ED good memories or good riddence?

[BWFC_Insane]

FFP limits the amount that any fecker can put in, without penalties. That's the whole fcking point of it. To try and get Clubs to run within their revenue streams...So it has everything to do with covering costs for anything (pretty much). There are a couple of exclusions, but none of them are to do with paying folks.

We were FFP compliant. So whilst he couldn't increase the wage bill there was nothing absolutely nothing to stop him maintaining current expenditure.

You don't get this, do you?

It's not a cap on expenditure. It's a cap on maximum permitted losses - so the difference between Income and Outgoings. If your Revenue drops by a shit load, your costs need to track downwards against it. Being compliant for the 2014/2015 season, doesn't mean to say you'll be compliant for the 2015/16 season if your revenue is falling (which ours has been under parachute payments)

It also kicked in over time - so when you're twattering on about the club never knew the funding was going to be stopped by ED, that's true, but they did know about FFP from 2012. There were no sanctions (iirc) for a couple of transitional years, but there were by the 2014/15 season.

You're really trying to tell me that the court appearances, winding up petition and non payment of staff were because of FFP? Really?

No, I'm saying ED can't just put in what he wants to because of FFP. I dunno whether he has put in the maximum amount or not.

You're really trying to tell me this came as a surprise to the Board when it was announced in 2012? Really?

I reckon even Alistair Campbell would be too scared to try to spin this.

[jonnycooper]

He could have sponsored lofty the mascot to the tune of £200m if he really wanted to! See city's lucrative sponsorship deals to get around FFP ffs...

[Worthy4England]

He could have sponsored lofty the mascot to the tune of £200m if he really wanted to! See city's lucrative sponsorship deals to get around FFP ffs...

How would he do it legitimately? He certainly can't do anything outside the Owner limits - other Companies can outside of Related Party transactions. I also suspect he wouldn't want to fill FIFA coffers (or was it UEFA) to the tune of nearly another £50m in fines, like City did. City's Sponsorship deals look really dubious but then I guess that's an advantage of being part of a Country's ruling family and having 4 out of 5 of your top sponsors coming from that Country...ffs

[Worthy4England]

I reckon even Alistair Campbell would be too scared to try to spin this.

Which bit is incorrect?

[BWFC_Insane]

I reckon even Alistair Campbell would be too scared to try to spin this.

Which bit is incorrect?

None of it. But FFP is 100% not the cause of the problems we have had, and you know that.

[Worthy4England]

I reckon even Alistair Campbell would be too scared to try to spin this.

Which bit is incorrect?

None of it. But FFP is 100% not the cause of the problems we have had, and you know that.

The cause is not planning for it properly. It's almost certainly (100%) incorrect to say it's 100% not the problem. Had we planned for it, things like the tax bill wouldn't have been a problem, and you know that. The fanciful notion you have that the owner can just put his hand in his pocket for a few million and not incur significant penalties is plain wrong. Had we been running a profit, then clearly it wouldn't have been any sort of problem.

I'm not at all sure on what basis we made 11 permanent signings this year and one loanee. It must've been crystal clear that we were fcuked over the summer.