How can you correct it the next reporting year you can't really if you have hammered it. That's why they should have a massive penalty.
But surely each three year rolling period is different?
Indeed, though they are saying they're being penalised twice for 20/21 & 21/22. Though that's implicit in the "rolling 3 years".
The trouble is that if they thought they were operating in the rules in 21/22, but it transpired they weren't, and that decision wasn't made until after the end of 22/23, then it was too late for them to do anything about it.
They are in such a mess if their income doesn't meet their outgoings by millions each month. The loans from external parties aren't turnover, so the interest rate becomes immaterial.
It’s perfectly fair for them to get punished twice, but I can see why it’s wrong for them to get both punishments in the same season.
Sell Pickford!
Yes Tranmere seem not to be
Summer window is 12 weeks long, so June-September and they still have time to sell. Most contracts tend to end on 30th June
I wonder (and I've changed my stance on this a few times!) if this was the disagreement cited by Matt Hobbs with Lopetegui. After he left, Hobbs basically said it was a difference of opinion. So I wonder if Lopetegui thought breaking FFP would just amount to nothing, a transfer restriction and nothing more, but Hobbs said it was going to hit teams hard if they broke it
(Birkenhead ... different town entirely)
My heart bleeds for them.
There’s probably an element of truth in it. JL come across very much like Mourinho who wanted to push the budget as far as he possibly could, hence his comments pretty much after the previous season was still warm. Suppose we will never truly know. Only thing we absolutely know is he got it badly wrong what our prospects were and whilst his no doubt been paid handsomely in the meantime he probably deep down knows it was his mistake
I don’t think for one second the EPL actually wanted to clean its act up, they like the jolly boys club they created but a regulator coming in has rightly made them stand to attention.
Ah, revealing your deep dark secret lol....Speaking as someone born in the Wirral, they’re on the right side of the Mersey
**** that, would give the 6 fingered ****s more chance of coming up
It’s outrageous how long it’s taken for Man City and Chelsea to be punished. However, Everton or Forest citing them is classic whataboutery - if you commit an offence you can’t argue that it’s not your turn in court.
Of course before you can punish Citeh or Chavski you need the evidence to prove them guilty....
What if the 4th promoted team happens to be WBA?
Don't you want more BCDs?
Only if we win
No chance. They're shiiiiiiiiite!
www.thetimes.co.uk
Two spots for relegation Forest and Everton
As people keep pointing out to him, they knowlingly broke whatever those rules were at the time. Others didn't. Bit late to complain that they were no good anyway.Condemning Everton and Forest a bit rich when rules set to be scrapped
Changing profit and sustainability rules in August is a tacit admission that, in the present state, they are no longer fit for purpose
Still not sure what Samuel is referring to here.
Less stringent cap, 80,,% rather than 70%?
Any ideas?
I think the Premier League are considering increasing the allowed losses as the amount of tv money has vastly increased since they set it at 105 million. However the rules were the rules at that time so not sure how its a bit rich. It would be like saying we should go back and give a free kick for every time the keepers used to pick up a back passCondemning Everton and Forest a bit rich when rules set to be scrapped
Changing profit and sustainability rules in August is a tacit admission that, in the present state, they are no longer fit for purpose
Still not sure what Samuel is referring to here.
Less stringent cap, 80,,% rather than 70%?
Any ideas?
Chelsea haven't been charged with anything yet, they are just under investigation, so they can't be punished.
