I'm sure I read somewhere that you get two weeks to include in previous FY numbers as long as there's proof of the deal being agreed. None of the funds on Sunday could make it to our accounts in time so there's got to be something in it.
I can because I can weigh up he evidence and liklihood... not long ago people were arguing that there was no psr issue.
I’m saying you can’t say people are choosing which reports they want to believe and ignore then do the same yourself. none of what has happened last 4 or 5 days makes any sort of sense whichever side of debate you were on. Even if it was someone cooking books on behalf of the pl with the objective being to **** Newcastle could they cook them to show an £80m shortfall….. when we’ll post record breaking revenues
Steffan Bornstein from talksport publishing his projective 3 years accounts for us today. £10m short on last years already published accounts. **** couldn’t even copy and paste
I was right though that's the result of me using the evidence correctly. I'm sorry if other people had the numbers wrong or the idea PSR wasn't an issue in their own calculations. I said 70 million, was told otherwise and then the club made 68 from two sales... some argued there was no issue. The ashworth situation is merely the next situation we can hold a position on. I'm saying Newcastle had to take what was on offer because of the PSR issues... I won't change that view.....others are claiming it was 20 million.
You're not, as I didn't laugh or think he was ****e when we bought him at all... surely I constitute part of "everyone"? I think I stated that I hoped that he lived up to the price tag, but it seems he has.
scouser and they hate mancs. Plus there will be a clause in ashworths departure agreement stating he can’t approach our players.