does the prem operate FFP or is it only the sisdes in europe that have to worry about it. or just cough up the fines and carry on spending like Man City and PSG. I believe it's only if you get into Europe that you have a problem. Hull have just been find 300k as they were in Europe league qualifying. I guess they knew that was coming and had to be offset against the money they got for their cup run.
st albans fox Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 Why would Terry Robinson, a football person, be charged with updating the board on our FFP compliance? That would be the FD's job. It's like asking Knocky to produce a marketing campaign for the club shop. I agree with that but I don't know how gullible our FD is so could be some truth about it.
Vicki Vixen Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 Why would Terry Robinson, a football person, be charged with updating the board on our FFP compliance? That would be the FD's job. It's like asking Knocky to produce a marketing campaign for the club shop. The role of Director of Football is pretty varied by club http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_football but generally is a go-between from the manager to the board. Our Finance Director is nothing more than an accountant https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/simon-capper/1a/876/614 as is the case at most football clubs. He books the numbers and makes sure we follow the relevant accounting rules. He is not responsible for the player transactions or their contracts. That was Robinson's role.
sylofox Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 The role of Director of Football is pretty varied by club http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_football but generally is a go-between from the manager to the board. Our Finance Director is nothing more than an accountant https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/simon-capper/1a/876/614 as is the case at most football clubs. He books the numbers and makes sure we follow the relevant accounting rules. He is not responsible for the player transactions or their contracts. That was Robinson's role. So you are claiming an FD is a glorified book keeper? Funny most I know set out company budgets and wage structure and the like. By doing so keeping the company within it's financial constraints ie still in business or within FFP The FD may have nothing to do with purchase of a player and his wage but he will have set the maximum budget for both. Only the chairman would be able to overide that not a DOF. In fact most DOF's would struggle to tie shoe laces let alone run the finances of a football club. You really think Joe Kinnear had control of finances at Newcastle lol and David Pleat at Spurs?
Guest ttfn Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 The role of Director of Football is pretty varied by club http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Director_of_football but generally is a go-between from the manager to the board. Our Finance Director is nothing more than an accountant https://uk.linkedin.com/pub/simon-capper/1a/876/614 as is the case at most football clubs. He books the numbers and makes sure we follow the relevant accounting rules. He is not responsible for the player transactions or their contracts. That was Robinson's role. Yes but he will be responsible for reporting to the board on financial compliance in whatever form. Robinson may carry the can for not successfully implementing cost-cutting measures to meet FFP but he would not be in a position to report on whether we were in line to meet it. FFP is a financial issue, not a football one. Reporting on it would undoubtedly be the remit of the FD.
davieG Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 It could be that the DofF either over or under spent their budget which I would imagine they were responsible for.
AKCJ Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 you my friend are a pearsonite. i am not. we're unlikely to change each other's opinions. so let's just leave it at that. "Pearsonite" is up there with "Kermo was decent" and "He only plays his mates" in the list of 'FoxesTalk's Worst Catchphrases'
smudger63 Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 I've suggested before that Terry Robinson's dismissal was connected to our FFP failure, after he wrongly told the board we were compliant. Until I see anything different, I stick by the theory. My theory is,that the the owners felt that they had to be seen to be doing something, after our poor run and poor season, and that it was easier and probably cheaper to make Robinson the scapegoat, rather than get rid of Pearson!
sylofox Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 It could be that the DofF either over or under spent their budget which I would imagine they were responsible for. If I was going to bet why he was sacked everything would go on that. The fact we were in such a shite run and he gets the bullet not the manager says if it was down to football reasons his lack of spending in the summer was to blame.
Guest ttfn Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 It could be that the DofF either over or under spent their budget which I would imagine they were responsible for. Exactly.
DANGEROUS TIGER Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 We shall have to wait and see what happens. It's no good speculating, with no actual facts known to us.
inckley fox Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 We may have breached FFP but the whole thing has already, much like points deductions for teams in Admin, been shown up for a joke. And, much like the aforementioned, it hits out at those 'on the outside looking in' rather than at those who are genuinely abusing the system, and capitalising on it. The collapse in quality in English football in the past 3/4 years owes a lot to this as well; the fact that sides in 14th and 15th in today's PL are so much more compromised by having to toe the FFP line than they were ten years ago, while the leading sides consistently find ways to use these new guidelines to their advantage. We've already seen from Celtic and Rangers, two of the sides with the biggest fanbase in the UK, what happens to sides who compete week in - week out against weakened opposition. And look at Spain, there is considerable panic over there as well about the lower half of their league. We skirt around the subject by saying that players in England have to play too many games, overlooking the fact that - between the end of August and the start of May - players play far more games than our players do in almost every major European league, and with more poorly-funded, smaller squads. Football, in general, is going through a crisis at its highest level. Too much talent is being swallowed up by people who won't allow it to develop in the way we used to. But, within this, it's massively unfair to point fingers at Pearson. He changed our direction, placing faith in younger players, investing for the future and reducing our wage bill significantly in one fell swoop. To hear us talking about getting 5m for Vardy, in the position we're in and after the season he's had, is a testament to the profitability of such a change in policy. It's a massive shame that he's taken us so far in the opposite direction over the past year or so, and that we're pondering farewells to Mahrez, Knockaert, Wood, Moore. With the exception of Cambiasso and the recently-overlooked Wasilewski, I'm not sure our investment in experience has really paid off. Nonetheless, to blame him for the consequences of Sven's over-spending, or a board's inability to rein in its own spending, is unfair. If we go down in 2015 we'll have the likes of James and Drinkwater, among others, to fall back on. Back in 2004 we had Peter Canero and Lee Morris.
davieG Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 Are the PL FFP rules affecting lower level PL teams that much?
sylofox Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 Yes FFP protects smaller clubs but all it really does is stops smaller clubs competing with the big boys. Much as I hate to say it we would all love to do what Florest did but that will never happen again unless someone is very very lucky. The weak get weak and the strong get stronger. All the rules need to say is owners can not loan clubs money they have to give it and owners can only take out a certain percentage each year, If our owners want to splash 500m and can only take 20% of profit back is that not upto them? If you own an engineering company and put 500m in who would bat an eyelid. Why can an owner of a club that turns over 250m spend more than a club that turns over 80m? This rule will not last long as big money owners will challenge it in court (and why should they not) All this rule should do is protect the club not stop it going forward. The whole of football will end up like scotland where smaller clubs can not compete. Once fans realise this smaller clubs will have very little support like in scotland. Was told years ago by a hearts fan the sooner celtic n rangers fvck off the better for scotish football. Fans do not go as clubs could not compete with celtic n rangers. But fans would go if they could compete.
MooseBreath Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 They're taking their sweet time over looking at our accounts that's for sure.
sylofox Posted 1 March 2015 Posted 1 March 2015 They're taking their sweet time over looking at our accounts that's for sure. Or thinking a big club with a huge away support is coming down do we screw them and 20 clubs pay for it if they are not competitive, The whole thing stinks. So a club over spends so they get a huge fine. Do they want a fifty club league? A points deduction would mean mare than any fine 20m to a billionaire is a nothing gamble. Infact if we fail and stay up when would we have to pay the fine? Before we go back down that may be never? The whole lot stinks put a law in owners can not loan to clubs they have to give. It is then up to the owner If I had 10 billion and wanted to make us champions is that not my choice. The FA and League should only be bothered that I don't destroy the club not what I want to spend. All these rules do is make anyone that wants to invest is cheat how many ways are there around it if you want to risk and waste that money. So my son owns a burger bar and sponsors the match ball for 500k a week. My business sponsors the shirts for 200m a season. And I name the ground swingers paradise after my club for 60m a year as long as it is paid what can they do to stop me or my wife if I put it in her name.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.