Does that mean if we are well placed, he can gamble without the scrutiny halfway through the winter transfer window?
It has been. Tan mentioned it explicitly when fans were bed wetting about us spending too much in Jan and therefore they were gonna bankrupt the club and walk away like Bartlett and Duffen, apparently... Think it was the 1904 club live event.
Possibly, though it's be something like 4 days and I'd hope it was better odds than the last gamble . Howden seems to think so from a recent post. It should mean that we could sign replacements ahead of anticipated sales at least. Unlike the situation we're having where we need clear headroom first to sign players.
Ok, I do recall he mentioned we were under extra scrutiny but hadn’t realised the implications, ie having to create headroom before a signing.
What else could it mean? He mentioned it directly in relation to not being able to do anything that might even theoretically endanger the club.
I'm sure they mentioned it in Jan, I remember Tan saying 'they're checking we're not just some crazy Turks'
It makes that gamble even more odd. Many of us felt we should have targeted this season when the relegated teams were not as strong as last seasons plus they won’t have the full parachutes.
If you look at the accounts, they had 'only' posted losses of around 12m in the first 2 sets of accounts, meaning there was surplus to have a go with last year. So perhaps it wasn't quite as mad as at face value. My issue was that they gambled for playoffs, when even if you do make them it's still a 75% failure rate. But then if they hadn't, there'd have been headroom from the 21/22 season they'd have effectively have lost.
That they were monitoring us. So as long as over the window we didn’t get into further debt, rather than having to create that headroom first.
But if they hadn’t spent that surplus then, it presumably would have been available this season when we had a better chance?
Not necessarily, it's a rolling 3 year period, so if you don't use it, you lose it. I can sort of see both angles.
It's not debt per se, it's losses above turnover over a rolling 3 years. Basically limiting how much owner subsidy is allowed - however that is structured, be it debt or capital. So if we're already at the limit, and we buy before we sell, then we have the contractural liability of both the new players, and the ones we need to get rid of showing as a liability. If then we are unable to shift the surplus players on or we don't get our valuation, then we would be projected to breech FFP. They won't sign off on that. Now once the probationary period is over, we'd be able to risk signing players based on the value of assets we intend to sell in the reporting period. But there'd still need to be a safe margin of error to ensure we didn't risk sanction down the line.
Has anyone bought that keeper from that bottom feeder club last season that was single handedly responsible for preventing us from winning about 86-0? I can’t remember who it was now or who he played for but it was one of the **** teams.
That's how it was explained to me, so that's probably in its simplest terms, but It'd have to be to get my head around it.
