Woodley Ram

Rooney is the right man for the job at the right time. It’s important we back him and the team. In the future who knows if he is the right person but right now, he is the man

Rooney is the right man for the job at the right time. It’s important we back him and the team. In the future who knows if he is the right person but right now, he is the man

I think any criticism is very much the minority view. Rooney's loyalty to this club won't be forgotten by most & quite rightly so.
As someone who was scathing about Rooney last year, I think there's been real improvement this season. The style of play is much better & the resilience of the team that he sends out has been borderline heroic given the appalling circumstances. And as you rightly say, his profile & reputation are actively helping to attract investors & players who wouldn't have looked at us otherwise.
Not to say he can't be criticised at all, I was there Saturday & we were pulled apart first half but those days happen. Overall the trendline suggests we're getting better. Wouldn't worry about the detractors, they'll always be around but he's going nowhere this season unless he decides he's had enough. 

He has more stamina and a better work rate. That's why he makes the runs and closes down.

All I see is Sky TV money going into  our coffers 

All I see is Sky TV money going into  our coffers 

I put some of the supporters of other clubs in the same bracket as the current climate change protestors, ill informed and unable to see anything other than their own views which (as the information is limited) is a bit blinkered. I know they will say the same about us and yes in some cases that is true.
This is what I have picked up especially from the BCFC forum.
The amortisation was very bad and the fine was not good enough. The EFL needs to take this into account when any other FFP penalties are issues. We got away with murder with the sale of the stadium and have cheated. IF and only if the stadium is sold to the new owner at a discounted rate then we should be sent back to a tribunal for possible points deductions. Not sure they can do that, isn't there a double jeopardy law for this?? If that happened (the sale back to new owners) I can understand why people wouldn't be happy with that. Also a point here the EFL did originally sign it off and asked for a small reduction which we adhered to.   We have cheated for years, overspent for years and we should have our feet put to the fire for it, made an example. Well the amortisation whilst legal for other businesses is not for the EFL. We didn't hide the amortisation (that's how it as picked up) but we could have been a lot clearer (that's why the fine was low). We haven't been trying it on with the EFL for years. They took us to a tribunal and lost, they appealed and won the amortisation part. From this we had to resubmit the accounts which we did. We didn't submit our accounts to the EFL on time, agreed that's because of the appeal and redoing them. however we could have been quicker (just my point of view), but it really wouldn't have been that much quicker.    We didn't pay transfer fees on time. Yep not the only ones to do that We didn't pay wages on time. Yep about 3 weeks late and we received a penalty for that. Others were far worse (SWFC) We didn't pay HMRC, agreed and we got a transfer embargo for that (and the others) We went into administration and appealed. Sorry are we not allowed to do that? Isn't that in the rules or doesn't that apply to us? Do we have a case, yes, will we win probably not. Also our case is different than Wigan's and I would say stronger. We should get a bigger deduction than Reading because of not paying bills (HMRC) and the amortisation. Even though they have a far bigger FFP over spend and I don't really care if they are greatly overspent next season.  We need a sustainable business plan. I agree and our operating costs have been greatly reduced with a wage bill in the bottom 3-4 in the Championship. Everyone should have aa sustainable business plan. The Gumps and BCFC have been lucky that they have sold players for really large sums, if they hadn't they would be in the FFP naughty room. Lets talk Covid. If teams are going to get debts written off for FFP(I think Stoke was +£30m) due to Covid then it has to be due to a Force Majore event, which I believe Covid is.  You cannot use it for that but not for the reason why we are in administration. If Covid was the reason (and I am saying If) then we should not get a penalty. The fact others haven't gone the same way is irrelevant. there is no law in the land that states that an owner has to cover very large losses and if he cannot for what ever reason then you go bust. Trust me I would rather we were never in this situation. Wycombe and Gibson asking for money. Fine , I still don't think its going anywhere. It it does I think QPR and Aston Villa will still be in the statute of limitations window to sue both of them for going up instead of us. I think that (play off finals) would be a stronger and bigger case (£100m each ). I do however think that this is not the way to go. people need to look at other things, Readings FFP  losses, who they have signed for peanuts (effectively a free loan), Fulham deferring payment of Wilson for 2 years. All we ask for is a level playing field based on facts and not conjecture 

Not on time not technically true they gave us week extension and in which got them in on time.

I thought Blackburn did a job on us today. We tried to play our game, and they were ready for it and all over us.
Second half when they knew we'd change it, they sat off and soaked up whatever we had, right up until the last flurry.
We were second best, deserved to lose, and the limitations of a squad without a fit striker were ruthlessly exposed by a horrible, gruseome side which can play a bit and has a lot of muscle up front.
Meh. Bring on Barnsley.

Nice little synopsis Woodley but lacking detail ?

I put some of the supporters of other clubs in the same bracket as the current climate change protestors, ill informed and unable to see anything other than their own views which (as the information is limited) is a bit blinkered. I know they will say the same about us and yes in some cases that is true.
This is what I have picked up especially from the BCFC forum.
The amortisation was very bad and the fine was not good enough. The EFL needs to take this into account when any other FFP penalties are issues. We got away with murder with the sale of the stadium and have cheated. IF and only if the stadium is sold to the new owner at a discounted rate then we should be sent back to a tribunal for possible points deductions. Not sure they can do that, isn't there a double jeopardy law for this?? If that happened (the sale back to new owners) I can understand why people wouldn't be happy with that. Also a point here the EFL did originally sign it off and asked for a small reduction which we adhered to.   We have cheated for years, overspent for years and we should have our feet put to the fire for it, made an example. Well the amortisation whilst legal for other businesses is not for the EFL. We didn't hide the amortisation (that's how it as picked up) but we could have been a lot clearer (that's why the fine was low). We haven't been trying it on with the EFL for years. They took us to a tribunal and lost, they appealed and won the amortisation part. From this we had to resubmit the accounts which we did. We didn't submit our accounts to the EFL on time, agreed that's because of the appeal and redoing them. however we could have been quicker (just my point of view), but it really wouldn't have been that much quicker.    We didn't pay transfer fees on time. Yep not the only ones to do that We didn't pay wages on time. Yep about 3 weeks late and we received a penalty for that. Others were far worse (SWFC) We didn't pay HMRC, agreed and we got a transfer embargo for that (and the others) We went into administration and appealed. Sorry are we not allowed to do that? Isn't that in the rules or doesn't that apply to us? Do we have a case, yes, will we win probably not. Also our case is different than Wigan's and I would say stronger. We should get a bigger deduction than Reading because of not paying bills (HMRC) and the amortisation. Even though they have a far bigger FFP over spend and I don't really care if they are greatly overspent next season.  We need a sustainable business plan. I agree and our operating costs have been greatly reduced with a wage bill in the bottom 3-4 in the Championship. Everyone should have aa sustainable business plan. The Gumps and BCFC have been lucky that they have sold players for really large sums, if they hadn't they would be in the FFP naughty room. Lets talk Covid. If teams are going to get debts written off for FFP(I think Stoke was +£30m) due to Covid then it has to be due to a Force Majore event, which I believe Covid is.  You cannot use it for that but not for the reason why we are in administration. If Covid was the reason (and I am saying If) then we should not get a penalty. The fact others haven't gone the same way is irrelevant. there is no law in the land that states that an owner has to cover very large losses and if he cannot for what ever reason then you go bust. Trust me I would rather we were never in this situation. Wycombe and Gibson asking for money. Fine , I still don't think its going anywhere. It it does I think QPR and Aston Villa will still be in the statute of limitations window to sue both of them for going up instead of us. I think that (play off finals) would be a stronger and bigger case (£100m each ). I do however think that this is not the way to go. people need to look at other things, Readings FFP  losses, who they have signed for peanuts (effectively a free loan), Fulham deferring payment of Wilson for 2 years. All we ask for is a level playing field based on facts and not conjecture 

I put some of the supporters of other clubs in the same bracket as the current climate change protestors, ill informed and unable to see anything other than their own views which (as the information is limited) is a bit blinkered. I know they will say the same about us and yes in some cases that is true.
This is what I have picked up especially from the BCFC forum.
The amortisation was very bad and the fine was not good enough. The EFL needs to take this into account when any other FFP penalties are issues. We got away with murder with the sale of the stadium and have cheated. IF and only if the stadium is sold to the new owner at a discounted rate then we should be sent back to a tribunal for possible points deductions. Not sure they can do that, isn't there a double jeopardy law for this?? If that happened (the sale back to new owners) I can understand why people wouldn't be happy with that. Also a point here the EFL did originally sign it off and asked for a small reduction which we adhered to.   We have cheated for years, overspent for years and we should have our feet put to the fire for it, made an example. Well the amortisation whilst legal for other businesses is not for the EFL. We didn't hide the amortisation (that's how it as picked up) but we could have been a lot clearer (that's why the fine was low). We haven't been trying it on with the EFL for years. They took us to a tribunal and lost, they appealed and won the amortisation part. From this we had to resubmit the accounts which we did. We didn't submit our accounts to the EFL on time, agreed that's because of the appeal and redoing them. however we could have been quicker (just my point of view), but it really wouldn't have been that much quicker.    We didn't pay transfer fees on time. Yep not the only ones to do that We didn't pay wages on time. Yep about 3 weeks late and we received a penalty for that. Others were far worse (SWFC) We didn't pay HMRC, agreed and we got a transfer embargo for that (and the others) We went into administration and appealed. Sorry are we not allowed to do that? Isn't that in the rules or doesn't that apply to us? Do we have a case, yes, will we win probably not. Also our case is different than Wigan's and I would say stronger. We should get a bigger deduction than Reading because of not paying bills (HMRC) and the amortisation. Even though they have a far bigger FFP over spend and I don't really care if they are greatly overspent next season.  We need a sustainable business plan. I agree and our operating costs have been greatly reduced with a wage bill in the bottom 3-4 in the Championship. Everyone should have aa sustainable business plan. The Gumps and BCFC have been lucky that they have sold players for really large sums, if they hadn't they would be in the FFP naughty room. Lets talk Covid. If teams are going to get debts written off for FFP(I think Stoke was +£30m) due to Covid then it has to be due to a Force Majore event, which I believe Covid is.  You cannot use it for that but not for the reason why we are in administration. If Covid was the reason (and I am saying If) then we should not get a penalty. The fact others haven't gone the same way is irrelevant. there is no law in the land that states that an owner has to cover very large losses and if he cannot for what ever reason then you go bust. Trust me I would rather we were never in this situation. Wycombe and Gibson asking for money. Fine , I still don't think its going anywhere. It it does I think QPR and Aston Villa will still be in the statute of limitations window to sue both of them for going up instead of us. I think that (play off finals) would be a stronger and bigger case (£100m each ). I do however think that this is not the way to go. people need to look at other things, Readings FFP  losses, who they have signed for peanuts (effectively a free loan), Fulham deferring payment of Wilson for 2 years. All we ask for is a level playing field based on facts and not conjecture 

Hi Pop,
 
I see you have responded to me on the BCFC website
I have quoted you below so everyone can read.
Happy to respond to a constructive post by a poster on there. I can't join btw, not allowed. Possibly not a surprise given some of my past rants...emotive or similar but also biting back as I do bite back when I get unwarranted flak as most people would.
  Quote
Well one thing we now know pop is reading our posts, not an issue I have read theirs. 
Suppose for both parties the worse thing about being quoted or not spoken about might be not being quoted or spoken about. 
  Quote
so pop, agree with you if PP is sold back at a discount, as Anne Widicombe would say it has something of the night about it. Still unsure  If the EFL have any power. Anyway this sis all conjecture at the moment.
It would be an interesting test case IMO. Not sure the EFL would appreciate it to say the least and a new owner getting off to a bad start with the EFL couldn't be positive- although I wonder if they could separate out the two bits as part of the business plan.
  Quote
yes we do want a sustainable business plan where we keep within FFfP limits (WR)
Yep, spend up to remaining headroom once all outstanding issues sorted- talking about Jan, seems fair to me. There's a lot to sort though and I'm not even talking about the ground here. we don't want boom and bust its not good for the old ticker.  We had one stupid year where we signed players for large sums and large wages and didn't get  return on them.  The others years we have more or less traded on a net basis.  We have for the last two years operated on a small operating budget. Wages are probably circa £15m. The damage had already been done. 
  Quote
Pop all we want is to be treated like others FFP ( we only had one high spending year) the rest we financed by sales. How can people talk about Reading getting a smaller  Deduction than us when they overspent by tens of millions, we didn’t  (WR)
You'll find no arguments from me on Reading- I was criticising Reading a year and a half ago! Plus Stoke I have to question how the hell they justify that £30m Impairment, hopefully the EFL are scrutinising each and every penny of that. Reading, the thing there is that as with all clubs the 2019/20 and the 2020/21 results are added and halved. On the 3 years to 2019/20 in isolation, absolutely but we don't know how the 2020/21 might look but I thought they should be nailed for a 9 pts, although some reports said 6 and a further 3 suspended- reports suggested that Reading owning up and cooperating has helped.  We (Mel) only submitted our accounts for a negative FFP after the immortalisation issue and did it on time. we had submitted them before but rightly was asked to submit them again showing a straight line methodology. (Note here. All player valuations ended in zero and didn't have a residual amount. The issue was that the amortisation was done more on a bell curve with higher amounts up front rather than on a straight line). We have since been in discussion (like Reading) with the EFL. The only issue we had was the appeal and Mel not being quiet. You shouldn't be penalised for that.  I think Reading should get more they are so far over is ridicules
I agree the Covid impairment and how losses affect FFP (P&S) is a worry. The EFL need to come out with a rational of how they are dealing with it. (Advertising income, gate receipts, loss of entertainment other commercial activity) this should be hard as you should be able to see the loss from auditing previous years income. Also re Covid, the only way they can deduct amounts from FFP consideration is if Covid was a/is a Force Majeure. Otherwise teams should have planned for it and have taken steps to ensure that they remain within FFP (you can see where I am going here re admin appeal). BCFC must have lost £millions over the last couple of years so if you cannot deduct say the loss of £15-20m,ish from your FFP calculation then you will also be hit with an FFP points deduction?
A difference between Derby and Reading is that the Derby 9 with 3 more suspended is deemed to be a final settlement or proposed as such- whereas the Reading one could just be a first instalment, I saw that as well as a deduction, renewal of players on existing terms could prove difficult and they could face a further deduction in the next year or 2. If they get a deduction and sell Swift in Jan say, they could slide into real issues on the pitch? Saw a stat other day, he has chipped in with goals or assists about 2/3 of the clubs League goals or 60%, something..out of contract in the summer! Think Blackburn and renewal might pose an issue with quite a few key assets although selling Armstrong has surely helped them to ease things.
A troubling thing about Reading too? Rahman and Drinkwater loans, covered minimum 90% by Chelsea! Ridiculous! Their individual wage cap=£8.5k per week x 6 players, those 2 combined wages £170k so...no loan fees payable. Also suggest that for that wage level, Dann and Halilovic look suspiciously good players albeit signed on frees. I agree, add Fulham not paying for Harry Wilson for 2 years and others will also be pushing the boundaries with FFP and the ethics of it.
  Quote
we are trying to bypass anything but I  would not blame a new owner for trying to get a points  Deduction  WR
Do you mean removed or reduced? Suppose a new owner might try but given that the burden of failure with these issues lies with the club and not the owner, there is an an attempt at bypassing arguably- not now so much but the delays of accounts to the EFL, the alleged procedural defences in May 2021, to sell as a Championship club was possible. Sorry spell check on my ipad. we are not trying to bypass anything. If we are able to use the rules to get a reduction of points then that's ok. After all isn't that what other clubs have done Birmingham, Sheffield Wednesday and it seems Reading?
  Quote
why don’t you come on this site and debate it
Would if I could!
 

I put some of the supporters of other clubs in the same bracket as the current climate change protestors, ill informed and unable to see anything other than their own views which (as the information is limited) is a bit blinkered. I know they will say the same about us and yes in some cases that is true.
This is what I have picked up especially from the BCFC forum.
The amortisation was very bad and the fine was not good enough. The EFL needs to take this into account when any other FFP penalties are issues. We got away with murder with the sale of the stadium and have cheated. IF and only if the stadium is sold to the new owner at a discounted rate then we should be sent back to a tribunal for possible points deductions. Not sure they can do that, isn't there a double jeopardy law for this?? If that happened (the sale back to new owners) I can understand why people wouldn't be happy with that. Also a point here the EFL did originally sign it off and asked for a small reduction which we adhered to.   We have cheated for years, overspent for years and we should have our feet put to the fire for it, made an example. Well the amortisation whilst legal for other businesses is not for the EFL. We didn't hide the amortisation (that's how it as picked up) but we could have been a lot clearer (that's why the fine was low). We haven't been trying it on with the EFL for years. They took us to a tribunal and lost, they appealed and won the amortisation part. From this we had to resubmit the accounts which we did. We didn't submit our accounts to the EFL on time, agreed that's because of the appeal and redoing them. however we could have been quicker (just my point of view), but it really wouldn't have been that much quicker.    We didn't pay transfer fees on time. Yep not the only ones to do that We didn't pay wages on time. Yep about 3 weeks late and we received a penalty for that. Others were far worse (SWFC) We didn't pay HMRC, agreed and we got a transfer embargo for that (and the others) We went into administration and appealed. Sorry are we not allowed to do that? Isn't that in the rules or doesn't that apply to us? Do we have a case, yes, will we win probably not. Also our case is different than Wigan's and I would say stronger. We should get a bigger deduction than Reading because of not paying bills (HMRC) and the amortisation. Even though they have a far bigger FFP over spend and I don't really care if they are greatly overspent next season.  We need a sustainable business plan. I agree and our operating costs have been greatly reduced with a wage bill in the bottom 3-4 in the Championship. Everyone should have aa sustainable business plan. The Gumps and BCFC have been lucky that they have sold players for really large sums, if they hadn't they would be in the FFP naughty room. Lets talk Covid. If teams are going to get debts written off for FFP(I think Stoke was +£30m) due to Covid then it has to be due to a Force Majore event, which I believe Covid is.  You cannot use it for that but not for the reason why we are in administration. If Covid was the reason (and I am saying If) then we should not get a penalty. The fact others haven't gone the same way is irrelevant. there is no law in the land that states that an owner has to cover very large losses and if he cannot for what ever reason then you go bust. Trust me I would rather we were never in this situation. Wycombe and Gibson asking for money. Fine , I still don't think its going anywhere. It it does I think QPR and Aston Villa will still be in the statute of limitations window to sue both of them for going up instead of us. I think that (play off finals) would be a stronger and bigger case (£100m each ). I do however think that this is not the way to go. people need to look at other things, Readings FFP  losses, who they have signed for peanuts (effectively a free loan), Fulham deferring payment of Wilson for 2 years. All we ask for is a level playing field based on facts and not conjecture 

I put some of the supporters of other clubs in the same bracket as the current climate change protestors, ill informed and unable to see anything other than their own views which (as the information is limited) is a bit blinkered. I know they will say the same about us and yes in some cases that is true.
This is what I have picked up especially from the BCFC forum.
The amortisation was very bad and the fine was not good enough. The EFL needs to take this into account when any other FFP penalties are issues. We got away with murder with the sale of the stadium and have cheated. IF and only if the stadium is sold to the new owner at a discounted rate then we should be sent back to a tribunal for possible points deductions. Not sure they can do that, isn't there a double jeopardy law for this?? If that happened (the sale back to new owners) I can understand why people wouldn't be happy with that. Also a point here the EFL did originally sign it off and asked for a small reduction which we adhered to.   We have cheated for years, overspent for years and we should have our feet put to the fire for it, made an example. Well the amortisation whilst legal for other businesses is not for the EFL. We didn't hide the amortisation (that's how it as picked up) but we could have been a lot clearer (that's why the fine was low). We haven't been trying it on with the EFL for years. They took us to a tribunal and lost, they appealed and won the amortisation part. From this we had to resubmit the accounts which we did. We didn't submit our accounts to the EFL on time, agreed that's because of the appeal and redoing them. however we could have been quicker (just my point of view), but it really wouldn't have been that much quicker.    We didn't pay transfer fees on time. Yep not the only ones to do that We didn't pay wages on time. Yep about 3 weeks late and we received a penalty for that. Others were far worse (SWFC) We didn't pay HMRC, agreed and we got a transfer embargo for that (and the others) We went into administration and appealed. Sorry are we not allowed to do that? Isn't that in the rules or doesn't that apply to us? Do we have a case, yes, will we win probably not. Also our case is different than Wigan's and I would say stronger. We should get a bigger deduction than Reading because of not paying bills (HMRC) and the amortisation. Even though they have a far bigger FFP over spend and I don't really care if they are greatly overspent next season.  We need a sustainable business plan. I agree and our operating costs have been greatly reduced with a wage bill in the bottom 3-4 in the Championship. Everyone should have aa sustainable business plan. The Gumps and BCFC have been lucky that they have sold players for really large sums, if they hadn't they would be in the FFP naughty room. Lets talk Covid. If teams are going to get debts written off for FFP(I think Stoke was +£30m) due to Covid then it has to be due to a Force Majore event, which I believe Covid is.  You cannot use it for that but not for the reason why we are in administration. If Covid was the reason (and I am saying If) then we should not get a penalty. The fact others haven't gone the same way is irrelevant. there is no law in the land that states that an owner has to cover very large losses and if he cannot for what ever reason then you go bust. Trust me I would rather we were never in this situation. Wycombe and Gibson asking for money. Fine , I still don't think its going anywhere. It it does I think QPR and Aston Villa will still be in the statute of limitations window to sue both of them for going up instead of us. I think that (play off finals) would be a stronger and bigger case (£100m each ). I do however think that this is not the way to go. people need to look at other things, Readings FFP  losses, who they have signed for peanuts (effectively a free loan), Fulham deferring payment of Wilson for 2 years. All we ask for is a level playing field based on facts and not conjecture 

I put some of the supporters of other clubs in the same bracket as the current climate change protestors, ill informed and unable to see anything other than their own views which (as the information is limited) is a bit blinkered. I know they will say the same about us and yes in some cases that is true.
This is what I have picked up especially from the BCFC forum.
The amortisation was very bad and the fine was not good enough. The EFL needs to take this into account when any other FFP penalties are issues. We got away with murder with the sale of the stadium and have cheated. IF and only if the stadium is sold to the new owner at a discounted rate then we should be sent back to a tribunal for possible points deductions. Not sure they can do that, isn't there a double jeopardy law for this?? If that happened (the sale back to new owners) I can understand why people wouldn't be happy with that. Also a point here the EFL did originally sign it off and asked for a small reduction which we adhered to.   We have cheated for years, overspent for years and we should have our feet put to the fire for it, made an example. Well the amortisation whilst legal for other businesses is not for the EFL. We didn't hide the amortisation (that's how it as picked up) but we could have been a lot clearer (that's why the fine was low). We haven't been trying it on with the EFL for years. They took us to a tribunal and lost, they appealed and won the amortisation part. From this we had to resubmit the accounts which we did. We didn't submit our accounts to the EFL on time, agreed that's because of the appeal and redoing them. however we could have been quicker (just my point of view), but it really wouldn't have been that much quicker.    We didn't pay transfer fees on time. Yep not the only ones to do that We didn't pay wages on time. Yep about 3 weeks late and we received a penalty for that. Others were far worse (SWFC) We didn't pay HMRC, agreed and we got a transfer embargo for that (and the others) We went into administration and appealed. Sorry are we not allowed to do that? Isn't that in the rules or doesn't that apply to us? Do we have a case, yes, will we win probably not. Also our case is different than Wigan's and I would say stronger. We should get a bigger deduction than Reading because of not paying bills (HMRC) and the amortisation. Even though they have a far bigger FFP over spend and I don't really care if they are greatly overspent next season.  We need a sustainable business plan. I agree and our operating costs have been greatly reduced with a wage bill in the bottom 3-4 in the Championship. Everyone should have aa sustainable business plan. The Gumps and BCFC have been lucky that they have sold players for really large sums, if they hadn't they would be in the FFP naughty room. Lets talk Covid. If teams are going to get debts written off for FFP(I think Stoke was +£30m) due to Covid then it has to be due to a Force Majore event, which I believe Covid is.  You cannot use it for that but not for the reason why we are in administration. If Covid was the reason (and I am saying If) then we should not get a penalty. The fact others haven't gone the same way is irrelevant. there is no law in the land that states that an owner has to cover very large losses and if he cannot for what ever reason then you go bust. Trust me I would rather we were never in this situation. Wycombe and Gibson asking for money. Fine , I still don't think its going anywhere. It it does I think QPR and Aston Villa will still be in the statute of limitations window to sue both of them for going up instead of us. I think that (play off finals) would be a stronger and bigger case (£100m each ). I do however think that this is not the way to go. people need to look at other things, Readings FFP  losses, who they have signed for peanuts (effectively a free loan), Fulham deferring payment of Wilson for 2 years. All we ask for is a level playing field based on facts and not conjecture 

I put some of the supporters of other clubs in the same bracket as the current climate change protestors, ill informed and unable to see anything other than their own views which (as the information is limited) is a bit blinkered. I know they will say the same about us and yes in some cases that is true.
This is what I have picked up especially from the BCFC forum.
The amortisation was very bad and the fine was not good enough. The EFL needs to take this into account when any other FFP penalties are issues. We got away with murder with the sale of the stadium and have cheated. IF and only if the stadium is sold to the new owner at a discounted rate then we should be sent back to a tribunal for possible points deductions. Not sure they can do that, isn't there a double jeopardy law for this?? If that happened (the sale back to new owners) I can understand why people wouldn't be happy with that. Also a point here the EFL did originally sign it off and asked for a small reduction which we adhered to.   We have cheated for years, overspent for years and we should have our feet put to the fire for it, made an example. Well the amortisation whilst legal for other businesses is not for the EFL. We didn't hide the amortisation (that's how it as picked up) but we could have been a lot clearer (that's why the fine was low). We haven't been trying it on with the EFL for years. They took us to a tribunal and lost, they appealed and won the amortisation part. From this we had to resubmit the accounts which we did. We didn't submit our accounts to the EFL on time, agreed that's because of the appeal and redoing them. however we could have been quicker (just my point of view), but it really wouldn't have been that much quicker.    We didn't pay transfer fees on time. Yep not the only ones to do that We didn't pay wages on time. Yep about 3 weeks late and we received a penalty for that. Others were far worse (SWFC) We didn't pay HMRC, agreed and we got a transfer embargo for that (and the others) We went into administration and appealed. Sorry are we not allowed to do that? Isn't that in the rules or doesn't that apply to us? Do we have a case, yes, will we win probably not. Also our case is different than Wigan's and I would say stronger. We should get a bigger deduction than Reading because of not paying bills (HMRC) and the amortisation. Even though they have a far bigger FFP over spend and I don't really care if they are greatly overspent next season.  We need a sustainable business plan. I agree and our operating costs have been greatly reduced with a wage bill in the bottom 3-4 in the Championship. Everyone should have aa sustainable business plan. The Gumps and BCFC have been lucky that they have sold players for really large sums, if they hadn't they would be in the FFP naughty room. Lets talk Covid. If teams are going to get debts written off for FFP(I think Stoke was +£30m) due to Covid then it has to be due to a Force Majore event, which I believe Covid is.  You cannot use it for that but not for the reason why we are in administration. If Covid was the reason (and I am saying If) then we should not get a penalty. The fact others haven't gone the same way is irrelevant. there is no law in the land that states that an owner has to cover very large losses and if he cannot for what ever reason then you go bust. Trust me I would rather we were never in this situation. Wycombe and Gibson asking for money. Fine , I still don't think its going anywhere. It it does I think QPR and Aston Villa will still be in the statute of limitations window to sue both of them for going up instead of us. I think that (play off finals) would be a stronger and bigger case (£100m each ). I do however think that this is not the way to go. people need to look at other things, Readings FFP  losses, who they have signed for peanuts (effectively a free loan), Fulham deferring payment of Wilson for 2 years. All we ask for is a level playing field based on facts and not conjecture 

I put some of the supporters of other clubs in the same bracket as the current climate change protestors, ill informed and unable to see anything other than their own views which (as the information is limited) is a bit blinkered. I know they will say the same about us and yes in some cases that is true.
This is what I have picked up especially from the BCFC forum.
The amortisation was very bad and the fine was not good enough. The EFL needs to take this into account when any other FFP penalties are issues. We got away with murder with the sale of the stadium and have cheated. IF and only if the stadium is sold to the new owner at a discounted rate then we should be sent back to a tribunal for possible points deductions. Not sure they can do that, isn't there a double jeopardy law for this?? If that happened (the sale back to new owners) I can understand why people wouldn't be happy with that. Also a point here the EFL did originally sign it off and asked for a small reduction which we adhered to.   We have cheated for years, overspent for years and we should have our feet put to the fire for it, made an example. Well the amortisation whilst legal for other businesses is not for the EFL. We didn't hide the amortisation (that's how it as picked up) but we could have been a lot clearer (that's why the fine was low). We haven't been trying it on with the EFL for years. They took us to a tribunal and lost, they appealed and won the amortisation part. From this we had to resubmit the accounts which we did. We didn't submit our accounts to the EFL on time, agreed that's because of the appeal and redoing them. however we could have been quicker (just my point of view), but it really wouldn't have been that much quicker.    We didn't pay transfer fees on time. Yep not the only ones to do that We didn't pay wages on time. Yep about 3 weeks late and we received a penalty for that. Others were far worse (SWFC) We didn't pay HMRC, agreed and we got a transfer embargo for that (and the others) We went into administration and appealed. Sorry are we not allowed to do that? Isn't that in the rules or doesn't that apply to us? Do we have a case, yes, will we win probably not. Also our case is different than Wigan's and I would say stronger. We should get a bigger deduction than Reading because of not paying bills (HMRC) and the amortisation. Even though they have a far bigger FFP over spend and I don't really care if they are greatly overspent next season.  We need a sustainable business plan. I agree and our operating costs have been greatly reduced with a wage bill in the bottom 3-4 in the Championship. Everyone should have aa sustainable business plan. The Gumps and BCFC have been lucky that they have sold players for really large sums, if they hadn't they would be in the FFP naughty room. Lets talk Covid. If teams are going to get debts written off for FFP(I think Stoke was +£30m) due to Covid then it has to be due to a Force Majore event, which I believe Covid is.  You cannot use it for that but not for the reason why we are in administration. If Covid was the reason (and I am saying If) then we should not get a penalty. The fact others haven't gone the same way is irrelevant. there is no law in the land that states that an owner has to cover very large losses and if he cannot for what ever reason then you go bust. Trust me I would rather we were never in this situation. Wycombe and Gibson asking for money. Fine , I still don't think its going anywhere. It it does I think QPR and Aston Villa will still be in the statute of limitations window to sue both of them for going up instead of us. I think that (play off finals) would be a stronger and bigger case (£100m each ). I do however think that this is not the way to go. people need to look at other things, Readings FFP  losses, who they have signed for peanuts (effectively a free loan), Fulham deferring payment of Wilson for 2 years. All we ask for is a level playing field based on facts and not conjecture 

Picky , Americans also have a different grammar style than us Brits. No idea if he will become the new owner but he hasn’t done anything wrong. I think people need to be a little more positive towards him

Picky , Americans also have a different grammar style than us Brits. No idea if he will become the new owner but he hasn’t done anything wrong. I think people need to be a little more positive towards him

Love the answer 

I reckon if you stick £50 on a 0-0 in every game then by the end of the month you'd have a few extra quid for Christmas. 
I might do that actually. 
Can anyone lend me £50?

I got in there Glyn, only posted twice mind - what I’m saying is, if I can get on there anybody can. I am to IT what Mel Morris is to responsible football club ownership. 

I would love to debate with this gentleman but getting on the forum seems impossible ,i believe i answer the security question correctly but no go .

Well one thing we now know pop is reading our posts, not an issue I have read theirs. 
 
so pop, agree with you if PP is sold back at a discount, as Anne Widicombe would say it has something of the night about it. Still unsure  If the EFL have any power. Anyway this sis all conjecture at the moment.
yes we do want a sustainable business plan where we keep within FFfP limits 
Pop all we want is to be treated like others FFP ( we only had one high spending year) the rest we financed by sales. How can people talk about Reading getting a smaller  Deduction than us when they overspent by tens of millions, we didn’t 
we are trying to bypass anything but I  would not blame a new owner for trying to get a points  Deduction 
why don’t you come on this site and debate it