dadnlad
Well-Known Member
hi simonI hope they are using legal aid and not employing expensive lawyers.
hi simonI hope they are using legal aid and not employing expensive lawyers.
Good points there.But the idea isn't to encourage losses - it's to accept that they may occur, but to try and minimise them.
It makes sense for it to be higher when the rules are introduced, as clubs will have contracts with players, outstanding transfer fees etc.
Increasing the amounts involved would suggest that losses are fine.
To put the £213m that Kieran Maguire mentions in context; while it's not enough to help any club compete with the top Premier League clubs, it's still a significant amount to lose. There are only twenty football clubs in the World with yearly revenues higher than that figure.
I never said the idea was to encourage losses, that would (somehow) be even more absurd than the current rules.But the idea isn't to encourage losses - it's to accept that they may occur, but to try and minimise them.
It makes sense for it to be higher when the rules are introduced, as clubs will have contracts with players, outstanding transfer fees etc.
Increasing the amounts involved would suggest that losses are fine.
To put the £213m that Kieran Maguire mentions in context; while it's not enough to help any club compete with the top Premier League clubs, it's still a significant amount to lose. There are only twenty football clubs in the World with yearly revenues higher than that figure.
I'm not disagreeing with you, just suggesting that there's a logical argument for the amounts involved not to increase with inflation.I never said the idea was to encourage losses, that would (somehow) be even more absurd than the current rules.
I was merely responding to what you said (whilst citing logic) namely that the idea of the rules is for clubs not to make losses, when the rules expressly allow losses. If the idea was for clubs not to make losses, then that it surely (and logically) what the rules would provide for.
The idea is plainly to limit losses, and that limited losses are actually ‘fine’ in certain circumstances - and on that basis it is logical and warranted to increase those allowable losses to reflect inflationary changes in wages and transfer fees etc... especially given the period involved, namely 11 years.
Maybe that’s their intention destroy it and a new format/league pops up ..I'm beginning to wonder if this shit show is now being done internationally.
Masters and the rest of his shit cunts have backed themselves into a corner with seemingly no way out.
That is unless the independent regulator takes it out of their hands and then the PL can say "well we tried but it was taken out of our hands"
Saving face in the process.
As it stands it doesn't look like they could run a bath.
The whole thing is a mess and they are destroying the PL from within.
It’s £71 per season. A tiny amount. The cost of a decent midfielder.But the idea isn't to encourage losses - it's to accept that they may occur, but to try and minimise them.
It makes sense for it to be higher when the rules are introduced, as clubs will have contracts with players, outstanding transfer fees etc.
Increasing the amounts involved would suggest that losses are fine.
To put the £213m that Kieran Maguire mentions in context; while it's not enough to help any club compete with the top Premier League clubs, it's still a significant amount to lose. There are only twenty football clubs in the World with yearly revenues higher than that figure.
I fully expect that will shortly be proscribed by statute.Maybe that’s their intention destroy it and a new format/league pops up ..
To be fair, that is a tiny amount :)It’s £71 per season. A tiny amount. The cost of a decent midfielder.