This guy determined we will fail FFPR

[Lancet Fluke]

figures that have not yet been published owing to delays publishing

I'm glad he cleared this up.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Most tiresome and overrated film in Christendom.

Are you the farmer?

Of course he's the fucking farmer.

Most tiresome and overrated poster on Bluemoon.

 

[Rammy Blue]

Are you the farmer?

Of course he's the fucking farmer.

Most tiresome and overrated poster on Bluemoon.

Throw yourself into the road darling, you haven't got a chance.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Of course he's the fucking farmer.

Most tiresome and overrated poster on Bluemoon.

Throw yourself into the road darling, you haven't got a chance.

You do realise that insulting me (or rather trying to) with quotes from that film is about as effective in that purpose as united fans singing nursery rhymes at me?

 

[laserblue]

figures that have not yet been published owing to delays publishing

I'm glad he cleared this up.

He's also overlooking the fact -which was informed of when he came on BM - that as a privately owned company City aren't obliged to publish any financial results.

 

[Tez Tosterone]

Good, im glad someone with the knowledge and understanding of FFP is actually challenging this guy outside of BM. The mail obviously do not check the sources of this information and just take it as gospel.

It's more likely the Mail don't care whether he's right or not. As long as something backs up their pre-determined position on a subject they'll print it, and on many occasions they'll simply make up facts and figures to "support" their position. You can't believe a single thing you read in the Daily Mail, it has been demonstrated time and time again that they simply make shit up.

-- Thu Jan 23, 2014 11:16 am --

You expect me to wade through 61 pages? I'm far too lazy for that. Any idea what page he appeared?

No, however if you search by author using ffplay it'll find all his posts (only 29 of them). He only posted about FFP.

Do we think the club actually care about these kind of comments and reports in the media? Surely they are aware of the media bias on this, but im presuming will just let the figures themselves do the talking rather than feel the need to publicly defend our finances against these kind of stories.

Reference the Daily Mail............. Here is part of an article from the New Statesman. It is essentially about complaints made to the regulators about made up stories which has led to the paper paying damages, sometimes substantial, for stories that are completely untrue.

The paper is a serial offender in publishing this kind of nonsense.

..........................................

This year, the Mail reported that disabled people are exempt from the bedroom tax; that asylum-seekers had “targeted” Scotland; that disabled babies were being euthanised under the Liverpool Care Pathway; that a Kenyan asylum-seeker had committed murders in his home country; that 878,000 recipients of Employment Support Allowance had stopped claiming “rather than face a fresh medical”; that a Portsmouth primary school had denied pupils water on the hottest day of the year because it was Ramadan; that wolves would soon return to Britain; that nearly half the electricity produced by windfarms was discarded. All these reports were false.

Mail executives argue that it gets more complaints than its rivals because it reaches more readers (particularly online, where the paper’s stories are repeated and others originate), prints more pages and tackles more serious and politically challenging issues. They point out that only six complaints were upheld after going through all the PCC’s stages and that the Sun and Telegraph, despite fewer complaints, had more upheld. But the PCC list, though it contains some of the Mail’s favourite targets such as asylum-seekers and “scroungers”, merely scratches the surface. Other complainants turned to the law. In the past ten years, the Mail has reported that the dean of RAF College Cranwell showed undue favouritism to Muslim students (false); the film producer Steve Bing hired a private investigator to destroy the reputation of his former lover Liz Hurley (false); the actress Sharon Stone left her four-year-old child alone in a car while she dined at a restaurant (false); the actor Rowan Atkinson needed five weeks’ treatment at a clinic for depression (false); a Tamil refugee, on hunger strike in Parliament Square, was secretly eating McDonald’s burgers (false); the actor Kate Winslet lied over her exercise regime (false); the singer Elton John ordered guests at his Aids charity ball to speak to him only if spoken to (false); Amama Mbabazi, the prime minister of Uganda, benefited personally from the theft of £10m in foreign aid (false). In all these cases, the Mail paid damages.

 

[Centurions]

That Ed Thompson cock womble has a little say in the dailymail that we have cashed in next seasons season tickets to make up our match day revenue

Ed Thompson, the FFP commentator and analyst, said: ‘It could be that they have taken out a mortgage against one year’s advance match day income. It is certainly a baffling figure.’

link bb?
and can we get that **** back on here to explain that comment? does he know what goes into a statement of comprehensive income? fucking twat.

I'm just guessing here (a bit ironic since it's Ed we're talking about) but if everyone keeps referring to him as a '****', I'm pretty sure he won't be enticed to come back anytime soon ;)

 

[Bodicoteblue]

Couldn't Sheikh Mansour buy up the Daily Fail and turn it into a toilet paper factory?
Would anybody notice the difference?

 

[oakiecokie]

That Ed Thompson cock womble has a little say in the dailymail that we have cashed in next seasons season tickets to make up our match day revenue

Ed Thompson, the FFP commentator and analyst, said: ‘It could be that they have taken out a mortgage against one year’s advance match day income. It is certainly a baffling figure.’

link bb?
and can we get that **** back on here to explain that comment? does he know what goes into a statement of comprehensive income? fucking twat.

I'm just guessing here (a bit ironic since it's Ed we're talking about) but if everyone keeps referring to him as a '****', I'm pretty sure he won't be enticed to come back anytime soon ;)

He aint got the balls then !!<br /><br />-- Thu Jan 23, 2014 5:38 pm --<br /><br />

Couldn't Sheikh Mansour buy up the Daily Fail and turn it into a toilet paper factory?
Would anybody notice the difference?

My arse would notice the difference.

 

[i8rags]

Most tiresome and overrated poster on Bluemoon.

Throw yourself into the road darling, you haven't got a chance.

You do realise that insulting me (or rather trying to) with quotes from that film is about as effective in that purpose as united fans singing nursery rhymes at me?

Personally I read the insult you posted, then a reply of wit. So this response is a little baffling.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Throw yourself into the road darling, you haven't got a chance.

You do realise that insulting me (or rather trying to) with quotes from that film is about as effective in that purpose as united fans singing nursery rhymes at me?

Personally I read the insult you posted, then a reply of wit. So this response is a little baffling.

Are you Ed?

 

[Damocles]

Ed Thompson knows very little about FFP despite owning the domain and writing about it.

A few years back, me and PB had an exchange on projections of where we thought City would be financially over the next couple of years. We were out by £20m the first year due to an exceptional and £7m the second year. Ed Thompson was out by ~£5m the first year not knowing about this exception and was out by over £50m the second year.

He later edited this to reflect him being out by a couple of million.

In his City projections, he also said that Stefan Savic was on £150k a week and Denis Suarez was on £80k a week.

He later edited this and deleted all the comments point out that he was wrong.

He pointed out that UEFA could change the value of the City-Etihad deal to reflect "fair value". He was then notified that UEFA will only look at/adjust deals that they determine to be related parties. Thompson then made a post about how City and Etihad are related parties. He was then notified using specific references to the legislation that City and Etihad are not classed as related parties thus the fair value adjustments wouldn't apply.

He deleted the whole chain and edited his original.

My point here is that I'd believe Ronnie Irani's views of City's financial position before this person. He is not only consistently wrong in his application of the rules, he is also consistently wrong in his financial projections and covers them up after the fact.

He should be roundly ignored and on occasion, mocked.

 

[oakiecokie]

Ed Thompson knows very little about FFP despite owning the domain and writing about it.

A few years back, me and PB had an exchange on projections of where we thought City would be financially over the next couple of years. We were out by £20m the first year due to an exceptional and £7m the second year. Ed Thompson was out by ~£5m the first year not knowing about this exception and was out by over £50m the second year.

He later edited this to reflect him being out by a couple of million.

In his City projections, he also said that Stefan Savic was on £150k a week and Denis Suarez was on £80k a week.

He later edited this and deleted all the comments point out that he was wrong.

He pointed out that UEFA could change the value of the City-Etihad deal to reflect "fair value". He was then notified that UEFA will only look at/adjust deals that they determine to be related parties. Thompson then made a post about how City and Etihad are related parties. He was then notified using specific references to the legislation that City and Etihad are not classed as related parties thus the fair value adjustments wouldn't apply.

He deleted the whole chain and edited his original.

My point here is that I'd believe Ronnie Irani's views of City's financial position before this person. He is not only consistently wrong in his application of the rules, he is also consistently wrong in his financial projections and covers them up after the fact.

He should be roundly ignored and on occasion, mocked.

So to put it in a nutshell the twats a WUM and shit stirrer,with the brain of a peanut.Thanks for the update Dam.

 

[Damocles]

I think he knows what he's doing. People want us to fail FFP and he knows that writing articles claiming that we'll fall foul of the regulations are clickbait.

When we do actually fail FFP* and the newspapers have a field day, his site revenue will go through the roof. He's earnt a pretty penny off of the whole FFP thing.

*Just to note, we will fail FFP for the first two Monitoring Periods but there is a provision that allows you to discount any costs of contracts signed before June 2010. This provision can be used if you initially fail and it will put us back inside the rules. This has always been the plan as far as anybody can tell but it does mean that we'll get mullered when we initially "fail" FFP. Thompson has been on record previously stating the we will fail despite the June '10 exemption which is wrong.

 

[Bodicoteblue]

This is all very unfair on poor Ed!
If we didn't allow people with little or no knowledge or expertise on a subject to try and convince us all otherwise , we wouldn't have the glorious meltdown at the swamp to which we are being treated!!

 

[oakiecokie]

I think he knows what he's doing. People want us to fail FFP and he knows that writing articles claiming that we'll fall foul of the regulations are clickbait.

When we do actually fail FFP* and the newspapers have a field day, his site revenue will go through the roof. He's earnt a pretty penny off of the whole FFP thing.

*Just to note, we will fail FFP for the first two Monitoring Periods but there is a provision that allows you to discount any costs of contracts signed before June 2010. This provision can be used if you initially fail and it will put us back inside the rules. This has always been the plan as far as anybody can tell but it does mean that we'll get mullered when we initially "fail" FFP. Thompson has been on record previously stating the we will fail despite the June '10 exemption which is wrong.

So in essence what he`s doing is hedging his bets then.On one hand he will claim that we have failed,but on the other we have made no-where near the figure he quoted,£75M loss,was it ??

 

[aguero93:20]

I think he knows what he's doing. People want us to fail FFP and he knows that writing articles claiming that we'll fall foul of the regulations are clickbait.

When we do actually fail FFP* and the newspapers have a field day, his site revenue will go through the roof. He's earnt a pretty penny off of the whole FFP thing.

*Just to note, we will fail FFP for the first two Monitoring Periods but there is a provision that allows you to discount any costs of contracts signed before June 2010. This provision can be used if you initially fail and it will put us back inside the rules. This has always been the plan as far as anybody can tell but it does mean that we'll get mullered when we initially "fail" FFP. Thompson has been on record previously stating the we will fail despite the June '10 exemption which is wrong.

Si in essence what he`s doing is hedging his bets then.On one hand he will claim that we have failed,but on the other we have made no-where near the figure he quoted,£75M loss,was it ??

did anyone have the foresight to take screenshots of his site?

 

[oakiecokie]

I think he knows what he's doing. People want us to fail FFP and he knows that writing articles claiming that we'll fall foul of the regulations are clickbait.

When we do actually fail FFP* and the newspapers have a field day, his site revenue will go through the roof. He's earnt a pretty penny off of the whole FFP thing.

*Just to note, we will fail FFP for the first two Monitoring Periods but there is a provision that allows you to discount any costs of contracts signed before June 2010. This provision can be used if you initially fail and it will put us back inside the rules. This has always been the plan as far as anybody can tell but it does mean that we'll get mullered when we initially "fail" FFP. Thompson has been on record previously stating the we will fail despite the June '10 exemption which is wrong.

Si in essence what he`s doing is hedging his bets then.On one hand he will claim that we have failed,but on the other we have made no-where near the figure he quoted,£75M loss,was it ??

did anyone have the foresight to take screenshots of his site?

We do have his so called "Calculator" findings on Page 1 of this thread,which could be used as some ammunition.

 

[samharris]

Couldn't Sheikh Mansour buy up the Daily Fail and turn it into a toilet paper factory?
Would anybody notice the difference?

It already is fella..

 

[St Helens Blue (Exiled)]

I actually think Ed the Duck would know more about FFP and our supposed baffling figures than this cock wobble.
Oh god imagine it in a few years when we break 400 million (hopefully)