Still adopting UEFA's guidelines is his understanding but talks could well take place at end of season meeting in June. The related party transaction rule could be abolished.
Back to selling our best players and being no different to Everton or any of the other also ran clubs.
I can’t see FFP staying in its current form mate. The 85% of gross turnover looks ok for us provided we grow revenues.
It's coming eventually. It's not fit for purpose as it stands. Masters needs booted into the long grass. It's embarrassing that a company like the PL can't even have punishments in its own rules. Its made up as he goes along and he's a waffler. He hides behind things constantly saying he can't talk about this that or the next thing when he clearly can.
Yes. Under the rules as they were at present which state that if a club breaches FFP rules then they can be .........erm? This is where the problem arises. Likewise If a state wants to own a football club the rules say that a......erm actually they forgot this one too. How about if a club that are not in the PL fail to comply with FFP then they too can .......FFS they never put this in the rue book either. The City fiasco causes multiple issues and the Leicester one quite frankly is the most ridiculous thing ever, as was our takeover debacle.
I read that as being good news.. I mean a vote was always going to happen we knew it was merely a proposal at this stage. I suspect some have been running around with their cocks out saying it's official and Newcastle can spend what they like. I'm still encouraged.
There's a **** ton wrong with the game at the minute and an awful lot of it is because the PL thinks its the main governing body rather than the FA whilst the EFL literally gets fed the scraps off the table. Number of points that could get brought up in a court case for example. Why should West Ham and Man City be gifted stadiums from the tax payer when every other club has to finance new stadiums? Surely that's an unfair advantage? How did Leicester get a sporting advantage when they were relegated anyway? This is the main reason on how and why they penalised Everton and Forrest. How can Everton get done twice for a same time period? This one is funny but makes no sense. Why should Forrest only be allowed a £65m loss but everyone else is allowed £105m loss just because they weren't in the league as long? Why did 2 clubs get 2 different penalties? Answer seems to be because Forrest were nice and Everton weren't. None of it is written down in rules and gets made up on the spot.
BTW I might well be spot on about the % based allowance on this proposed luxury tax. Basically just a threshold on top of the new eufa rules before a points deduction comes into play. We will soon find out but I didn't at any point think it was going to be a case of people spending what they **** they like just maybe a little more freedom for desperate circumstances.
So if I have this right, we've spent well over 3 billion Chinese Yuan since the new owners came in (3.5 billion factoring in the global increase in energy bills over that period). 3.5 billion. That's ridiculous. But our revenue to wages ratio is 95% which equates to 3 million Danish Krone overspend every week. Which is almost 6 million per month (12 million annually). Bottom line is we are totally ****ed. We will get deducted 30 points and fined around 10 million Rupees. Most likely relegated.
