Are we cheats?

[Thunder Bolt]

Where have I accepted or not accepted? I have put up a devils advocate answer on just about everything. I do not know Big Gully (I don't think), so you make it tribal. Those who have a sensible question v those that just want to put me in the ground. It is a great way to garnish the support of the lovvies. Sorry you need to actually make an argument without the need to belittle people.

You are accusing others of belittling people, but you have belittled others in your argument, whether it was devils advocate or not.
Two brain cells between the lot of them was one.

Stop being a victim, it doesn't suit your devil's advocacy.

 

[BigGully]

I think everyone is aware our spending is unsustainable, just like 15+ other clubs in the clubs Championship, we need to get promoted to be in profit. That does not mean we are cheaters or that many other clubs aren't making a loss in this division. Maybe you are mates with the OP as that is the only reason I can see that you're defending a person who has been informed multiple times that they're wrong but doesn't accept the fact.

If the question was are we contravening FFP rules, then it would have taken one definitive post, end of thread.

But the point, I think is are we really any more credible than say those that have contravened it, whilst running such a loss.

We can boast our world class infrastructure and a competitive wage bill on a wealthy benefactor, that allows multi million pound annual losses.

So although that might make us lucky it doesnt automatically make us more worthy of 'football respect' or some sort of 'football morality' or whatever the appropriate phrase might be, especially if aiming our own self importance at other clubs.

I dont think it is cheating, but it isnt exactly uniquely praiseworthy either.

 

[Albion Dan]

The gamble goes on! Lucky we don't let one person have our club in their sole control! Never again

There has never been a time when we haven't had one person in control you boring troll.

 

[stss30]

Where have I accepted or not accepted? I have put up a devils advocate answer on just about everything. I do not know Big Gully (I don't think), so you make it tribal. Those who have a sensible question v those that just want to put me in the ground. It is a great way to garnish the support of the lovvies. Sorry you need to actually make an argument without the need to belittle people.

You have attempted to belittle several people during this thread to support your OP, so your argument is completely invalid.

 

[Albion Dan]

Where have I accepted or not accepted? I have put up a devils advocate answer on just about everything. I do not know Big Gully (I don't think), so you make it tribal. Those who have a sensible question v those that just want to put me in the ground. It is a great way to garnish the support of the lovvies. Sorry you need to actually make an argument without the need to belittle people.

You're having a dig at people belittling but your posts are littered with you doing exactly that.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

The word 'cheat' and the monkeys get tribal, yes I admit to belittling now.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I agree, however I was commenting on those that are quick to criticise other football clubs whilst not being self criticle of a £20 million loss which has a similar dynamic than those contravening FFP rule's ( accepting the difference being that we are not ).

Someone gets it!! Hallelujah!

So your question wasn't about breaking FFP after all, but the level of losses that clubs allow in chasing promotion and long term sustainability (a completely different thing to FFP)

Your insistence that you were referring to FFP (which you're clearly not) in this thread is why so many disagree with you and found it hard to understand how you could keep repeating yourself when your points were shown to be wrong about FFP. The terminology used by you was wrong.

Your question should have been more about whether it is right that clubs are allowed to run up such huge debts (which will ultimately lead to a higher chance of bankruptcy) by overspending by millions each year even if complying with FFP.

You also argue that we wouldn't be able to hold onto Stephens, Dunk, Knockaert etc because of this overspend and be forced to sell to try to re-balance the books but miss that we wouldn't have had these players to be able to sell in the first place if it wasn't for the levels of investment we have in the squad which is only possible because of this overspend and funding by Bloom.

More interestingly it would be better to ask whether this debt form the overspend that's allowed under FFP is being paid off too by Bloom (only to be owed to him rather than other creditors for accounting purposes) or whether the debt is still hanging over the club with the chance that the debt repayment could be demanded, affecting the club should Bloom ever leave / go broke....

 

[WATFORD zero]

Where have I accepted or not accepted? I have put up a devils advocate answer on just about everything.

But you are not playing devils advocate. You were told very early on that our FPP losses would be 11-12M ie about a third of the three year total of 36M

You then put your fingers in your ears and kept going on about 20M. That's not playing devil's advocate, that's playing Dumb

 

[Sussex Nomad]

So your question wasn't about breaking FFP after all, but the level of losses that clubs allow in chasing promotion and long term sustainability (a completely different thing to FFP)

Your insistence that you were referring to FFP (which you're clearly not) in this thread is why so many disagree with you and found it hard to understand how you could keep repeating yourself when your points were shown to be wrong about FFP. The terminology used by you was wrong.

Your question should have been more about whether it is right that clubs are allowed to run up such huge debts (which will ultimately lead to a higher chance of bankruptcy) by overspending by millions each year even if complying with FFP.

You also argue that we wouldn't be able to hold onto Stephens, Dunk, Knockaert etc because of this overspend and be forced to sell to try to re-balance the books but miss that we wouldn't have had these players to be able to sell in the first place if it wasn't for the levels of investment we have in the squad which is only possible because of this overspend and funding by Bloom.

More interestingly it would be better to ask whether this debt form the overspend that's allowed under FFP is being paid off too by Bloom (only to be owed to him rather than other creditors for accounting purposes) or whether the debt is still hanging over the club with the chance that the debt repayment could be demanded, affecting the club should Bloom ever leave / go broke....

Again, thank you for the understanding and yes, and I apologise for mentioning FFP, but the sustainability of our club and the likes of which we have seen from Bournemouth, QPR, Leicester have in the BIG words of this forum, have cheated their way to the Prem. I was merely asking in the first place if we can stop the vitriol of these other clubs if we do cheat our own way to the Prem, which looks highly likely. I don't care if we do, I'm sure fans of other clubs don't either, the only fast track way to the Prem is to spend more than FFP. Those that don't have parachutes have to find a way of getting into that mix. I feel safe with our finances but I do think we will over spend, it is an aching ambition of those in the top seats to get there, I follow them, however if it is seen by the FL that we got there by spending too much, so be it. But stop calling other clubs cheats.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

I agree again, but what is the point of FFP rules, it seems its no more than a nearly random red line that means very little on how football runs its affairs, a kind of pointless effort to save football from itself, just as well return to a free for all, seems thats whats happening beneath that FFP threshold anyway.

It's a measure to try to slow down losses and make it harder for clubs to gamble their futures (and almost certain administration / bankruptcy) in a single season and run up extortionate losses chasing promotion. It's idea is to stop clubs from doing what QPR did and spending £70m+ too much on their playing squad and instead make it more likely that the club can be saved should funding suddenly dry up.

If a club were to go into administration, they would find it easier to find a new owner if they had a debt of £15m - £29m but are more likely to go out of business altogether if they had a debt of £140m-£210m and still have these massive playing debts to have to continue to service (due to player contracts, etc) should someone actually step up and save it (even if saved under a 1p in the £1 deal) They would still have to take on the clubs debt as the new owner and it doesn't just vanish because of administration if saved

 

[Sussex Nomad]

But you are not playing devils advocate. You were told very early on that our FPP losses would be 11-12M ie about a third of the three year total of 36M

You then put your fingers in your ears and kept going on about 20M. That's not playing devil's advocate, that's playing Dumb

I'm bored of the sheep now, sorry.

 

[Guy Fawkes]

Again, thank you for the understanding and yes, and I apologise for mentioning FFP, but the sustainability of our club and the likes of which we have seen from Bournemouth, QPR, Leicester have in the BIG words of this forum, have cheated their way to the Prem. I was merely asking in the first place if we can stop the vitriol of these other clubs if we do cheat our own way to the Prem, which looks highly likely. I don't care if we do, I'm sure fans of other clubs don't either, the only fast track way to the Prem is to spend more than FFP. Those that don't have parachutes have to find a way of getting into that mix. I feel safe with our finances but I do think we will over spend, it is an aching ambition of those in the top seats to get there, I follow them, however if it is seen by the FL that we got there by spending too much, so be it. But stop calling other clubs cheats.

Spending too much compared to income is allowed and not cheating providing playing losses are under FFP rules.

Spending too much compared to income and having playing losses which are more than is allowed under FFP is cheating. (this is what QPR and Bournemouth did)

If we do go up and our losses are still under permitted losses on the playing side under FFP, then we will not have cheated to get there.

Clubs are allowed to make losses (both FFP counted losses and a different figure for overall losses) and by doing so, are not cheating.

If we haven't cheated and other clubs have, why should we stop calling them cheats?

 

[WATFORD zero]

I'm bored of the sheep now, sorry.

My guess is you've actually started sobering up, realised what a **** you've made of yourself and are now backtracking at a rate of knots (hence the "It wasn't FPP I was talking about").

Oh well, no harm done and an entertaining little sideshow on a saturday morning

 

[El Presidente]

Quality misquote pal? Did you just take a chunk? Please let me know, posted too much on this thread to have a scooby.

Here's your full quote.

So basically, what I say, we are cheating the FFP. We can't really sit here on our high horses any more and say we did it fairly, assuming we do.

You said we are cheating the FFP, when there is no evidence to back up your allegation.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I'm bored of the sheep now, sorry.

That's because you know you are wrong. I note you haven't yet managed to define the difference between accounting loses and FFP loses !

 

[Sussex Nomad]

My guess is you've actually started sobering up, realised what a **** you've made of yourself and are now backtracking at a rate of knots (hence the "It wasn't FPP I was talking about").

Oh well, no harm done and an entertaining little sideshow on a saturday morning

Excellent analysis Dr Spock

 

[Sussex Nomad]

Here's your full quote.




You said we are cheating the FFP, when there is no evidence to back up your allegation.

Assuming we do? I think you may have let that little nugget pass you by in order to gather the sheep... good try pal.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

That's because you know you are wrong. I note you haven't yet managed to define the difference between accounting loses and FFP loses !

Two Dr Spock's in a matter of minutes, and I didn't have to pay for your time. I am honoured.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

The word 'cheat' and the monkeys get tribal, yes I admit to belittling now.

You see, this is how it starts. First comes the belittling. Then comes the besmirchment.

 

[Sussex Nomad]

You see, this is how it starts. First comes the belittling. Then comes the besmirchment.

And then the Romans, and what did they ever do for us?