collapse collapse

Please donate to help towards the costs of keeping this site going. Thank You.

Recent Topics

The Lerner years by Exeter 77
[Today at 09:08:19 AM]


I know none of you care but ........ (the Baseball thread) by UK Redsox
[Today at 09:04:16 AM]


Summer 2024 Transfer Window - hopes, speculation, rumours etc. by Somniloquism
[Today at 09:00:30 AM]


Jhon Durán - signed by cdward
[Today at 08:49:27 AM]


Tim Iroegbunam by tomd2103
[Today at 02:22:11 AM]


Chris Heck - President of Business Operations by Percy McCarthy
[Today at 01:31:55 AM]


Kits 24/25 by cdbearsfan
[June 18, 2024, 11:04:42 PM]


Premier League 2024/25 fixtures by The Edge
[June 18, 2024, 10:14:30 PM]

Recent Posts

Follow us on...

Author Topic: FFP  (Read 206789 times)

Offline RichardBatchelor

  • Member
  • Posts: 963
Re: FFP
« Reply #2520 on: May 24, 2024, 07:04:45 AM »
It's just a point in time. Like it or not, the Premier League is 32 years old now which means you'd need to be around 40 to even remember the old first division days. He could have said "highest finish in 30 years" but "joint highest finish in Premier League history is just as correct and relevant. The point of his piece was to emphasise how long it's been since we finished 4th, he wasn't attempting to write off our history before 1992.
Another point in time that should be used as a reference point is 2003. Since Abramovic pumped his dirty money into Chelsea and latterly we have the oil state clubs  everything has changed. Trophies are almost impossible to win now and we have the FA Cup final on Saturday which I want both teams to lose. It's like being forced to choose having my foreskin stapled to the floor or having my nuts shaved with a cheese grater.

Is the foreskin City or United though? Need to specify.

Offline Brazilian Villain

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35801
  • GM : 09.03.2025
Re: FFP
« Reply #2521 on: May 24, 2024, 10:19:27 AM »
When you're contextualising an achievement like breaking the top 4, I'd say it makes far more sense to do it in a Premier League era, as the game has changed at such a pace. We're all accountants now.

You wish!

Offline edgysatsuma89

  • Member
  • Posts: 4401
Re: FFP
« Reply #2522 on: May 25, 2024, 12:56:11 AM »
It's just a point in time. Like it or not, the Premier League is 32 years old now which means you'd need to be around 40 to even remember the old first division days. He could have said "highest finish in 30 years" but "joint highest finish in Premier League history is just as correct and relevant. The point of his piece was to emphasise how long it's been since we finished 4th, he wasn't attempting to write off our history before 1992.
Another point in time that should be used as a reference point is 2003. Since Abramovic pumped his dirty money into Chelsea and latterly we have the oil state clubs  everything has changed. Trophies are almost impossible to win now and we have the FA Cup final on Saturday which I want both teams to lose. It's like being forced to choose having my foreskin stapled to the floor or having my nuts shaved with a cheese grater.

Is the foreskin City or United though? Need to specify.

If you can find my foreskin, I'll staple it to the floor. May be in a pickle jar somewhere.

Offline Brazilian Villain

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35801
  • GM : 09.03.2025
Re: FFP
« Reply #2523 on: May 25, 2024, 01:16:45 AM »
If you can find my foreskin, I'll staple it to the floor. May be in a pickle jar somewhere.

Sorry for your loss. :(

Offline edgysatsuma89

  • Member
  • Posts: 4401
Re: FFP
« Reply #2524 on: May 25, 2024, 01:23:38 AM »
If you can find my foreskin, I'll staple it to the floor. May be in a pickle jar somewhere.

Sorry for your loss. :(

Thanks BV 🥲

Offline Ads

  • Member
  • Posts: 40259
  • Location: The Breeze
  • GM : 17.04.2024
Re: FFP
« Reply #2525 on: May 28, 2024, 01:06:59 PM »
I didnt realise that the burden of proof for Man City at CAS was "comfortable satisfaction". No wonder they got away with it with such nebulous garbage more akin to a Trip Advisor review than a legal burden.

When the time eventually comes for them to face the music here, it will be on balance of probabilities. Any casual reading of some of the documentary evidence would indicate to me years worth of hiding equity as sponsorship and should they be my client and wish to rely on witness evidence they did at CAS, my eyebrows might just rise so high they'd fall off my head. It would be useful to reacquaint myself with changes to CPR 81 if I was sat the other side of the argument too, in the event the witness evidence was relied upon.
« Last Edit: May 28, 2024, 01:09:36 PM by Ads »

Offline pablo_picasso

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3281
  • Age: 45
  • Disclaimer: I may appear more grumpy than I am.
  • GM : 17.11.2024
Re: FFP
« Reply #2526 on: May 28, 2024, 01:19:36 PM »
I didnt realise that the burden of proof for Man City at CAS was "comfortable satisfaction". No wonder they got away with it with such nebulous garbage more akin to a Trip Advisor review than a legal burden.

When the time eventually comes for them to face the music here, it will be on balance of probabilities. Any casual reading of some of the documentary evidence would indicate to me years worth of hiding equity as sponsorship and should they be my client and wish to rely on witness evidence they did at CAS, my eyebrows might just rise so high they'd fall off my head. It would be useful to reacquaint myself with changes to CPR 81 if I was sat the other side of the argument too, in the event the witness evidence was relied upon.

And didnt they out their own lawyer on the panel, or something?

Offline Ads

  • Member
  • Posts: 40259
  • Location: The Breeze
  • GM : 17.04.2024
Re: FFP
« Reply #2527 on: May 28, 2024, 07:01:26 PM »
New PSR rules likely to be agreed next week. Extra £20-30m of permitted losses. Should keep JJ.

Offline dalians umbrella

  • Member
  • Posts: 281
Re: FFP
« Reply #2528 on: May 28, 2024, 07:15:18 PM »
New PSR rules likely to be agreed next week. Extra £20-30m of permitted losses. Should keep JJ.

Pass the source please

Offline pablo_picasso

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3281
  • Age: 45
  • Disclaimer: I may appear more grumpy than I am.
  • GM : 17.11.2024
Re: FFP
« Reply #2529 on: May 28, 2024, 07:17:25 PM »
New PSR rules likely to be agreed next week. Extra £20-30m of permitted losses. Should keep JJ.

That is some good news. More sensible than it was anyways.

Hopefully that puts a stop to all the articles about us having to sell to stay alive...

Online VillaTim

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 5872
  • Location: The Co-op, Inveraray.
  • GM : 01.12.2024
Re: FFP
« Reply #2530 on: May 28, 2024, 07:19:34 PM »
New PSR rules likely to be agreed next week. Extra £20-30m of permitted losses. Should keep JJ.

Pass the source please
Red or Brown  .

Offline dalians umbrella

  • Member
  • Posts: 281
Re: FFP
« Reply #2531 on: May 28, 2024, 07:24:03 PM »
New PSR rules likely to be agreed next week. Extra £20-30m of permitted losses. Should keep JJ.

Pass the source please
Red or Brown  .

HPSR

Online PaulWinch again

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 50363
  • Location: winchester
  • GM : 25.05.2025
Re: FFP
« Reply #2532 on: May 28, 2024, 07:27:25 PM »
New PSR rules likely to be agreed next week. Extra £20-30m of permitted losses. Should keep JJ.

£20-30m on the last year or on each year?

Offline Brazilian Villain

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 35801
  • GM : 09.03.2025
Re: FFP
« Reply #2533 on: May 28, 2024, 07:34:35 PM »
New PSR rules likely to be agreed next week. Extra £20-30m of permitted losses. Should keep JJ.

£20-30m on the last year or on each year?

I'd imagine it's an increase from £105m to £125-135m of losses over a 3 year period.

Online PaulWinch again

  • Member
  • *
  • Posts: 50363
  • Location: winchester
  • GM : 25.05.2025
Re: FFP
« Reply #2534 on: May 28, 2024, 07:39:52 PM »
Right thanks, is this being reported anywhere?

 


SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal