Foxes_Trust Posted 10 March 2015 Share Posted 10 March 2015 We'll be ok: Football League Chairman - Greg Clarke (ex LCFC chairman) FA Chief Exec - Martin Glenn (ex LCFC Director) Ex - chairman of the FA Premier League, member of the Football Association (FA)'s Board, chairman of the FA's international committee, president of the European Professional Football Leagues organisation, chairman of UEFA's Professional Football Committe and Ex Trestellar board member and father of the "owner" - Sir Dave Richards. Ha. Greg Clarke would have no input on decisions relating to LCFC, as a known supporter of the club he is not allowed to be directly involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 10 March 2015 Share Posted 10 March 2015 £2m per year for far East marketing rights for an Asian-owned premier league club with ambitions of getting into Europe doesn't seem excessive to me. You're talking as if it will obviously get rejected, I'm not so sure. The only comparables by which a valuation can be made will be other premier league clubs, and I'm sure they have similar deals in place. As for why the club would get involved, obviously to avoid a fine. I doubt it took much effort to do the deal. Probably a couple of weeks work to potentially avoid a fine that could run into millions. Clearly something worth doing. The figure was £13m in a single accounting year, if it was £2m/year it would be phased in the accounts over the duration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I blame Wellens Posted 10 March 2015 Share Posted 10 March 2015 Could not give a toss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 10 March 2015 Share Posted 10 March 2015 Greg Clarke would have no input on decisions relating to LCFC, as a known supporter of the club he is not allowed to be directly involved.Errr it was a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 10 March 2015 Share Posted 10 March 2015 The figure was £13m in a single accounting year, if it was £2m/year it would be phased in the accounts over the duration.Wow you're on a roll of missing the point aren't you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 10 March 2015 Share Posted 10 March 2015 That comes from not reading a whole thread and not just the last couple posts. I'm sure the FT are very busy though I would have thought a thread like this might attract rather more of their attention. Who knows, they might pick something up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 10 March 2015 Share Posted 10 March 2015 That comes from not reading a whole thread and not just the last couple posts. I'm sure the FT are very busy though I would have thought a thread like this might attract rather more of their attention. Who knows, they might pick something up! Who the league or the trust Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sylofox Posted 10 March 2015 Share Posted 10 March 2015 Considering Forest made a loss of £23m I'm not sure they are in a position to critisise. My point was the 20m loss and if we get round it and don't have to pay a fine. Then florest get a transfer embargo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesmilner Posted 10 March 2015 Share Posted 10 March 2015 Well good luck trying to get that to hold up in a court of law. you obviously know nothing !! its not a court of law this will be sorted out in . if in their opinion trestellar are being used just to make accounts seem correct then we have failed . if ffp was that easily manipulated then all owners would just buy a balti pie for millions in the concourse !!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 10 March 2015 Share Posted 10 March 2015 all owners would just buy a balti pie for millions in the concourse !!!! Based in the level of thought and planning that appears to have gone into last year, If Susan whelan is reading this then that's next years accounts sorted ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vlad the Fox Posted 10 March 2015 Share Posted 10 March 2015 if ffp was that easily manipulated then all owners would just buy a balti pie for millions in the concourse !!!! Oh wow, how good would a balti pie be that cost that much. I should imagine it'd be made using the finest spices and herbs available to man, chicken so free range it's just come back from a gap year and pastry rolled on the rippling naked thighs of fat northern lasses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 10 March 2015 Share Posted 10 March 2015 Foxes_Trust, on 10 Mar 2015 - 12:16 AM, said: Greg Clarke would have no input on decisions relating to LCFC, as a known supporter of the club he is not allowed to be directly involved. Errr it was a joke. From you yes, but in case anyone thinks he could get involved we have spoken to Greg directly in the past while in his current role and he does have to be clearly seen as not contributing/taking a positive stance relating to LCFC, so the post was reflecting directly what he said to us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxes_Trust Posted 10 March 2015 Share Posted 10 March 2015 Posted Today, 06:11 AM Foxes_Trust, on 10 Mar 2015 - 12:17 AM, said: The figure was £13m in a single accounting year, if it was £2m/year it would be phased in the accounts over the duration.Wow you're on a roll of missing the point aren't you. That comes from not reading a whole thread and not just the last couple posts.I'm sure the FT are very busy though I would have thought a thread like this might attract rather more of their attention. Who knows, they might pick something up! St Albans is correct, came on here to post something else & just read the latter part of the thread. We await the Football League's final decision with interest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theessexfox Posted 10 March 2015 Share Posted 10 March 2015 Shapes to me too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 11 March 2015 Share Posted 11 March 2015 you obviously know nothing !! its not a court of law this will be sorted out in . if in their opinion trestellar are being used just to make accounts seem correct then we have failed . if ffp was that easily manipulated then all owners would just buy a balti pie for millions in the concourse !!!! Sigh, I'm not sure why I'm bothering but... Have you ever heard of a legal challenge? I'm well aware the league aren't a court of bloody law, but if they decide it's fictitious on a hunch or a guess the club could i would imagine challenge them in the courts, if they don't have evidence to prove it's fictitious then then any legal challenge to it would probably be successful. Your analogy is just stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 11 March 2015 Share Posted 11 March 2015 Posted Today, 06:11 AM Foxes_Trust, on 10 Mar 2015 - 12:17 AM, said:Wow you're on a roll of missing the point aren't you. St Albans is correct, came on here to post something else & just read the latter part of the thread. We await the Football League's final decision with interest You released info on how many current members you have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MooseBreath Posted 11 March 2015 Share Posted 11 March 2015 Based in the level of thought and planning that appears to have gone into last year, If Susan whelan is reading this then that's next years accounts sorted !I still don't get why you're so negative about this. The trick is to come up with something that's vague, ambiguous and difficult to value and it appears that that's exactly what we've done. Buying a balti pie for millions is totally different because it's extremely easy to value a balti pie by just looking at what they go for elsewhere. You can't do that with the trestellar deal. If what they've done is so obviously poor then how about you come up with some suggestions as to how it could have been done better? How many facets of a football club are there that could potentially attract a multi-million pound investment but which are also vague enough as to not allow easy valuation? I can't think of many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 11 March 2015 Share Posted 11 March 2015 Moose - like I said before - the idea is ok if you think that's the best option available. My issue is the profile of trestellar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leicester Lass Posted 11 March 2015 Share Posted 11 March 2015 If anyone wants some light reading and wants a full copy of the accounts drop me a PM and I'll email them to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamesmilner Posted 11 March 2015 Share Posted 11 March 2015 Sigh, I'm not sure why I'm bothering but... Have you ever heard of a legal challenge? I'm well aware the league aren't a court of bloody law, but if they decide it's fictitious on a hunch or a guess the club could i would imagine challenge them in the courts, if they don't have evidence to prove it's fictitious then then any legal challenge to it would probably be successful. Your analogy is just stupid. email ed Thompson who runs ffp.co.uk then come back with your tail between your legs . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
st albans fox Posted 11 March 2015 Share Posted 11 March 2015 email ed Thompson who runs ffp.co.uk then come back with your tail between your legs . Why the 'aggressive' tone? James Milner always seemed such a laid back chap to me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 12 March 2015 Share Posted 12 March 2015 email ed Thompson who runs ffp.co.uk then come back with your tail between your legs . So Ed Thomson has said it's impossible to challenge FFP in the courts then has he? Because there have been articles since about four years ago about teams challenging it in the courts... perhaps they should all email Ed Thomson and get set straight. With the way we've done the deal, it's very hard for the league to say we're doing something wrong. They can pick you up on it if you for instance sell your shirt sponsorship for £8m, when you usually do the deal for £300,000. Or sell a burger for £10m, to use your silly analogy. But how can they put a figure on something like this, it's very hard for them to do so as I doubt there is much precedent throughout the league for comparison. So whilst they might think it's dodgy, they will know that if they do decide they want £10 without any evidence it is actually dodgy, the club could drag this out through the courts and the league (without evidence or precedent for comparison) would have little to hold it up. The leagues best bet would to call our bluff... and then settle for a much smaller amount. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bettsj2 Posted 12 March 2015 Share Posted 12 March 2015 So Ed Thomson has said it's impossible to challenge FFP in the courts then has he? Because there have been articles since about four years ago about teams challenging it in the courts... perhaps they should all email Ed Thomson and get set straight. With the way we've done the deal, it's very hard for the league to say we're doing something wrong. They can pick you up on it if you for instance sell your shirt sponsorship for £8m, when you usually do the deal for £300,000. Or sell a burger for £10m, to use your silly analogy. But how can they put a figure on something like this, it's very hard for them to do so as I doubt there is much president throughout the league for comparison. So whilst they might think it's dodgy, they will know that if they do decide they want £10 without any evidence it is actually dodgy, the club could drag this out through the courts and the league (without evidence or president for comparison) would have little to hold it up. The leagues best bet would to call our bluff... and then settle for a much smaller amount. This all day long. Also I think you mean precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babylon Posted 12 March 2015 Share Posted 12 March 2015 This all day long. Also I think you mean precedent. That's the one... typed it out about 10 different ways and kept getting the dreaded red line appear under it. Rather than look it up I thought who I was replying to and guessed they wouldn't pick up on it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjslcfc Posted 13 March 2015 Share Posted 13 March 2015 http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-2993315/QPR-fined-50m-breaching-Financial-Fair-Play-rules.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490&utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitterSeems our (and probably everyone's) thoughts about QPR's dodgy figures were correct... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.