Since the offence is a case of totting up the days of late payments and the Villa Embargo was for 30 days I assume the Man City one only needed to be 1 day to take it back over the 30 days. If this is the case then surely if the Villa one is successfully contested then we'd be only 1 day over?
Depends how late the Man C one actually was. But you'd think that if the villa one was expunged then that would take 30 days off the balance. I'm not sure anyone expects it to be expunged completely though. I was hopeful that it would be reduced and suspended like Oxford before the other case came to light. Can't see it now though as it isn't in isolation.
What is forgotten, discounted, totally ignored, call it what you will, is the increase in prem prize money that year. We received way, way, more for being relegated than the team that won the thing the year before. The secondary effect of that was an explosion in transfer fees. Bruce bought at sensible prices. The club subsequently sold at insane prices. Never mind the rest, c'mon 10% for Harry Maguire going to Man U? Kerr f******g ching.
Wow. Just wow! Cant believe what some are writing You want a proper example of what lying, deceitful, vindictive, self serving, conceited owners actually look like then thats the Allams. Have people really got that short a memory to be rewriting history so soon?
You forgot to mention very open with where the money came from. Care to pop on here Acun's equivalent of the Allamhouse accounts?
The Allams may have been vindictive, self-serving and conceited but they still ran the club far better than Acun has done.
Nothing to show from 2 more windfalls of PL money. A decimated fanbase. Massive missed opportunities to really establish ourselves. We were only heading one way by the time they left. Life literally sucked out of the club. At this moment in time, we don't know how it ends with Acun. Only twt.
Woah woah woah. The Allams became poor owners. My reply specifically said they were decent until they stopped spending money to make money, which coincided with all the other nonsense on the name change and concessions.
They invested money to improve our academy which led to the development and progression of players like Lewis-Potter and Greaves. What has Acun done for the long-term future of the club? **** all except free holidays.
I'll take it you have no idea where his money is coming from then? No accounts? No auditable trail? Who is lending him the money, not least of all to burn expensive holes in the sky with an oversize exec jet?
Acun: "When it comes to payments for suppliers, unfortunately the club experienced a financial fluidity problem when it failed to receive a £1.5m payment for a player to settle supplier invoices." "I will cover this shortage until we receive the funds we're due, and our team will be in contact with all suppliers to resolve any outstanding issues as soon as possible." It's a bit ambiguously worded but wouldnt anybody just pay the club, the club pays the suppliers and then when the club receives the £1.5m they would pay Acun back?
Love how your mind tries to conform reality to your own world view. Applying the same logic, Harold Shipman may have been one of the most prolific serial killers this country has produced but at least he only targeted old ladies.
Yet you seem to be comparing one **** owner with another. End result is still ****. To use your analogy we got rid of a Shipman but we got a Charles Manson instead. Whoop de doo!
