Wow a story from 3 years ago when he said that he wouldn't close his mind to it! It may have escaped your attention but he got booted out of Portman Road soon after!
I think that's your interpretation of what he has written. I didn't get the impression that he was making a judgment of what Ipswich have done, but I might be wrong. I think his point was simply that IF you say Bournemouth are doing the wrong thing then you also have to scratch your head about Ipswich's behaviour towards FFP. My view is that, if both clubs are playing by the rules, no matter what trickery their accountants are up to, then fair play. The whole FFP system is a load of old horseshit IMO anyway so quite happy for clubs to tweak things so long as it's not criminal or breaking the rules. And I even apply that to Ipswich much as I obviously would prefer to have a dig...
You did say 'not at all' though. Its so unlike you to be wrong... Ok, it might be an old CEO who came up with the idea, but it was still discussed as a way of creating revenue because you were in such a bad state financially.
We have a far larger revenue stream than Bournemouth and yet they are spending far more than we are and that's where the suspicion of flouting FFP rules comes in!
Ah interesting, I heard it was this outdoor clothing company that were also bidding for the naming rights: http://www.upandunder.co.uk/
I would like to point out (having not read all the posts) that Ipswich were one of only 5 teams to vote against the proposed changes to relax the FFP guidelines. We had committed wholeheartedly to the scheme. As every club should have, but the likes of Charlton, ourselves and 3 others (not sure who) are at a potential financial disadvantage for simply playing by the rules I do enjoy the odd jaunt over to this board, the extensive knowledge and research into financial ins and outs of Ipswich Town football club make the journey more educational <takescover>
A non story which appeared as a story in your local newspaper? Surely not. Personally have no issue with renaming rights. I'd be perfectly happy for City to do it under the right circumstances. Anyway, as I say, got to go now. Got to talk to a dog about football. Might get some sense out of him
So a story which says we would consider renaming Portman Road, now actually means we have sat down, signed the contract and its all done and dusted. I have consider winning the lottery, does that mean they have gave me the cheque?
TBF, given that from my cursory glance at the accounts it appears that c. 40% of your revenue is going on interest/repayments, I wouldn't be at all surprised if Bournemouth's actually available cash is higher than yours. But all of that's irrelevant. The point is simply this: If you're playing by the rules (ridiculous as, IMO, they are) I really don't care what legitimate magic or otherwise you use to do it. And I can't apply that principle differently against Bournemouth as against Ipswich. One rule fits all.
our behaviour? what you mean cutting our cloth to meet strict guidelines? the stupid thing is that the punishment needs to be harsh to clubs that fail, not the slap on the wrist like they are now.
Does anyone know what will happen to QPR if they go down? They certainly didn't play by the rules , I heard talk of triple relegation.
I presume supers drives along the motorway at 63mph because he doesn't want to be borderline under the 70mph speed limit!
Hi KoPR, welcome aboard. As disputes go with Binners this is much improved on the previous threads... I'm not surprised you voted against it, but I have always felt FFP is entirely counter-intuitive. It's there to stop clubs like Bournemouth doing well. That harms football as far as I'm concerned - it's basically enforcing the status quo. Like regressive taxation. There are better ways to ensuring clubs don't go bust (like maybe sharing the Sky millions a bit better... there's a thought?) I know you're joking, but I did look at your accounts that were published so I think I must have as good a knowledge of your accounts as any Binner who doesn't have inside info. It's pretty clear to see what's going on. And it's all in the rules so I wouldn't criticise it for a moment
