suttonpaul

Yea that's how it works there is different rules for equity injected vs straight debt it just doesn't mean they can spend willy nilly if we take FFP serious as per your first post. The wage bill is set UNLESS you sign new deals commercially that increase revenue then they can go up by that amount so say we signed a 20m a year stadium deal that would allow us another 20m on top of what you mentioned. That site is useful for anyone trying to understand FFP someone sent me there half a year ago it opened my eyes to quite a lot. On a further note I made a post on the Lerner thread ref FFP which I think modestly is worth a read and Niall Quinn on Sky Sports before our game with City clearly said .... When we voted for FFP it was clearly set out as a rule that would stop clubs like Leeds and Portsmouth getting into unsustainable debt it was NOT about spending what you earn which is what it has become. It stops prospective and current owners investing in their business and only helps the status quo if that is to continue. That pretty much sums it up for me debt = bad big spending = not bad as long as it is funded by owner equity.

Oaks what you seem to have skipped over is we were making losses before this new deal so this new deal allows us to spend 20m (see my post a page or two back on this) and break even. If we are going to be a self funding club which is what it seems to have been moving towards.

He looks like a young chubby brown

Could be an FFP thing. The club is allowed to make X in losses per year under the English league FFP rules. For any losses over that, the club needs the owner to inject an equal amount to the amount of debt for the year above the threshold. Example: Villa owe run £50m in the black, but are only allowed to have losses of £10m. The options for the owner are to put in £40m of his own money to cover the loss, or to take the sanctions. That £40m is only used to service the debt, it can't be used for transfers, or increased wages. Lerner in doing his little £90m creation of shares has essentially done just that, one would assume to bring everything in line with FFP and have us avoiding sanctions. If we were £90m down for the last 2 seasons, for example, but breaking even this season (which we apparently are), then there's a £90m hole that needs to be filled for FFP or we face action after this season's books are out next year. So, in stripping out the high earners from the club over the last few years, Randy has (potentially) reduced the amount that a new owner would need to put into the club just to bring it up to par, without spending anything on transfer fees, to nil. Had he not injected that £90m or tried to offload big earners, a new owner could've been faced with spending that £90m (or more if we hadn't gotten rid of some of the players we did) just to avoid being docked points. Now, that owner could come in and spend that £90m on whatever he wants. I misunderstood the FFP rules in England the first few times around, but the way (I think) they work now is that your owner CAN put whatever he wants into the club, but it's only to service debt. That essentially makes things no different than they used to be. In the past it was: Owner injects £100m in equity to club. Club spends £100m on players. Now it's: Club spends £100m on players. Club books show club £100m in debt. Owner pays off £100m debt with equity injection. Same thing, different order. If you did it the old way, I believe it'd turn out as: Owner injects £100m in equity to club. Money not counted towards FFP because it's non football related. Club spends £100m on players. Club books show club £100m in debt. Owner has to put in ANOTHER £100m for FFP compliance That isn't how it works

Simple, new computer software in the admin department. Nah they aren't having anything new I just checked

20m on 3 or 4 players is what would happen if Lerner continues the funding available as previous.....

Nope.

Surely there is no restrictions. If you think about it football clubs hire out for functions, sell food, clothes, beer, financial services, hotel rooms.... And that is just off the top of my head.

He shouldn't walk from a payoff he has done what is required of him. I will say regardless of what happens in the next week if Lerner stays and PL or a new manager gets the usual 20m things will get a bit better by virtue of us having a few more higher quality players. Of course though this thread has been concerned with someone new coming in who will splash cash the club doesn't earn currently. That would be nice but I don't expect it.

I got the impression after reading the last 8 pages that it sounded like a fox got in a hen hut. Chill out.

With kids I'm of the impression if they are that good the manager is forced to pick them

I would have started a 433 against them. For the life of me playing 5 at the back when 2 of the centrebacks are liabilities is crazy. Why increase the chances of error? I wouldn't have started them against City but after being down 1-0 I would have brought them on.. not wait till its 3-0. What is the point? I'd start both kids either side of Gabby on Saturday. Would even give Donacien a run next to Vlaar. I think it was 2 nil if memory serves me right that the first kid was put on bit the. Clark did have a knock

I don't, know its a bit different but I respect him... That is PL saying he doesn't know what is going on, that is unusual but he respects Lerner and will see what he says. I don't believe him but that is what he has said seen as it is being deconstructed.

How can you say they rules that will stick when 8 out 9 clubs punished have accepted the punishment given to them? Very premature.

We'll Quinn was saying on sky today that when it was voted for it was about debt NOT about losses. If it is likely to be illegal why are 8 of the 9 clubs rolling over on this? Confuses me it's become a legal thing now

I say it every year there is always a group of clubs somewhere between 9th and relegation where there is a lot of places up for grabs with very few points in it

This first 25 mins has been painful

Getting onto a debate there for the Lerner thread don't you think?

There's no room next to the uni don't forget that entertainment complex is being built most of bcu is moving there and the hs2 terminal

I have also had it confirmed we may have a new manager and we may also not have a new manager this summer.

I have come to a personal decision that people who mention what they have heard in a good or bad light without mentioning what they have heard I no longer like.

I've always disagreed with this

For what it's worth I think the cost of a new north stand, filling the corners and lowering the pitch for 20000 extra seats vs moving stadium the cost benefit isn't there

Over 50000 on the plans

It goes to a sports court for the appeal