Jump to content

Micah - this week's raising of hopes


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 891
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I really hope some of it is spent on strengthening the team. They said they didn't want debt paid until were I'm the Prem and the stand is being funded without Micah's sale in plans so £1m to help fund with £1.4m to build us a playing legacy....

 

It's about time we had some luck and this windfall if spent wisely could get us a few decent players with potential who can be sold on once we've secured promotion...or join us in the Championship.

 

This and the tie-up with Ashley and Newcastle could mean were on the verge on something....17 seasons at this level

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really hope some of it is spent on strengthening the team. They said they didn't want debt paid until were I'm the Prem and the stand is being funded without Micah's sale in plans so £1m to help fund with £1.4m to build us a playing legacy....

 

It's about time we had some luck and this windfall if spent wisely could get us a few decent players with potential who can be sold on once we've secured promotion...or join us in the Championship.

 

This and the tie-up with Ashley and Newcastle could mean were on the verge on something....17 seasons at this level

No :censored:ing chance. And I believe it's that the loans would supposedly only be recalled in full if we made it to the Prem, rather than not being payable at all until that point.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No :censored:ing chance. And I believe it's that the loans would supposedly only be recalled in full if we made it to the Prem, rather than not being payable at all until that point.

Damn you! Let me dream of LJ being handed one of those over-sized cheques with all the zeroes...like a charity for sick or unfortunate individuals...before it's snatched away in seconds by a mob of three cackling 'mwah ha ha ha ha' and sticking two fingers up to the wee one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again - why the obsession over the loans? If we were debt free money could still be taken out of the club in profit, salaries etc. The debts change nothing

Or Blitz could take it out in rent Corney said he doesn't charge us rent but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

 

When blitz gazal and corney initially bought the club back in feb 2004 they signed an agreement on the purchase of the land guaranteeing sport to be played at BP for 10 years. Some people thought that after that 10 years BP would be demolished and houses built on it. That agreement is up and BP is not being demolished for houses it's being upgraded.

 

The same people who thought that BP would be sold for houses are the same people who think the money will be taken out of the club to pay the loans.

 

Also we will be governed by FFP regardless of the Richards deal so that will effect what we can do if we got £1million from this for next season then that could only help the playing budget for 1 year.

 

Any money will pay for anything missing on the stand and the running loss if we've got much left over put it in a trust fund for future ground development.

Edited by GlossopLatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or Blitz could take it out in rent Corney said he doesn't charge us rent but that doesn't mean it's going to happen.

When blitz gazal and corney initially bought the club back in feb 2004 they signed an agreement on the purchase of the land guaranteeing sport to be played at BP for 10 years. Some people thought that after that 10 years BP would be demolished and houses built on it. That agreement is up and BP is not being demolished for houses it's being upgraded.

The same people who thought that BP would be sold for houses are the same people who think the money will be taken out of the club to pay the loans.

Also we will be governed by FFP regardless of the Richards deal so that will effect what we can do if we got £1million from this for next season then that could only help the playing budget for 1 year.

Any money will pay for anything missing on the stand and the running loss if we've got much left over put it in a trust fund for future ground development.

Is this (just one way) where FFP falls down?

 

This year we get £2m from Richards, we use the maximum from that which we can under the rules to sign players, next season we get no £2m sell on for anybody, we can no longer afford those same players under FFP and have to get rid accordingly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this (just one way) where FFP falls down?

 

This year we get £2m from Richards, we use the maximum from that which we can under the rules to sign players, next season we get no £2m sell on for anybody, we can no longer afford those same players under FFP and have to get rid accordingly?

Won't be much left out of £2m less tax. £700,000 to complete the new stand (money promised but withdrawn), £750,000 for a debt free season, leaves precious little. At a guess it would be around £100,000-£150,000, which would probably fund one player on a 2 year deal, and a loanee.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Won't be much left out of £2m less tax. £700,000 to complete the new stand (money promised but withdrawn), £750,000 for a debt free season, leaves precious little. At a guess it would be around £100,000-£150,000, which would probably fund one player on a 2 year deal, and a loanee.

 

VAT will be reclaimable from HMRC so not an issue.

Profits will be subject to Corporation tax but there is potential for it to be sheltered, particularly with costs associated with the new stand.

Edited by jimsleftfoot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this (just one way) where FFP falls down?

 

This year we get £2m from Richards, we use the maximum from that which we can under the rules to sign players, next season we get no £2m sell on for anybody, we can no longer afford those same players under FFP and have to get rid accordingly?

I think clubs will be given a certain level of leeway on this. But their must be some rules as a club at our level can feel a huge effect of a cup run financially or even just selling a hot prospect.

 

One way around this problem is the use of signing on fees rather than pay a player 3k over 3 years give him 1500 a week over 3 years and a big signing on fee in the first year. Theirfore you pay the money on the first year and in the second year your spending falls into line as it's a sunk cost

Edited by GlossopLatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is this (just one way) where FFP falls down?

 

This year we get £2m from Richards, we use the maximum from that which we can under the rules to sign players, next season we get no £2m sell on for anybody, we can no longer afford those same players under FFP and have to get rid accordingly?

 

It doesn;'t fall down, this is where it works. Rather than spending all the money in one go, you budget for the next few seasons and the average amount you can spend is higher for the forseable future. It discourages short termism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manchester City have been fined £49m, £32m of which is suspended, and can only name a 21-man Champions League squad next season after failing Uefa financial fair play rules.

 

Another sanction means City can only spend £49m on players this summer, as well as any transfer fees they receive.

 

And their wage bill for 2014-15 must stay the same as this season.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Manchester City have been fined £49m, £32m of which is suspended, and can only name a 21-man Champions League squad next season after failing Uefa financial fair play rules.

 

Another sanction means City can only spend £49m on players this summer, as well as any transfer fees they receive.

 

And their wage bill for 2014-15 must stay the same as this season.

 

 

Valid spot.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surely this increases the likelihood he will go. A guy who can leave for nothing in year. And City only able to spend what they generate in fees.

On the flip side though, haven't they also been told they will have to name eight homegrown players in their reduced Champions League squad? Richards would count towards that quota.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the flip side though, haven't they also been told they will have to name eight homegrown players in their reduced Champions League squad? Richards would count towards that quota.

 

Ellis Plummer would take his place. :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...