Search results for query: *

Could be a lot of players for sale by 30 June. Could do with some Saudi interest.

Also forcing the sale of academy prospects as thy are pure profit. The whole thing is just flawed.

This seems eminently sensible so I assume it won’t apply until we appeal again.

Specifically Our deduction 8 max: 217. We have taken into account the fact that, under rule E.35, a PL club suffers a nine point deduction on an "Event of Insolvency". Mr Rabinowitz submitted, with some force, that an Event of Insolvency is an inevitably more serious matter for the relevant...

Having skimmed the report I think Forest will get a deduction of 3 or at the most 4. Think our deduction will depend on the amount & reasons we are over again with 8 being the max.

Wonder if we are £5m over & argue we had to sack the Board because of the mess & this was the compensation.😀

Have watched Peterborough in league 1 a few times as it’s the nearest ground to my grandson. Great atmosphere, no VAR & quite entertaining. Like football used to be. The sooner the Sly 6 move abroad the better even if they take most of the TV money.

As per the report the loss for 2021is £55m & 2022 is 10m so 2023 must exceed £40m to breach the £105m 3 year cap so I would have thought its 6 again unless we have better mitigation.

Losses as per the report were £10m in 2022 & must be over £40m in 2023 to have breached the £105m again.

Figures are as per the report. Para 221.

We were but said we sold him at £20m less than if we had waited. Looks like now if we had have waited & covered the shortfall we would have halved any deduction. Re Forest penalty being halved: Because the precedent was set by Sheffield Wednesday who had a significant breach but sold their...

If the loss for 2021is £55m & 2022 is 10m as per the report then last years losses must exceed £40m to breach the £105m 3 year cap. On that basis we are probably looking at a further 6 point deduction.☹️ Per para 214 Forest will probably get their deduction halved so 3 for them?

Think we should get aLl 10 points back. Although the mitigations were not accepted they were the causes of the overspend & none of them provided a sporting advantage, in fact quite the opposite in the case of Siggy so they should not apply a sporting penalty to a non sporting breach. The...

Looks like West Ham are after Gnoto now. Just buying all the players like Kudos who we were after. How far the Mersey millionaires have fallen under Kenwrights watch.

You could sell but if you thought you weren’t in breach, as we allegedly did, then you wouldn’t need to fix it. But should we have known we were in breach. Seems the whole thing hasn’t been thought through in the rules so nobody knows for sure where they stand or what the penalties are.

Dele isn’t on loan. Bill bought him.

I hope that he will be better. Can’t see him accepting losing to the Big teams before we even kick a ball or him accepting players with that attitude.

Thought the report stated that his registration was cancelled by the Premier league. This meant he couldn’t play & we couldn’t sell him but the mitigation was apparently dismissed as this is a normal business risk. It would be interesting to know how many players registrations are cancelled...

Bottom line is Man City & Chelsea won’t have comparable punishments applied if they are found guilty as it will impact the product & much of the recent history of titles & cups would be tainted. Everybody knows it. Just hope there is some basis to sue the Premier League when it happens.

Wonder if his registration was cancelled like player X’s. Can’t understand why this mitigation was dismissed seemingly out of hand as it immediately reduces his resale value to nil & there are still wages to consider. Can’t believe it’s routine for the Premier League to cancel players...