Everton points deduction reduced 13:50 - Feb 26 with 21325 views | Wilkinswatercarrier | Reduced by 4 points to 6. Can't surely have them get relegated rather than little old Luton. What a joke. Good thing is it pulls Brentford down a little further. | | | | |
Everton points deduction reduced on 21:03 - Apr 8 with 1935 views | daveB |
Everton points deduction reduced on 17:56 - Apr 8 by PunteR | What's the problem with paying through other businesses though.? |
It's against the rules, they are alleged to have paid Mancini and other managers/players a salary which got them past the rules and then paid them a lot more through other businesses which some would argue is quite a clever way to do it others would argue it gives them an unfair advantage There is also charges about how sponsorship deals were over valued similar to what Derby were done for | | | |
Everton points deduction reduced on 21:27 - Apr 8 with 1833 views | GroveR |
Everton points deduction reduced on 19:17 - Apr 4 by Match82 | The surest way to guarantee no clubs are going belly up is to pay up front into a trust that subsequently gets distributed to the player over a period of time. Want to give a player £100k a week for 2 years? Great, put that £10.4M in a holding account up front. Extend the contract? Holding account gets topped up so that money is all there. Will obviously never happen. Logistical nightmare and impossible to get from where we are now to that status. |
OK, I'm not economically literate so bear with me here. I achieve my dream of getting control of QPR with £100m I borrow off a completely legitimate South American corporation - let's call them something instantly unmemorable and equally untraceable like, say "ABC Corporation" - and we proceed with the trust plan. I borrow another £100m using Loftus Road (plus underground swimming pool) as collateral. For that I'll probably get a Julio Cesar, a Chris Samba, a Jose Boswinga and a part-used Armel Tchacúnté. What differentiates me from a stupid cùnt who's lost £200m and a football ground from a stupid cùnt who's lost £200m and a football ground in a trust? | | | |
Everton points deduction reduced on 09:14 - Apr 9 with 1549 views | Lblock |
Everton points deduction reduced on 21:27 - Apr 8 by GroveR | OK, I'm not economically literate so bear with me here. I achieve my dream of getting control of QPR with £100m I borrow off a completely legitimate South American corporation - let's call them something instantly unmemorable and equally untraceable like, say "ABC Corporation" - and we proceed with the trust plan. I borrow another £100m using Loftus Road (plus underground swimming pool) as collateral. For that I'll probably get a Julio Cesar, a Chris Samba, a Jose Boswinga and a part-used Armel Tchacúnté. What differentiates me from a stupid cùnt who's lost £200m and a football ground from a stupid cùnt who's lost £200m and a football ground in a trust? |
The difference is that this suggestion is same as I suggested last night. Projected spend held in the trust. Once all those huge contracts run out there are no other "debts" as a result of you being Bungle. Ergo... next person not saddled with a huge debt you've leveraged against the club | |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
Everton points deduction reduced on 10:27 - Apr 9 with 1456 views | PunteR |
Everton points deduction reduced on 21:03 - Apr 8 by daveB | It's against the rules, they are alleged to have paid Mancini and other managers/players a salary which got them past the rules and then paid them a lot more through other businesses which some would argue is quite a clever way to do it others would argue it gives them an unfair advantage There is also charges about how sponsorship deals were over valued similar to what Derby were done for |
I get it's against the rules but I was just wondering how it's an issue in general. If the owner wants to spend money from their other businesses isn't that the perogative? Means the club isn't taking the brunt. The unfair advantage thing is always going to be an issue. | |
| Occasional providers of half decent House music. |
| |
Everton points deduction reduced on 10:46 - Apr 9 with 1408 views | GroveR |
Everton points deduction reduced on 09:14 - Apr 9 by Lblock | The difference is that this suggestion is same as I suggested last night. Projected spend held in the trust. Once all those huge contracts run out there are no other "debts" as a result of you being Bungle. Ergo... next person not saddled with a huge debt you've leveraged against the club |
I'm sorry, I don't get it. The fact the huge contacts have run down is surely immaterial as I would still owe ABC an unsecured £100m and the bank another £100m secured against LR, no? | | | |
Everton points deduction reduced on 11:04 - Apr 9 with 1382 views | daveB |
Everton points deduction reduced on 10:27 - Apr 9 by PunteR | I get it's against the rules but I was just wondering how it's an issue in general. If the owner wants to spend money from their other businesses isn't that the perogative? Means the club isn't taking the brunt. The unfair advantage thing is always going to be an issue. |
well yeah that's the argument against having rules to start with but clubs being left to their own devices ended up with loads in administration and 1 going out of business so the authorities felt they had to do something as did the clubs who wanted this and came up with it | | | |
Everton points deduction reduced on 11:13 - Apr 9 with 1356 views | Lblock |
Everton points deduction reduced on 10:46 - Apr 9 by GroveR | I'm sorry, I don't get it. The fact the huge contacts have run down is surely immaterial as I would still owe ABC an unsecured £100m and the bank another £100m secured against LR, no? |
Ah... now there's the rub. We are saying no debt leveraged against club. You've borrowed £200m and put it in escrow and it's now gone. That's between you and the dodgy geeza's from Panama mate, good luck. | |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
Everton points deduction reduced on 13:29 - Apr 9 with 1202 views | loftupper |
Everton points deduction reduced on 11:13 - Apr 9 by Lblock | Ah... now there's the rub. We are saying no debt leveraged against club. You've borrowed £200m and put it in escrow and it's now gone. That's between you and the dodgy geeza's from Panama mate, good luck. |
This is the solution many have been suggesting for some time now. If an owner wants to spend money on the club to elevate their position then providing they have the funds to do so then the rules should permit it. Escrow would never work as the money would 'dead' for the duration, but its not beyond the wit of man or woman to draw up a legal mechanism that performs the same task to cover all contracts made under the owners tenure. | | | | Login to get fewer ads
Everton points deduction reduced on 18:12 - Apr 9 with 1064 views | terryb |
Everton points deduction reduced on 10:27 - Apr 9 by PunteR | I get it's against the rules but I was just wondering how it's an issue in general. If the owner wants to spend money from their other businesses isn't that the perogative? Means the club isn't taking the brunt. The unfair advantage thing is always going to be an issue. |
Prior to the ending of the maximum wage many players had a "second job", being employed by the company owned by the club's chairman/owner. They did attend the brewery every Friday afternoon though to collect their wages!* Tollemache & Cobbold Breweries could have won the Ipswich Inter firm Cup in 1962, but they prioritised winning the FL Division One instead! I assume there would be a stipulation on current contracts to stop this happening now. * As told to me by one of the players. I'm assuming | | | |
Everton points deduction reduced on 06:39 - Apr 12 with 800 views | Wilkinswatercarrier | https://www.theguardian.com/football/2024/apr/12/everton-paid-30m-interest-lende Nearly £500k per week in interest payments alone! This is for a loan they say was for the stadium, so should not be included in their annual loss, as its an investment. Oh, hang on unfortunately we have repeatedly stated over the past 3 years this loan is nothing to do with the stadium, so should be reported as a loss. Sod it, remove it anyway. Farce. | | | |
| |