Twitter | Search | |
CityFan1998
8,770
Tweets
738
Following
97
Followers
Tweets
CityFan1998 Sep 19
They have been amended. ⬇️ Any more and it would risk rewarding clubs near breach and penalising those who are okay.
Reply Retweet Like
CityFan1998 Sep 16
Replying to @Somethingnew223
In a way it's easier for the Football League. Clubs have real accounts submitted for 2017/18, 2018/19 and by all accounts it will be 2019/20. Projected for 2020/21 averaged with 2019/20 and the real 2 sets- if over limits NO excuses. Punished in March, not waiting to re-balance.
Reply Retweet Like
CityFan1998 Sep 16
Hopefully the trade off for this amendment- key word there AMENDMENT- to P&S regulations is that if clubs are looking set to exceed even the AMENDED limits post Covid allowances then they should be punished in March 2021, not wait until June/July. 1/2)
Reply Retweet Like
CityFan1998 Sep 16
"FFP isn’t a thing this season" Not quite accurate! It's been amended but to say it isn't a thing just isn't quite accurate. IF the checks in March go ahead as they should, it is a thing and rightly so.
Reply Retweet Like
CityFan1998 Sep 15
Interesting you should mention loans. Bottom line though, the EFL wouldn't penalise a club if losses incurred through Covid pushed them into P&S breach- that'll all be mitigated and accounted for.
Reply Retweet Like
CityFan1998 Sep 15
In fairness to the EFL and clubs, seems all covered- acceptable, sorted! Think they'll allow all the leeway needed for Covid but won't let clubs throw it out the window. Seems fair and sensible to me.
Reply Retweet Like
CityFan1998 Sep 13
Such transactions are and of course would be subject to Fair Value regulations- by UEFA and if returning to the Championship, the EFL. PL too of course, but whether they actually enforce any of it...🤷‍♂️
Reply Retweet Like
CityFan1998 Sep 13
Hi Few things on football: 1) UK in stadium racism barely a thing now. Much good work done! 2) Dunno if you recall but Cantona did hear stuff from the crowd mid 1990s and took exception as only he could! 3) You ask why Campbell gets involved? He's a Burnley fan.
Reply Retweet Like
CityFan1998 Sep 10
I should also add, the brainless point was a bit of a charitable interpretation- it could also be construed as a little malicious/vindinctive. Doesn't stop it being brainless too though, that bit of it!
Reply Retweet Like
CityFan1998 Sep 10
Furthermore, the Written Reasons did state that Birmingham received a bid that was close enough to their Market Value. My two points surely weakened any EFL case though- and strengthened any defence for a club!
Reply Retweet Like
CityFan1998 Sep 10
There was a sound reason behind the requirement tbh. To uphold the principle of In-season points deductions- the EFL case had two notable flaws though: 1) They said Birmingham had complied in March 2019 Hearing. 2) Telling other clubs about the requirement to sell is brainless.
Reply Retweet Like
CityFan1998 Sep 9
Replying to @brox60 @DPJHodges
Covid Marshall?? ARP Warden Hodges would love this!! "Split that ruddy group up!" "Ruddy Covidiots!!"
Reply Retweet Like
CityFan1998 Sep 9
Replying to @EvertonEleven
I make that £125m losses in two years and one month-£112m is 13 month accounts- but £49m in allowable costs. Starting point is 86m euros losses in two seasons AFTER allowables. Maybe 80m adjusted for 12 months- 50m over limits!
Reply Retweet Like
CityFan1998 Sep 9
Replying to @EvertonEleven
Swiss Ramble breaks down your finances quite well. Season One- 2017/18, Season Two- 2018/19 and Season 3 for FFP the combined average of 2019/20 and 2020/21. Managerial and coaching staff sackings. changes count towards losses and you've made quite a few. ;)
Reply Retweet Like
CityFan1998 Sep 9
Replying to @EvertonEleven
2/2) Usmanov sponsorship will be subject to UEFA Fair Value checks and tests- part of it could get challenged downwards. £100m in sales is a good step but then again, sale-Book Value=Profit. Plus savings on wage/amortisation.
Reply Retweet Like
CityFan1998 Sep 9
Replying to @EvertonEleven
Err... £100m losses albeit before allowable costs looks questionable. That INCLUDED TV money of £100m. It's rolling up last and this coming season into one period and two past seasons. £30m is in euros not £. 1/2)
Reply Retweet Like
CityFan1998 Sep 8
Replying to @ACW52
I expected an appeal on some grounds or another. Seems Pride Park worth £81.1m and rent £1.1m...that or the EFL did not handle their case at all well! Don't see the EFL winning but maybe trying to set a precedent to change all clubs to a straight line amortisation?
Reply Retweet Like
CityFan1998 Sep 8
Fans returning to football- what you hearing ?
Reply Retweet Like
CityFan1998 Sep 4
2/2) Allowing other clubs to know creates a bear market and gives the club a bit more of a defence IMO. Just feels a little too far. Possibly doesn't help the EFL's case either!
Reply Retweet Like
CityFan1998 Sep 4
Replying to @ACW52
Definitely a risk for any Chinese owneed cliub- see Xia, Chinese government seem shall we say unpredictable. Think Wolves maybe a bit different as a) They seem to be generally profitable in the PL and b) FOSUN own a lot overseas- harder for Chinese Government to stop IMO.
Reply Retweet Like