You’ve said that, every day for 4 years
this is real vibes mate
You’ve said that, every day for 4 years
Absolutely not, but the question is surely would we be in breach if we were not building a new stadium. Because if the answer is no, then there is no possible argument of a sporting advantage.So the stadium justifies spending 95% of our revenue on player salaries?
It isn't allowed in civil law either.I know it's been said already but I just don't see how they can punish us twice. We have already received a sanction for 2019 to 2022 so to use it for 22/23 has to be an abuse of process? You don't get two bites of the cherry in criminal law, why is it allowed in civil law?
Absolutely not, but the question is surely would we be in breach if we were not building a new stadium. Because if the answer is no, then there is no possible argument of a sporting advantage.
I imagine our wage ratio is thankfully a good bit less than that now, or at least I hope so.
The key question I am asking the league is should a team investing in a new stadium, and bringing much needed investment to an area, really be subject to charges on sustainability rules?
89% we are, new rules are 70% of turnover, we really need to be around the 50-60% rangeWe are nowhere near 95% of revenue in wages, at least not today.
It was stated in the findings that there was no deliberate breach, so this is not proven.We were trying to benefit from building the stadium by lying about what the loans were used for. We tried to offset the interest payments for the working capital loans by pretending they were being used to fund the Stadium.
The terms of the loans were then published on the companies house website in the charge documents. It was probably the dumbest attempt at fiddling the P&S rules possible.
It isn't allowed in civil law either.
That seems to be our thinking ie the Appeal Panel give us some leeway as we seem to have accepted that on the previous basis we have a breach .This from corruptasfcuk :The club expected it as soon as their basis of accounting was rejected by the commission.
The only way we get out of this is if ( and it's a massive if ) the appeal panel.accept that our method of accounting was right all along.
Thinking the Prem believes in the rule of law is a mistake.It isn't allowed in civil law either.
The fools.Forest not claiming innocence. Want a fair conclusion.
Everton should have done what Man City did and argued the toss at every turn.
Nice guys act didn't work.
10 points wasn't enough to get rid of us so they're coming back for another go. It's amazing the speed at which they move when it's not a top 6 side.
As has been mentioned it's not just about potentially more points being deducted but it's now the effect again this has on destabilising the club and completely killing the mood round the place.