There doesn't actually. Just people clutching at straws trying to find something negative to post. Becoming very difficult to find anything
At least we're apparently in the nice position we don't care. Still nice to see Cellino ****in up the fa if he gets a chance
That doesn't mean he's not done it. Though he does strike me as a thoroughly upstanding and honest member of society
Eire, his last ban was from the football league not the fa, they are if not completely different, it's not the same organisation.
Ok, one question, given he ran the club top to bottom, always said openly that was the case. Do you honestly think he knew nothing about the payment? Or that it would break rules? If you do I'm happy to concede and not discuss it with you again.
To be honest, I regularly make that mistake, bundling them all together. They're all a bunch of suits to me earning a living for nothing
Agree with that but anyone following what is going on with Cellino need to know that this isn't football league rules he's broken but FA rules. Bans him from all football if he loses and then does not have a hope of being accepted in the prem.
Maybe, but if I understand things correctly, if the government step in football in this country is ****ed as we know it.
Possibly. Anyway the Cellino ban is unenforceable.. the guy only needs to buy a pay as you go phone. Text whatever instructions and it can't be proven conclusively where they came from
I will try and spell it out for you. I appreciate that you're old and need a moment to think these things over. - Leeds offer to loan Pontus Janson, now back in the day, you would loan a player for free to help there development but that isn't the case anymore. Think of the scandal that is co-ownership / part ownership (Tevez etc). So now you pay a fee to loan a player to get around part ownership. - It may not have been "announced" but why would it. We will have paid a fee to loan him for the season, I imagine 500k give or take. - We have the ability to sign him for 3.5 million when he's played 22 games. We all agree with that, right? - That happens in January, so why not snap him up? He's played the amount of games he needs to right? Nah, we paid 500k for the season, why pay 3.5 million now when we have paid 500k for the season, it's doubling up expenses. We have paid for this season, why spend 3.5 million when the rest of this season is already paid for? - But we can sign him after January window ends. People can't seem to grasp this. You can buy a player whenever. See Man City spending **** knows on Jesus. They bought him last year. He can only play for the other team at a certain time, but you can buy them before they move. Simple really. I actually made the point in a previous thread that there was no need to sign Pontus in January as long as we do ultimately get him, and we have. Is it possible to break these pre made deals. Well yes, you can just go and break them. http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/38848318
Concentrate. I will use less words than you. The window was open, he had triggered the 23 game stipulation and we could have signed a permanent deal and for some reason it didnt happen. All is not as simple as you suggest.
Okay, you're missing out on point 3, it's here, in quotations and everything: "- That happens in January, so why not snap him up? He's played the amount of games he needs to right? Nah, we paid 500k for the season, why pay 3.5 million now when we have paid 500k for the season, it's doubling up expenses. We have paid for this season, why spend 3.5 million when the rest of this season is already paid for?" Okay, so we have paid 500k for 16/17 season. We could pay 3.5 million in January making our expenses on this player 4million in the accounts for the year. Or we could get what we have paid for, then sign him for 3.5 million at the end of the season. Now I do realise the outtake is 4 million and this is the total figure regardless but we're talking about annual accounts. It wouldn't make sense for the accounts/share holders to do that when it could be spread better.
