By a single percent. so what difference does 200k make to your argument other than a petty little semantic one?
Jesus. You show me how the new owners haven't put in around 70m and that lambos made it up based on something more than a guesstimate site (inaccurately) estimating a single years wage bill. Uñtil then just give up. You're full of ****e. Or worse, you're wrong and you know it and grasping at 200k to save face.
Surely they can't just add in 70million on top of their existing income and still be within the FFP rules. And all the number stuff aside no one has commented on my post which somehow managed to kick start all this.
There's probably a lot of means and ways. Not to mention they've only had 1 year in championship on PSR rules so wont have been reviewed plus they've had 2 good years of selling out their ground. Good times will have brought some good revenue
The rules in league 1 are different to the championship. SCMP (salary cost management protocol) limits wage bill alone to a proportion of turnover (60%) but there is no cap on overall losses (investment) per se in L1 and 2 In the last 2 seasons Ipswich were in league 1 they posted 32m operational losses under the new ownership. That's in the accounts. No debate. That's a staggering amount of money just to get out of league 1. Transfer fees aren't included in the restrictions. Then they could invest in other areas like stadium, first team training facilities etc. which would come under ffp in the championship but not necessarily in L1 as I understand it. Not to mention the purchase price was reported at 40m so there's 72m their owners have put in straight away. That's even before this year where championship ffp rules (39m/3) do apply with a significantly increased wage bill.
Did you declare that what the Allams bought the club for added to the losses was the amount they had put in and add that to our spending?
The statement that you ridiculed was that the Ipswich owners have put in 70m. I've illustrated how that's quite feasible. You haven't illustrated how it's not in any credible way. But if you want to dig a deeper hole without bothering to do any credible research of your own then keep going...
Buying the club is not putting money in. Unless they were running at a large loss for 3 years they will not have had to put £70 million in as they have had decent crowds.
really really pisses me off when you get into a childish argument that none of us is remotely interested in- this is a transfer thread by all means have a debate but please sod off to a dedicated thread
So they got the club for free? The owners didn't put in the sale price? Besides, none of the above accounts for this year's losses, which again will be significantly higher again especially since they went for it in January. That's whether you count the asking price or not.
The £70m is on top of the purchase price. I’ll move all this **** into its own thread tomorrow, I’ve hit to go out and feed some goats now.
So, they had to buy the club. On that basis if Acun gets an offer of £100 million and accepts it the new owners will have put£100 million into the club? No they will have bought it. Only what they put in after to cover costs if running at a loss or to help fund transfers, build new training facilities will be putting money in.
I've illustrated how the figure is feasible and the statement you dismissed was substantially true, and at the very least credible based on evidence in the public domain. You're just chucking rocks from a position of ignorance for the sake of it. Try constructing an argument and I'll take you seriously.
Orange just said the £70 million included the purchase price. Any breakdown of the £70 million they have put in? Though you did say that until the books are shown in 2025 we can’t possibly know. So how do you? Why did you hit yo go? What have they done to you?
