Initial 10, then reduced to 6 + 2 Point Deductions

[kenada_blue]

Yeah definitely, brought the whole 'independence' into question. But it does mean they won't use it for Forest as well - they'll probably learn from the general plucked out of nowhere nature of our deduction and actually explain it next time.

Of course. Ours was unprecedented and will never be done again

 

[matty1878]

Couple of things....IF the rules weren't changed in regards to loans against infrastructure (post Spurs building theirs) would this be an issue?

How does taking commercial loans to cover day to day ops after investing personal funds to build a stadium differ from say....a clubs owner using a company they own to over inflate sponsorship?

Or is that a stretch?

Think what I'm trying to say is...if a club is investing in a huge infrastructure, does it matter where the money is diverted to?

i don’t get if these breaches ( they are saying ) are to advantage us how?

 

[kenada_blue]

But nah. The PL think we took loans out to pay Carlo Ancelloti off.

 

[matty1878]

Of course. Ours was unprecedented and will never be done again

the everton first as per.

hope we get this sorted the corrupt bd

 

[matty1878]

But nah. The PL think we took loans out to pay Carlo Ancelloti off.

so he’s saying admin?

 

[kenada_blue]

i don’t get if these breaches ( they are saying ) are to advantage us how?

They're not. Hence why the "no sporting advantage"

Compared to Forest who bought 28 players and there's a direct link between the two.

 

[jonnyboy316]

Couple of things....IF the rules weren't changed in regards to loans against infrastructure (post Spurs building theirs) would this be an issue?

How does taking commercial loans to cover day to day ops after investing personal funds to build a stadium differ from say....a clubs owner using a company they own to over inflate sponsorship?

Or is that a stretch?

Think what I'm trying to say is...if a club is investing in a huge infrastructure, does it matter where the money is diverted to?

According to the thread it appears it does unfortunately

 

[Shibbywiggles]

Beaten by Fulham & Luton at home, our home form is so underachieved - 6 points there down the drain - Sheffield United away another 2 points = 8 points - yet we have clawed it back v better teams unlucky not to win at Spurs too .... we should have won another 2 points ... = 10 points ....

The Manchester city lot in the premiership reckons it's a different case, as they think alleged forgery of the books has taken place ?

You could not get away with this in the workplace it is laughable, but not for us ..... punished on just 2 counts - City have 115 pending as probably most clubs bar a few ....

Yeah we obviously didn’t win every game we should’ve but we also weren’t expected to beat Newcastle and Chelsea and away wins at Brentford and West Ham so ok maybe we didn’t overachieve but got par after a terrible start where we had no striker for the first games

 

[Old Blue 2]

No. But that's what the poster was hinting at.
I'll let you into a secret . No one here has a clue what will happen . It's all guesswork

Exactly. But I do believe it's an open secret...

Take your sarcasm to RAWK.

 

[pfim]

Couple of things....IF the rules weren't changed in regards to loans against infrastructure (post Spurs building theirs) would this be an issue?

How does taking commercial loans to cover day to day ops after investing personal funds to build a stadium differ from say....a clubs owner using a company they own to over inflate sponsorship?

Or is that a stretch?

Think what I'm trying to say is...if a club is investing in a huge infrastructure, does it matter where the money is diverted to?

No lender is putting their money in first on a ground up construction project.

Moshiri put the money in towards the stadium because he had to.

 

[Old Blue 2]

You think 777 want to be new owners if we get a 20 point deduction or more relevantly will pass the fit and proper owner test

Haven't a clue. How about you...?

 

[John from Bootle]

Couple of things....IF the rules weren't changed in regards to loans against infrastructure (post Spurs building theirs) would this be an issue?

How does taking commercial loans to cover day to day ops after investing personal funds to build a stadium differ from say....a clubs owner using a company they own to over inflate sponsorship?

Or is that a stretch?

Think what I'm trying to say is...if a club is investing in a huge infrastructure, does it matter where the money is diverted to?

That's the thing that's always got me. forget all the technical details, anybody with common sense knows that without us spending all the money we have on the stadium, then we don't make the losses we have.

 

[kenada_blue]

According to the thread it appears it does unfortunately

Fundamentally though its a disagreement on how we've funded a stadium and kept the club operational (then explained the factors such as the war in Ukraine that they dismissed).

I've always said...if it was anything to do with player transfers and on the field then throw the book at us which is what's happening to Forest.

But it hasn't.

 

[Tel001]

We did. Apart from £10mill more than the £9mill we said we went over by.

The 10 points was calculated based on £19.5million over.

We didn’t … that’s the point.

We got lucky with covid tbh because there is no way that covid effected our income more than literally every other club in the world

The fact that we were losing 120m a season , which on its own is still more than the 3 year limit is shocking.

More shocking that mash continued to let the club run that way and done nothing to fix it , is the sole reason we are in Depp crap now .

It’s harsh on us the fans but as a club we are completely deserving of a deduction and a second one if necessary .

I hate it but it’s what the “ club” deserves for being so poorly run

 

[Lloydaldo11]

I wonder if his salary will see us fail the next FFP reporting period

I do remember saying that bringing Santa in over Christmas would finish the club off…