blandy

Yep, had that in Manc too. Yahoogled it and it seems the council changed all the rules, put up some half visible signs and bang 115000 people caught out. words. turns out about 15 successful appeals, so I paid the 30 quid. words.

Can you spell that for me? S. I. O. B.. Whoah, Who you calling a son of a bitch

Do you not slightly feel like there's something missing, now?

Sure. Though if you take the standpoint of a rival club, they'd no doubt say that "the new owners, knowing the situation, then went and spent more money than they had coming in on transfers in January, thus breaching the letter of the FFP law, while we complied. They muist be punished" Hopefully, for us there is. I wonder though. Because the clause you highlighted is specific to "exceptional bad debt" (bad debt being money owed to Villa, but throuhg unforseen circumstances no t getting paid to us - like if the sponsor went bust and didn't meet their contractual payments, for example). General being a "reckless money arse" might be a stretch too far, but like you say, let's hope.

Exactly. The previous reckless behaviour by the club (Xia, Wyness) has meant that income that under normal circs we'd have been getting this season was actually taken last season, which makes us worse off this season. I suppose it's possible the EFL will look kindly on the club now, because the current owners have sorted out the finaical burden they inherited, in a general way, and were lumbered with the consequences of previous owner financial shenanigans. But ultimately it's the Club not individuals who are required to meet FFP regs.

Mortgaging of future revenue would create immediate income, so would help the current years figures ( and harm later years figures) so I don’t think that would be it. But the general point you make might be right.

But were you at home? Because I suspect that's not the stock method.

Maybe....though could normal running cost debts be "exceptional bad debts"? I mean the club's outgoings over the three seasons (this one and the last 2) have been due to high wages, transfer spend, loan fees and "normal" football costs - they're not "exceptional" (other than in the scale of the mess). Sure the new owners inherited debt, and paid off the creditors, but for FFP purposes, the expenditure which caused those debts was on trying and failing to get promoted, not some kind of exceptional circumstance. Maybe there's an argument that the drop down the divisions caused the loss of revenue (but that happens to everyone who drops down, so again not exceptional and also, now we're in the third season down here, we've had 2 seasons + to adjust our cloth accordingly - there are many other clubs who've dropped into this league and surely we couldn't claim exceptionlism on the grounds of being relegated 2 and a half years ago? But who knows...

I agree with all of that, though I think he's explained very well - Whether you agree with the reasons or not, it's clearly honest and heartfelt and genuine. The whole "controversy is as you imply, a load of old toss.

Not to my reading, but I could be wrong. The EFL FFP spiel is extensive and brain taxing. There's this extract which covers exceptional items (i.e. "can we get out of it by this?) There's now't about owners clearing debts being a get out clause, though there is about owners doing that to then show the club is viable and can therefore fulfil fixtures the next season etc. SO other than that last item about paying off managers I can't find anything that might help us.

The first person to discover bacon.

Indeed. The main difficulty with the numbers is that TV income (parachute payments) have dropped by about 18 million and allowable losses have dropped by 26 million. That's a £44 million change between last season and this. Sure wage costs have dropped a fair bit, but nowhere near 44 million. So that gap has to be made up by money coming in (net player sales, commercial etc.) or cost cuts elsewhere. We've had manager sacking (yay!) and other coaching staff also going - so compo payments. We've got players in on loan on high wages, still. There's a gap. We also know that last season Wyness was saying we'd be (just) OK in meeting the rules, but that failure to gain promotion would mean stark changes. Whatever other bull he may have come out with, that remains true. So either some magic invisible source of FFP legal income has to turn up, or what we were assured is misleading and players do have to be sold. I know what I think, and I don't believe in magic.

You might be right to a point, on the first line - but only to a point, because if the decision(s) are interprative, other clubs can cry foul. The numbers stipulated for losses that must be met, they can't really be changed on a case by case basis for different clubs. I suppose a breach by a few pence or pounds might be let off, but nothing significant. But I can see what you're getting at.

A rare breed of Yam, surely?

Has it been in the past? No accusations, no slurs, I just find it impossible to reconcile cold hard maths and rules with the statements.

The rules and maths.

I don't like this either. My approach is this: [Assistant] "Can I have your e mail address please?" [me] "No" Usual response from the assistant is a sort of blank look, a pause, and then "ah, OK, we'll pass on that part", A few have mentioned "don't you want to be on our mailing list, for offers and discounts...?" [me] "No"

Yes, there is and it is. My feeling is that there will be a big crack, a rupture that will change everything completely. Maybe even more than one rupture.

Well, yes. I do understand what you're arguing. Yet I see it differently. If May gets nowhere then there's no deal to vote on, but I don't see complete failure to get to any agreement as likely to lead to Hard Brexit. I think if they get to nothing agreed by the last practical cut off date then it'll get pushed back (the date). The EU and the Gov't will do what politicians always do and kick the ball down the road. Then there will be a number of options, or events that might happen - May quits or is hoofed out by the tories. Which means leadership election, which means nothing can happen till they've got that over with. Or she could call an election (that's maybe why there was all this budget give-away, as a ground prepping, de-risking (from her viewpoint) exercise. Or there could be a new referendum, or there could be crisis talks and a placeholder "leave but go into the Norway style EEA thing" which solves the border problem and many others. I still think Hard Brexit just will not happen, because it is in absolutely no-one's interests. Hanoi's graph is of current estimated intent, and even then is wrong - there's some who are clearly still "retainers" who are not shown. When or if the pressure is on higher, and any imminent catastro-pork is looming, it'll change much more towards either EEA or election or referendum - kicking the can down the road. I guess the difficulty would be on EU elections which are due next year, so that might push towards an EEA situation. I know Labour and the tories are a complete shambles, with inadequate leaders, but even MP self interest mitigates against hard Brexit. Labour's position and Chequers are both completely untenable - the MPs saying that's their choice are just picking out of party loyalty, not genuine belief that that is the best option - neither is possible, for a start. Like I say, sanity will come out of hiding in the cellar at some point, but I have to admit the current lot of politicians, as a collective, are the worst lot ever, which is saying something.

Rational thought hasn't left the building, it's just hiding in the cellar. Basically all the MPs minus a handful of tory throbbers are dead against "no deal". It cannot pass Parliament. The "meaningful vote" on whatever mess May comes up with could chuck her version out (and just probably will), but will not replace it with "no deal" - there will be some instruction or other to go back and get a better one. May could call a GE if she loses, she could resign, she could be toppled at any point. But whatever both the EU and the UK would pause/revoke article 50, because it is in absolutely everyone's interests to do so. Ther could be a people's vote. There could be many things, but "no deal" seems the least likely. I think even the people who claim to be in favour of it, or that it's not the end of the world, or "better than a bad deal" know that is bollex. There's probably a handful of true throbbers, the same handful there's always been, but other than that, there's some ambitionisits, bullshitters and idiots who will not actually follow through on their throbbing idiocy.

Nah. It absolutely isn't. No matter what, no deal will not happen. Because money. Because numbers.

Back to Labour's timidity and difficulties. The context has changed https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-latest-final-say-referendum-labour-leave-eu-jess-phillips-a8615011.html

And this point is also a good one. Better late than never. As a few have said, the establishment politicians will not do 'owt, so the media should be exposing this stuff.

A good interviewer would expose that lying. There was a thing on open democracy.org internet a few months ago, which detailed very clearly where the [consults lawyer] "problems" with Banks's "wealth" and funding come from. We know as fact that he has repeatedly (and by his own words) lied about contacts with Russia. There's a trail of money that shows [consults lawyer again] the reasons why the Organised crime bods have been put on to him. Because he's not been charged with anything, there's no sub-judice here. The way the (now gone from the beeb) Eddie Mair skewered Boris Johnson, or James O'Brian, or Jeremy Paxman (also now all gone) were able to forensically expose [consults lawyer again] dodgepots in the past would be (for me) an acceptable interviewer for a sleaze bag like Banks. But like I said, I agree ultimately that the BBC has for whatever reason (along with ITV) gone soft on these scrotes for too long, and because of that, I'm not in favour of him being interviewed on the telly. Interviewing him interrogation style and focusing on [consults lawyers again] alleged wrongdoing is one thing, Having him on Questions Time is just madness.

Well yes. That's why I said " I instinctively agree [with snowy]... I suspect that they won't do that though". A genuinely good interviewer could skewer him pretty easily. But there's a shortage of them on the telly.