Media Discussion - 2023/24

Status
Not open for further replies.
Do we know if these are minor ??
Were we not told that the forced Abramovich sale wrote off £1.5bn of loans (from him)? That money may have been injected before ffp but, if it was still on the book as a liability at point of sale, surely that is very much a major influence on whether they pass the rules now..?
 
Wow, I've just got next week's Radio Times, the Kick Off to the new season they say. Anyway they've asked 6 pundits for their predictions:
Jamie Redknapp- can't see past Manchester City.
Michael Dawson- I don't see anyone getting close to Manchester City
Troy Deeney- Manchester City will win the league
Owen Hargreaves- Manchester City, then United will be back, Liverpool are right there and Arsenal.
Joleon Lescott- I'll say Arsenal. They've strengthened and the mental fatigue of last season's Treble could take a toll on City, even though they're still the team to beat.
Sam Matterface- Manchester City look a little light in terms of acquisitions but never bet against Pep Guardiola.

So the only one going against the trend and against us is our own Joleon!! Ok still saying we're the team to beat but ..... Joleon, Joleon, Joleon!!! ;-)
Joleon shouldn’t be allowed out without his carer to do his thinking and speaking for him.

Nice fella but a dim as a tock h lamp !!
 
Were we not told that the forced Abramovich sale wrote off £1.5bn of loans (from him)? That money may have been injected before ffp but, if it was still on the book as a liability at point of sale, surely that is very much a major influence on whether they pass the rules now..?

The part of the loans that are relevant to FFP will have been considered for FFP (ignoring the inaccurate reporting thing, as we don't know what that related to).
The part that are irrelevant to FFP (age, infrastructure) don't matter at all.

There's a difference between accounts for different purposes - FFP, balance sheet, Profit&loss are all worked out on a different basis.
Having a whacking great loan outstanding does not matter to FFP.
 
Were we not told that the forced Abramovich sale wrote off £1.5bn of loans (from him)? That money may have been injected before ffp but, if it was still on the book as a liability at point of sale, surely that is very much a major influence on whether they pass the rules now..?

Tongue in cheek….that’s how they described the Rags breaches.
 
The part of the loans that are relevant to FFP will have been considered for FFP (ignoring the inaccurate reporting thing, as we don't know what that related to).
The part that are irrelevant to FFP (age, infrastructure) don't matter at all.

There's a difference between accounts for different purposes - FFP, balance sheet, Profit&loss are all worked out on a different basis.
Having a whacking great loan outstanding does not matter to FFP.
No, but writing it off makes it owner investment.
 
No, but writing it off makes it owner investment.

It makes no difference to FFP, which is the only aspect that cares about owner investment.
FFP views any investment in the same way - whether a loan or not.

If FFP didn't view a loan the same as investment, an owner could loan 500m now, spend 500m on the team and have it not count. That's not what happens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.