That doesn't make any sense. It was YOU GUYS complaining that if its borderline you should be in. I've not stated that Ipswich are failing FFP - just that they are doing the absolute bare minimum to stay within the guidelines.
I think it was raised to something like 9.3million, or something like that. We were on target to get in the old rules so we easily made it in the new relaxed rules. so this bare minimum cobblers is just that, just remember supers the reason you are ok is because of the prem parachute payments, without them it could be a different story.
Sorry, yes, that wasn't entirely clear. I think Wolves probably won't get into the top six. They have maybe a 20% chance. That's a pure stab, a meaningless percentage, but the point is that I think it's more likely that they won't get in than they will. IF they do manage to get in to the top six (unlikely) it's then a question of who they will knock out from the current lot. All I'm saying is I think that Ipswich, from here, are the most vulnerable despite the points on the board. So let's call it a 60% chance (IMO) that Ipswich will be the ones that get knocked out of the top six. Using those entirely random figures I am essentially saying: (1) there is an 80% chance the top six will not include Wolves (2) there is a 12% chance the top six will include Wolves at Ipswich's expense (3) there is an 8 % chance the top six will include Wolves at another team's expense Is that a bit clearer? Obviously the figures are entirely arbitrary for illustrative purposes...
Interestingly, Norwich made a profit regardless of parachute payments. Just thought I'd throw that in there.
So you would have passed by the bare minimum but they altered the rules to make it look like you did better? That's a stroke of luck!
Supers you are letting verifiable facts get in the way of posturing. That is no way to behave on an internet forum. This is not a court of law (so I'm regularly told...)
Very handy those relegation release clauses, you know. And having saleable assets. And filling your ground every single week. And selling 25,000+ shirts each summer. I mean I could go on.
but we would have passed. but of course you were very quick to say a fail is a fail however borderline when it was all about the CAT1 status crap. strange how the tune has changed, now a borderline pass is a bad thing! supers you crack me up with your blinkers!
Yet again, you have failed to read my posts. I have never said you should have failed FFP. Not once have I said that, so why keep suggesting I have? You were moaning about Bournemouth. I said you are only just keeping your heads above water thanks to your owner bailing you out every year so that you just creep inside the (original) benchmark, therefore can't really get upset when another team is pushing limits. Nothing I have said is incorrect, . Nothing I have said warrants your response. You really don't help yourself.
I wasn't having a pop & you explained it very well, I have been reading the comments section from The Guardian it's hilarious and someone was talking about Camoron's use of Orwell's double speak .
no, but you said it was 'only borderline' as if we should! when I remember when we failed CAT1 you and the others were saying we failed by huge amounts!
Yes, I said it was borderline - to emphasise the fact that you only just squeezed in to the regulations, so why have a go at others who are pushing limits? Nowhere have I said you would have failed! You didn't fail Cat 1 by a 'huge' amount - I doubt anyone said that. But you did fail because you tried to scrape in. Sounds familiar. Please, please, please - start actually reading my posts. Honestly, its like talking to my dog...
And ME only puts in what the gudielines states he can put in, so it doesn't matter if he does. we are in the guidelines whatever way you look at it! so we fit within strict guidelines and you are still having a problem with it!
