6 + 2 Point Deductions

Chelsea getting away with it because the owners been grassing the Abramovic regime up. Figures.
Chelsea question - maybe I’m remembering wrong but I’m old and angry so…

Foreseeable events - loss of sponsorship.

How shortsighted of the Everton board not to realise there was going to be a war in Europe and their main sponsor was going to be blocked.

Everton lost all USM sponsorship and stadium naming rights payments to complete BMD. Hence the need for payday loans.

How much of this income was replaced with new/replacement deals? Was there a shortfall in the new contracts?



PL are a private organisation and government should not interfere in domestic leagues - according to uefa/fifa iirc.



Why then, did the government ‘take over’ the running and financing of Chelsea when Ukraine kicked off?

Effectively putting Chelsea in a bubble till a mega rich owner was found and all their finances were sorted so they never lost a penny. They have in fact, now been able to invest more than Abramovich was willing to invest and come up with new ways of buying players.



Why did the PL allow this interference? Chelsea should have foreseen this event was going to happen and taken steps to avoid problems.

They were given a distinct advantage over others who had sponsorship from blacklisted companies.



How can the PL allow one club to be protected by an outside entity and tell another club the same excuse is invalid?



Why didn’t our defence include this unfair comparison of ours and Chelsea’s finances?
 
Yeah, football has always been more or less about who has the most money. That’s life and unless you embrace some sort of US-style socialism/ profit sharing there’s not much you can do about it.

The problem with FFP is that it’s frozen time: it’s not about who has the most money now but who had the most money when it was implemented.

I’ve no love for Newcastle or the Saudis but if they are the richest club they should be able to spend like the richest club. The big six could when they were.

Exactly.

It forgets the advantages City and Chelsea gained before this came into play.

Which is the reason why the argument that it was brought in to stop teams going into administration falls on its face.

The fit and proper owners test was brought in to stop clubs being taken over by people would take them for a ride and go into admin.

FFP was brought in after PSG and Man City started spending billions to bring balance to an ecosystem their "top" clubs created
 
What denial?

I think the rules are a nonsense. I think Everton are being punished for building a stadium and Forest are being punished for building a better football team. That's my opinion. You won't change it.

And you still haven't given me a single valid reason why both these clubs should be punished for these things under sustainability rules. Your pro-PL agenda is baffling, and you clearly haven't read the findings properly. That much is clear from your posts.
Sustainability rules are in place so that clubs aren't reliant on owners pumping money in. We are completely reliant on Moshiri and or Usmanov bankrolling us.

As for being pro-PL. I am not what I am against is the board rabble-rousing and looking to pass the buck. The PL didn't get us into this mess it was the board.

Again all legitimate spending on the Stadium isn't used for PSR losses. So building the Stadium has nothing to do with the club overspending on players and wages.
 
The denial from you is breathtaking. Moshiri has come out and admitted that we had to carry on spending because the midfield was crap. As for Forest the reaction from their fans is totally different. They have in essence put their hands up and know the club broke the rules.

Can’t wait til you’re back on here crying about corruption because a VAR decision has gone against you Baileyjon you colossal creep.
 

Sat next to the main guy in the select committee - I thought the name rang a bell -

1705414538862.png

He would become Liverpool's chief executive for 12 years, presiding over that night in Istanbul and only vacating the role once relationships with divisive American owners Tom Hicks and George Gillett soured beyond repair.

So it is hardly surprising that Liverpool boyhood supporter Parry has aligned in the brainstorming of Project Big Picture. Manchester United, the other club driving the wide scale changes to football's pyramid, are an institution he has always respected if not liked.

Can this be impartial ? being involved in our points deduction ?
 
Sustainability rules are in place so that clubs aren't reliant on owners pumping money in. We are completely reliant on Moshiri and or Usmanov bankrolling us.

As for being pro-PL. I am not what I am against is the board rabble-rousing and looking to pass the buck. The PL didn't get us into this mess it was the board.

Again all legitimate spending on the Stadium isn't used for PSR losses. So building the Stadium has nothing to do with the club overspending on players and wages.

I've already explained my position on the board and how these are seperate issues, when you made a ludicrous point about people refusing to blame the owner and board. The leadership of the club have failed and let down the fans, but our treatment from the PL is also totally unfair - both can be true and both are true. I would be interested to know if you agree on this point.

Why should fans be punished for the mistakes of ownership who they protested against, and wanted to sell the club? Wasn't that the narrative we got with the super league when fans opposed the idea - don't blame the fans and don't give points deductions because it hurts the fans?
 

Sustainability rules are in place so that clubs aren't reliant on owners pumping money in. We are completely reliant on Moshiri and or Usmanov bankrolling us.

As for being pro-PL. I am not what I am against is the board rabble-rousing and looking to pass the buck. The PL didn't get us into this mess it was the board.

Again all legitimate spending on the Stadium isn't used for PSR losses. So building the Stadium has nothing to do with the club overspending on players and wages.
We’ve been trying to get the board out for years you thick gobshite.
 
Chelsea question - maybe I’m remembering wrong but I’m old and angry so…

Foreseeable events - loss of sponsorship.

How shortsighted of the Everton board not to realise there was going to be a war in Europe and their main sponsor was going to be blocked.

Everton lost all USM sponsorship and stadium naming rights payments to complete BMD. Hence the need for payday loans.

How much of this income was replaced with new/replacement deals? Was there a shortfall in the new contracts?



PL are a private organisation and government should not interfere in domestic leagues - according to uefa/fifa iirc.



Why then, did the government ‘take over’ the running and financing of Chelsea when Ukraine kicked off?

Effectively putting Chelsea in a bubble till a mega rich owner was found and all their finances were sorted so they never lost a penny. They have in fact, now been able to invest more than Abramovich was willing to invest and come up with new ways of buying players.



Why did the PL allow this interference? Chelsea should have foreseen this event was going to happen and taken steps to avoid problems.

They were given a distinct advantage over others who had sponsorship from blacklisted companies.



How can the PL allow one club to be protected by an outside entity and tell another club the same excuse is invalid?



Why didn’t our defence include this unfair comparison of ours and Chelsea’s finances?
We are a small club .....
 
Brighton is interesting and got me thinking. They have sold really well but looking at a 3 year rolling period you could get the following;

Y1 - sell well and make 200m profit
Y2 - invest and make 100m loss
Y3 - invest and make 100m loss
Y4 - break even

As a business over 4 years they break even, but would fail PSR by 95m in the Y2, 3 & 4 rolling period. Is that fair play?

Making 200m in one year and losing it the next two is not really sustainable either.
 

Top