So now tell me just how the majority of supporters have any input into the corporate decision making? The board itself are appointed by the owners and therefore cannot be relied upon to do other than endorse the wishes of the owner.. Now you may favour red-blood approach to capitalism but I think you'll find that the majority of Europeans like their meat a little more palitable.
That's total garbage, how can a fanbase be sensibly used to assess and decide on the level of risk that should be taken with their clubs accounts? Their answer would be spend, spend, spend as they're fans ffs. Your following sentence contradicts the first, as you're describing exactly what FFP is designed to deliver!
I'm all for supporters having more say. That is totally different from bringing in the French Big Brother though. It can be done in the way of Barca. And/or through FA tightly monitoring the credentials of prospective owners, as they did with Leeds.
Again, an approved application holds an asset value (beyond what the actual cost was). We also have a 999 year lease on stanley park.
There is no contradiction, unless your circuits upstairs are shorting one another. FFP shackles a club's spending and monitors its bottom-line. They should be able to spend how much they see fit. All FFP needs to do is see that there is no "helping" from the parent billionaire firm, nothing else.
The council were gifting you Stanley Park for peanuts on a lease, but it was never completed as the development never saw the light of day, so you don't own a slice of Stanley Park and in any case however you might try and dress it up, that development could never have genuinely run up a capital cost of £35m it's preposterous
Lol, you're truly clueless Klingon. FFP does exactly what you're saying there, it monitors the losses that could be underwritten by a benefactor / 3rd party company. It only allows spending beyond its loss limits if that money is spent on infrastructure development. A company can only "spend as much as it likes" beyond what it generates if someone is covering the losses, therefore FFP has to focus on the bottom line and it does legislate against inflated sponsorship 'doping' albeit this area is where the likes of City are looking to test exactly how UEFA can truly judge the accurate 'market value' of their brand
Again, its not all about costs, assets are not purely worked out and accounted for on a companies balance sheet in that way. A lease holds an asset value (especially a 999 year lease with as you say a low annual rent), go and have a look at how many Leaseholds are for sale.
I have no clue what a klingon is but it could very well be applied to a poster paining to cover his multiple exposed and gaping arseholes such as yourself. Stop fighting reason and mangling yourself into a bitter knot. If you want to agree with my opinion, there's no shame in that. You'll feel a pleasant rush doing it.
You're an accountant and you don't take into account a loyal customer base as part of a company's goodwill assets? Hmmm. Again Tobes, I temper what you say with the knowledge that what you strongly asserted four years ago about the Dallas court having final say on Administration as that was where Hicks lived, and that Hicks could sue Liverpool Football Club and/or FSG rather than RBS who gave them indemnity turned out to be bollocks. I hope you never get involved professionally that include our two football clubs.
LFC don't hold the lease to Stanley Park as H&G never gave LCC the proof that they could complete the build and rightly so. It therefore has no asset value ffs
Not an expert but how likely is it Henry would draw attention to us regarding FFP if we weren't going to live by it? You can point to loopholes, weaknesses etc but if we are playing by the existing rules loopholes included how is it hypocritical to point to those clubs that can't even manage to abide by rules riddled in loopholes. Personal scepticism of costs claimed is irrelevant if UEFA accept them. Now the clubs he point at may do as we have and prove to UEFA they've met them but it means he was mistaken not hypocritical. IMO this is about as far as it will go...Owners pointing at each other while UEFA shrugs....
Shame that despite your intimate memories of this great victory you had 5 years ago, that you still refer to me as a bean counter when I have never professed to be one and can't think of a more boring profession mate As for the post you've actually replied to shame you didn't read it correctly and in context as the 'value' of the fan base was not being discussed ffs
Henry is totally confident we're abiding with the moral side of financial fair play, by simple virtue of the fact that FSG haven't underwritten anything Liverpool with Red Sox money. FSG's other entities have only secured us an interest-free loan.
I read about a dozen comments on here before it got to the usual few boring the pants off everyone. Stopped reading after about thirty
