From the Beebs live football ticker thingy
As a Leicester fan I'm glad that other teams are being punished. We did things the right way, didn't spend money when we didn't have it and got relegated. The two teams that survived above us both broke the rules. Where is the fairness in doing the right thing if they don't get sanctioned?
Simon, Leicester
Paging Ingo…
I've just seen that. Laughable.
All a bit of a mess. Enjoy life / the Premier league while we can and don't worry about anything else.
Away from FFP
Notts Saturday Senior Cup Semi Final Draw
NFFC u21 v Eastwood (again, I presume we'll switch and play at Eastwood)
Clipstone v Basford
Ties are due to be played by 16th February.
Supposedly, having a charity sponsor gives you some added leeway.
However, our argument about getting more money for Johnson by waiting two months before offloading him looks weak, given we spent two-thirds of it the same day on Sangare.
Looks like we were in breach for two months. Our defence appears to be full co-operation, it was only two months and we had a clear plan to get out of it by selling Johnson.
My Leicester material has crashed and burned a couple of times recently when I was out for a curry so I'm landing that for a while. I'm going to take my campaign underground. I don't suppose anyone has an address for Simon do they?
On the one hand the rules are the rules and we were in breach.
On the other hand, if we have a (presumably faxed as transfers always are) offer from Brentford before 30th June and then went on to sell that same player 2 months later for more money, I can see the argument that, at least, that Brentford offer amount can be counted in the end of June calcs.
It probably doesn't remove the breach but could impact the level of sanction.
The fact the money was spent I don't think you have to consider as our allowable losses increase in the new period.
With a good relationship with a regulator who has been involved throughout I can see how some latitude could be given. But this goes to an independent panel so not sure how they factor things like that in.
I see what you did there, you cheeky scamp.
If you want to look optimistically, the League may be referring us with a recommendation that Forest had consulted with them around the Brennan sale, but as we are technically in breach they have no choice but to refer us.
Plus Sangare at £30m on a five year contract is “only” £6m in the 23/24 accounts.
....I can understand why player values can be amortised/depreciated over contract length (we are not trading insolvently, our plant/stock is worth more....oh look, it wasn't...). Surely stage payments should appear in the accounting period that they are paid, and the balance on to the creditors (to determine profit/loss)?
Anyone know what is allowed by 'football', how, and why?
It all seems a bit Rwanda at times (when we write it down, we know it's not true, but you have to believe us....it's safe now!).
Are you saying use stage payments instead of amortisation?
It's because amortisation is the international accounting treatment of intangible assets. It isn't just a football thing.
If you used a cash basis then it would be even more open to abuse
Sorry, I've not asked the question at all clearly.
How can you spread the cost of player purchases across the number of accounting periods that equate to the length of the contract? How does that relate to stage payments, and how are they ultimately accounted for? How does that then corelate to book value of the player?
I'm still gobsmacked of the ignorance of the hierarchy at the club that either didn't recognise our breach or were too arrogant to think it applied. I said last season we are spending stupid money. The real issue is should we get relegated it isn't over. Even with parachute money our horrendous wage bill could lead us to more sanctions from the EFL. Its happened to Leeds, Southampton and Bolton.
Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.
Tbf, you said all the players were sh!te and we needed new ones and then you said they were all sh!te as well.
He wasn't too far wrong about any of that though was he?
