Bolton are pretty screwed aren't they. Going to be very hard for them to recruit any decent players following the strike - will likely end up with a few freebies who have no other options.The Reverend wrote:http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/16339247.bolton-wanderers-go-on-strike-ahead-of-st-mirren-friendly/
by Old Man Andrews » 09 Jul 2018 08:24
09 Jul 2018 08:24Yeah reckon they'll be more or less down by Christmas. Shame for Parky but he did well enough last season to walk into another lower end Championship club should he leave Bolton mid season.Stranded wrote:Bolton are pretty screwed aren't they. Going to be very hard for them to recruit any decent players following the strike - will likely end up with a few freebies who have no other options.The Reverend wrote:http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/sport/16339247.bolton-wanderers-go-on-strike-ahead-of-st-mirren-friendly/
by 10539.4 Miles Away » 27 Jul 2018 11:48
27 Jul 2018 11:48Not quite a $42m fine, which would have been better. Basically its a $17m fine and the shareholders write off $22m owed to them. Am I right in thinking the fine is then dished out to the clubs that suffered a a result of the FFP breach? If so, wouldn't there be a case for those clubs to claim the $22m should benefit them as well?Sutekh wrote:QPR hit with £42m fine and January transfer embargo for breaching FFP
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44980113
QPR getting away with financial irregularities again,who'd have thought it10539.4 Miles Away wrote:Not quite a $42m fine, which would have been better. Basically its a $17m fine and the shareholders write off $22m owed to them. Am I right in thinking the fine is then dished out to the clubs that suffered a a result of the FFP breach? If so, wouldn't there be a case for those clubs to claim the $22m should benefit them as well?Sutekh wrote:QPR hit with £42m fine and January transfer embargo for breaching FFP
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44980113
Think QPR have got away lightly with this. The shareholders will find a way to recoup that $22m somehow.
Fine to be paid over 10 years.10539.4 Miles Away wrote:Not quite a $42m fine, which would have been better. Basically its a $17m fine and the shareholders write off $22m owed to them. Am I right in thinking the fine is then dished out to the clubs that suffered a a result of the FFP breach? If so, wouldn't there be a case for those clubs to claim the $22m should benefit them as well?Sutekh wrote:QPR hit with £42m fine and January transfer embargo for breaching FFP
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44980113
Think QPR have got away lightly with this. The shareholders will find a way to recoup that $22m somehow.
by 10539.4 Miles Away » 27 Jul 2018 16:13
27 Jul 2018 16:13It's a joke isn't it. Do you think there is any way the 'wronged' clubs could take private legal action now they've been proven of breaching the rules? Something needs to be done to give ffp some teeth of they are serious about it.Sanguine wrote:Fine to be paid over 10 years.10539.4 Miles Away wrote:Not quite a $42m fine, which would have been better. Basically its a $17m fine and the shareholders write off $22m owed to them. Am I right in thinking the fine is then dished out to the clubs that suffered a a result of the FFP breach? If so, wouldn't there be a case for those clubs to claim the $22m should benefit them as well?Sutekh wrote:QPR hit with £42m fine and January transfer embargo for breaching FFP
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44980113
Think QPR have got away lightly with this. The shareholders will find a way to recoup that $22m somehow.![]()
So break the rules, and 15 years later you can finish paying your punishment. Why not speculate to accumulate? £1.7m a year is pittance if you get to the PL.
by Snowflake Royal » 28 Jul 2018 17:46
28 Jul 2018 17:46TBF isn't this just the same one they've been getting away with for almost 10 years now?RFCMod wrote:QPR getting away with financial irregularities again,who'd have thought it10539.4 Miles Away wrote:Not quite a $42m fine, which would have been better. Basically its a $17m fine and the shareholders write off $22m owed to them. Am I right in thinking the fine is then dished out to the clubs that suffered a a result of the FFP breach? If so, wouldn't there be a case for those clubs to claim the $22m should benefit them as well?Sutekh wrote:QPR hit with £42m fine and January transfer embargo for breaching FFP
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44980113
Think QPR have got away lightly with this. The shareholders will find a way to recoup that $22m somehow.
by Snowflake Royal » 28 Jul 2018 17:49
28 Jul 2018 17:49Funny that in non league they can get quite draconian at times and the punishments stick. As soon as it’s the FL/PL it all seems to get very limp and wishy washy and inconsistent.Snowflake Royal wrote:The problem is, the only people who suffer for any real penalty is the fans.
The owners responsible can just sell on, they've usually achieved their goal of washing money anyway. The players get paid regardless and have likely moved on. Short of kicking a team out the league - only the fans lose - what are they going to do.
There's no appetite to grow a pair and accept that half a dozen sets of fans are going to have to suffer to clean up the game for the good of all.
by Snowflake Royal » 29 Jul 2018 08:24
29 Jul 2018 08:24In non-league you have a max of about 5-10k fans interested. In the FL more like 20-100k. PL is millions in some cases.Sutekh wrote:Funny that in non league they can get quite draconian at times and the punishments stick. As soon as it’s the FL/PL it all seems to get very limp and wishy washy and inconsistent.Snowflake Royal wrote:The problem is, the only people who suffer for any real penalty is the fans.
The owners responsible can just sell on, they've usually achieved their goal of washing money anyway. The players get paid regardless and have likely moved on. Short of kicking a team out the league - only the fans lose - what are they going to do.
There's no appetite to grow a pair and accept that half a dozen sets of fans are going to have to suffer to clean up the game for the good of all.
by 10539.4 Miles Away » 30 Jul 2018 05:19
30 Jul 2018 05:19And lots of us would celebrateSnowflake Royal wrote:In non-league you have a max of about 5-10k fans interested. In the FL more like 20-100k. PL is millions in some cases.Sutekh wrote:Funny that in non league they can get quite draconian at times and the punishments stick. As soon as it’s the FL/PL it all seems to get very limp and wishy washy and inconsistent.Snowflake Royal wrote:The problem is, the only people who suffer for any real penalty is the fans.
The owners responsible can just sell on, they've usually achieved their goal of washing money anyway. The players get paid regardless and have likely moved on. Short of kicking a team out the league - only the fans lose - what are they going to do.
There's no appetite to grow a pair and accept that half a dozen sets of fans are going to have to suffer to clean up the game for the good of all.
Noone notices if Histon disappear except the few Histon fans. Lots of people get upset if Leeds get the boot.
by Snowflake Royal » 02 Aug 2018 18:50
02 Aug 2018 18:50
Can understand them allowing Pedersen to be registered but if this was a breach, surely it should have come at a cost, say a couple of points deducted or similar.
by Snowflake Royal » 05 Aug 2018 08:36
05 Aug 2018 08:36My interpretation is that they deliberately squeezed it through before the findings were complete so they wouldn't be technically doing anything officially wrong, so no sanction is possible. But it's the FL has called it out for that very reason.Stranded wrote:Can understand them allowing Pedersen to be registered but if this was a breach, surely it should have come at a cost, say a couple of points deducted or similar.
I genuinely think that "but what about the fans" is the single worst argument in all of this.Snowflake Royal wrote:The problem is, the only people who suffer for any real penalty is the fans.
The owners responsible can just sell on, they've usually achieved their goal of washing money anyway. The players get paid regardless and have likely moved on. Short of kicking a team out the league - only the fans lose - what are they going to do.
There's no appetite to grow a pair and accept that half a dozen sets of fans are going to have to suffer to clean up the game for the good of all.
by Snowflake Royal » 06 Aug 2018 17:59
06 Aug 2018 17:59Yeah, it's sad, they'll get over it.stealthpapes wrote:I genuinely think that "but what about the fans" is the single worst argument in all of this.Snowflake Royal wrote:The problem is, the only people who suffer for any real penalty is the fans.
The owners responsible can just sell on, they've usually achieved their goal of washing money anyway. The players get paid regardless and have likely moved on. Short of kicking a team out the league - only the fans lose - what are they going to do.
There's no appetite to grow a pair and accept that half a dozen sets of fans are going to have to suffer to clean up the game for the good of all.
Be draconian, teach the fans to actually think about the ownership etc of the club
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests