Irwell
Well-Known Member
It talks about the acceptable deviation, but it only seems to do so initially:Prestwich_Blue said:It talks about the deficit over the acceptable deviation (€45m) but to be honest I tried to do the sums in my head and couldn't so had to write it all down. It's really not too clear in the earlier version so the later version is actually easier to understand, although it works against us.
If a licensee reports an aggregate break-even deficit that exceeds the
acceptable deviation and it fulfils both conditions described below then this
would be taken into account in a favourable way.
Then again after the rules are applied:
This means that a licensee that reports an aggregate break-even deficit that
exceeds the acceptable deviation but that satisfies both conditions described
under i) and ii) above should in principle not be sanctioned.
I found it quite odd that they would explicitly mention acceptable deviation at both those points, but then make no mention of it whatsoever in the conditions themselves:
i) It reports a positive trend in the annual break-even results (proving it has
implemented a concrete strategy for future compliance); and
ii) It proves that the aggregate break-even deficit is only due to the annual
break-even deficit of the reporting period ending in 2012 which in turn is
due to contracts with players undertaken prior to 1 June 2010 (for the
avoidance of doubt, all renegotiations on contracts undertaken after such
date would not be taken into account).
These things are usually very carefully worded and I personally find it interesting that the conditions make no mention of the acceptable deviation. If they don't mention it you'd imagine there is a reason why. I'd have thought that if they are seeking absolute clarity in their definitions, which they seem to be given some other explicit clarifications given, they would explicitly mention the application of acceptable deviation in the break-even deficit comparison if it was applicable.