RandomAccessMemory

I don’t like to criticise, but I don’t think the Punjabi Rams have helped here, I understand why they wanted to get ‘something’ out there quickly, people were almost begging for information, but tweets with limited information wasn’t the best way to do it. There’s no context, no explanation as to when, or why, something was said. Was it in answer to something? Was it a tiny comment amongst a longer statement?
Look at the storm it has apparently caused, that comment on no transfers, people read into it what they want, and now we hear that it’s causing problems with the staff and players, when it’s one interpretation of one comment amongst a 4 hour meeting, by one person.
I completely understand why @David wants to get everything out in one post, when he’s had the chance to get it all down. This is what happens if you get out of context snippets.

It’s possible that handing them all contracts is the club trying to say to them ‘we want to sign you, we’re not stringing you along, but until the EFL tell us what we’re allowed to pay you then we can’t put that part in the contract, and we don’t expect you to sign it yet’ but at least they know then that we DO want to sign them.
ETA-I’ve just seen the latest Nixon tweet, it looks like this is exactly why they’ve done it.

It’s possible that handing them all contracts is the club trying to say to them ‘we want to sign you, we’re not stringing you along, but until the EFL tell us what we’re allowed to pay you then we can’t put that part in the contract, and we don’t expect you to sign it yet’ but at least they know then that we DO want to sign them.
ETA-I’ve just seen the latest Nixon tweet, it looks like this is exactly why they’ve done it.

It’s possible that handing them all contracts is the club trying to say to them ‘we want to sign you, we’re not stringing you along, but until the EFL tell us what we’re allowed to pay you then we can’t put that part in the contract, and we don’t expect you to sign it yet’ but at least they know then that we DO want to sign them.
ETA-I’ve just seen the latest Nixon tweet, it looks like this is exactly why they’ve done it.

I think Nixon is just putting together his own guess based on the various tweets he's read.
Mel has apparently said that we're trying to agree on the conditions with the EFL, presumably re the level of wages as if they have set it unreasonably low (for a Championship footballer) then we are in an effective transfer ban.
Points deduction by stealth...

I don’t like to criticise, but I don’t think the Punjabi Rams have helped here, I understand why they wanted to get ‘something’ out there quickly, people were almost begging for information, but tweets with limited information wasn’t the best way to do it. There’s no context, no explanation as to when, or why, something was said. Was it in answer to something? Was it a tiny comment amongst a longer statement?
Look at the storm it has apparently caused, that comment on no transfers, people read into it what they want, and now we hear that it’s causing problems with the staff and players, when it’s one interpretation of one comment amongst a 4 hour meeting, by one person.
I completely understand why @David wants to get everything out in one post, when he’s had the chance to get it all down. This is what happens if you get out of context snippets.

I don’t like to criticise, but I don’t think the Punjabi Rams have helped here, I understand why they wanted to get ‘something’ out there quickly, people were almost begging for information, but tweets with limited information wasn’t the best way to do it. There’s no context, no explanation as to when, or why, something was said. Was it in answer to something? Was it a tiny comment amongst a longer statement?
Look at the storm it has apparently caused, that comment on no transfers, people read into it what they want, and now we hear that it’s causing problems with the staff and players, when it’s one interpretation of one comment amongst a 4 hour meeting, by one person.
I completely understand why @David wants to get everything out in one post, when he’s had the chance to get it all down. This is what happens if you get out of context snippets.

Ask Mel. Oh you can’t, so maybe let’s see what’s in David’s update.
I was responding to threats he’s going to walk away which I listened to the interview with Jim Wheeler and I didn’t interpret it that way at all.
I do think whenever the full information of whatever can be revealed comes out then some people will believe what they want to believe anyway rather than make a balanced judgment 

I don’t like to criticise, but I don’t think the Punjabi Rams have helped here, I understand why they wanted to get ‘something’ out there quickly, people were almost begging for information, but tweets with limited information wasn’t the best way to do it. There’s no context, no explanation as to when, or why, something was said. Was it in answer to something? Was it a tiny comment amongst a longer statement?
Look at the storm it has apparently caused, that comment on no transfers, people read into it what they want, and now we hear that it’s causing problems with the staff and players, when it’s one interpretation of one comment amongst a 4 hour meeting, by one person.
I completely understand why @David wants to get everything out in one post, when he’s had the chance to get it all down. This is what happens if you get out of context snippets.

I don’t like to criticise, but I don’t think the Punjabi Rams have helped here, I understand why they wanted to get ‘something’ out there quickly, people were almost begging for information, but tweets with limited information wasn’t the best way to do it. There’s no context, no explanation as to when, or why, something was said. Was it in answer to something? Was it a tiny comment amongst a longer statement?
Look at the storm it has apparently caused, that comment on no transfers, people read into it what they want, and now we hear that it’s causing problems with the staff and players, when it’s one interpretation of one comment amongst a 4 hour meeting, by one person.
I completely understand why @David wants to get everything out in one post, when he’s had the chance to get it all down. This is what happens if you get out of context snippets.

Is it just me that reads the academy comment as meaning that in the past the academy players weren’t being brought through, which left us in a worse position to keep some of the others, or to get really good money for them, rather than now?
Rooney has given a lot of them game time, as did Cocu, but before that not many were given a chance, only really Bogle.
At the time we had Lowe, but we bought Malone, who ended up not being used too much in his second year and then going out on loan through to the end of his contract, and we ended up selling Lowe for probably less than we could have got had he played more the year before, rather than having been sent out on loan to Aberdeen. In the end we sold him to let Buchanan through, which is exactly the way the academy should work, in an ideal world, but we likely would have gotten more for Lowe with more game time.
Knight probably could have broken through in the Lampard season, given how quickly he broke through the next year, but instead I think the first time we see him (on the bench) is at Leeds in the play off semi, despite IIRC having had many injuries to midfield players during the season.

Is it just me that reads the academy comment as meaning that in the past the academy players weren’t being brought through, which left us in a worse position to keep some of the others, or to get really good money for them, rather than now?
Rooney has given a lot of them game time, as did Cocu, but before that not many were given a chance, only really Bogle.
At the time we had Lowe, but we bought Malone, who ended up not being used too much in his second year and then going out on loan through to the end of his contract, and we ended up selling Lowe for probably less than we could have got had he played more the year before, rather than having been sent out on loan to Aberdeen. In the end we sold him to let Buchanan through, which is exactly the way the academy should work, in an ideal world, but we likely would have gotten more for Lowe with more game time.
Knight probably could have broken through in the Lampard season, given how quickly he broke through the next year, but instead I think the first time we see him (on the bench) is at Leeds in the play off semi, despite IIRC having had many injuries to midfield players during the season.

Yes, I think that is exactly what was meant.

Is it just me that reads the academy comment as meaning that in the past the academy players weren’t being brought through, which left us in a worse position to keep some of the others, or to get really good money for them, rather than now?
Rooney has given a lot of them game time, as did Cocu, but before that not many were given a chance, only really Bogle.
At the time we had Lowe, but we bought Malone, who ended up not being used too much in his second year and then going out on loan through to the end of his contract, and we ended up selling Lowe for probably less than we could have got had he played more the year before, rather than having been sent out on loan to Aberdeen. In the end we sold him to let Buchanan through, which is exactly the way the academy should work, in an ideal world, but we likely would have gotten more for Lowe with more game time.
Knight probably could have broken through in the Lampard season, given how quickly he broke through the next year, but instead I think the first time we see him (on the bench) is at Leeds in the play off semi, despite IIRC having had many injuries to midfield players during the season.

But they were of the belief, as were their auditors, that they did do the accounts ‘properly’.
It does not mention how you’re supposed to account for amortisation, they believed they were fine within FRS102 to do it as they did, the original IDC decision vindicated this, yes I know the appeal has since gone against them, however what that should show you is that it is not at all clear cut, it seems to boil down to a difference in opinion.

The EFL can argue all they want that they didn’t understand the application of the method, but they certainly understood the implications of it. That email (to himself) is a plain as day, they knew that there was the potential for being a large charge in the last year of the contract.

The EFL can argue all they want that they didn’t understand the application of the method, but they certainly understood the implications of it. That email (to himself) is a plain as day, they knew that there was the potential for being a large charge in the last year of the contract.

The EFL can argue all they want that they didn’t understand the application of the method, but they certainly understood the implications of it. That email (to himself) is a plain as day, they knew that there was the potential for being a large charge in the last year of the contract.

Because of the EFL case! Their case was that simply by filing the accounts with the amortisation method we used was breaking the rules, how could we file new accounts when we had no idea until the conclusion of this case whether we could or could not use that method?

The EFL can argue all they want that they didn’t understand the application of the method, but they certainly understood the implications of it. That email (to himself) is a plain as day, they knew that there was the potential for being a large charge in the last year of the contract.

Because of the EFL case! Their case was that simply by filing the accounts with the amortisation method we used was breaking the rules, how could we file new accounts when we had no idea until the conclusion of this case whether we could or could not use that method?

The EFL can argue all they want that they didn’t understand the application of the method, but they certainly understood the implications of it. That email (to himself) is a plain as day, they knew that there was the potential for being a large charge in the last year of the contract.

Because of the EFL case! Their case was that simply by filing the accounts with the amortisation method we used was breaking the rules, how could we file new accounts when we had no idea until the conclusion of this case whether we could or could not use that method?

The EFL can argue all they want that they didn’t understand the application of the method, but they certainly understood the implications of it. That email (to himself) is a plain as day, they knew that there was the potential for being a large charge in the last year of the contract.

Because of the EFL case! Their case was that simply by filing the accounts with the amortisation method we used was breaking the rules, how could we file new accounts when we had no idea until the conclusion of this case whether we could or could not use that method?