Ramarena Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 28 minutes ago, angieram said: I haven’t been paying attention to Wigans woes, but do I have it right that this is the fourth failure to pay players, but first punishment? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Clough Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 (edited) 4 hours ago, Ramarena said: I haven’t been paying attention to Wigans woes, but do I have it right that this is the fourth failure to pay players, but first punishment? 1st offence is usually the suspended penalty. Begs the question why it takes 4 separate occasions for a penalty to actually kick in. The EFL are laughably inconsistent: Derby - 1 month = 3 points suspended penalty Sheff Weds - 4 months (1 occasion) = 6 points suspended penalty Wigan - 3 months (3 occasions) = 3 points suspended penalty Edited March 20, 2023 by Ghost of Clough Ramarena, SaffyRam and Ram@Lincoln 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 20, 2023 Share Posted March 20, 2023 11 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said: 1st offence is usually the suspended penalty. Begs the question why it takes 4 separate occasions for a penalty to actually kick in. The EFL are laughably inconsistent: Derby - 1 month = 3 points suspended penalty Sheff Weds - 4 months (1 occasion) = 6 points suspended penalty Wigan - 3 months (3 occasions) = 3 points suspended penalty Spellchecker appears to have chaged incompetent to inconsistent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ram59 Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 On 20/03/2023 at 21:39, Ghost of Clough said: 1st offence is usually the suspended penalty. Begs the question why it takes 4 separate occasions for a penalty to actually kick in. The EFL are laughably inconsistent: Derby - 1 month = 3 points suspended penalty Sheff Weds - 4 months (1 occasion) = 6 points suspended penalty Wigan - 3 months (3 occasions) = 3 points suspended penalty Yes that Derby 1 month was down to a failed take over by someone who passed the EFL fit and proper test, the wages were paid shortly after. Sheff Wed and Wigan both committed multiple breeches with the current owners at fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnero Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 https://www.marketingderby.co.uk/news/the-reluctant-hero-who-brought-rams-back-from-the-brink/?utm_content=buffer6c918&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer Interview with David Clowes 🖤 Pikeyram, SaffyRam, Tomchope and 2 others 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caerphilly Ram Posted March 22, 2023 Share Posted March 22, 2023 1 hour ago, Carnero said: https://www.marketingderby.co.uk/news/the-reluctant-hero-who-brought-rams-back-from-the-brink/?utm_content=buffer6c918&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer Interview with David Clowes 🖤 Full interview is available via the digital version of the magazine here; https://heyzine.com/flip-book/8867b12b48.html I found that really interesting and insightful, shed light on the acquisition of the club including conversations with Kirchner (🫣) about the stadium. Talks up Stephen Pearce (I know, I know) and Warne, and perhaps most importantly for me the plan of being back in the championship within 5 years. That perspective from the owner is key as it matches my own expectations. I’d love us to win promotion as soon as possible but if it doesn’t happen I can process the disappointment and understand the broader context of our situation. What a top bloke he is! Dordogne-Ram, RedSox, SaffyRam and 5 others 3 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angieram Posted March 28, 2023 Share Posted March 28, 2023 How complicated is this? The firm who owns the ground is the same three people who own the club, and the reason they are going into administration is because they can't pay back a loan made for the purchase of the ground by a company owned by one of the owners of the club (and the ground!) Honestly, makes Mel look like a saint, some of this stuff! Carnero 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B4ev6is Posted March 28, 2023 Share Posted March 28, 2023 Yet again it show how much differently we were treated to others then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RoyMac5 Posted March 28, 2023 Share Posted March 28, 2023 24 minutes ago, B4ev6is said: Yet again it show how much differently we were treated to others then. Did our ground go into administration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamworthram Posted March 28, 2023 Share Posted March 28, 2023 22 minutes ago, B4ev6is said: Yet again it show how much differently we were treated to others then. Give it rest B4. What rules have Peterborough broken? IF the club ever goes into administration then we can see if they’re treated differently. rammieib and jimtastic56 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted March 28, 2023 Share Posted March 28, 2023 18 minutes ago, RoyMac5 said: Did our ground go into administration? The only bit that didn’t 😂 RoyMac5 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavesaRam Posted March 28, 2023 Share Posted March 28, 2023 All it means is that Peterborough or its owner(s) didn’t upset the EFL by threatening a breakaway league. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grumpy Git Posted March 28, 2023 Share Posted March 28, 2023 58 minutes ago, angieram said: How complicated is this? The firm who owns the ground is the same three people who own the club, and the reason they are going into administration is because they can't pay back a loan made for the purchase of the ground by a company owned by one of the owners of the club (and the ground!) Honestly, makes Mel look like a saint, some of this stuff! I think the term is ‘leverage’? Basically a rich man’s method to buy stuff with debt but not be on the hook if it goes tits-up. RadioactiveWaste 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tyler Durden Posted March 28, 2023 Share Posted March 28, 2023 (edited) 1 hour ago, B4ev6is said: Yet again it show how much differently we were treated to others then. There's a guy who works for me reminds me a lot about you B4. He constantly harps on at me about perceived injustices he thinks he's been on the wrong end of in the dim and distant past and in some cases he's regurgitating stuff from literally 20 years ago I keep telling him to try to move on as it's not helping his mental wellbeing any. And that no one can change what's happened in the past but we can strive to make sure that we deal with things in a professional and appropriate and consistent and even manner going forward. Just some food for thought for yourself I guess. Edited March 28, 2023 by Tyler Durden plymouthram and jimtastic56 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ram59 Posted March 28, 2023 Share Posted March 28, 2023 3 hours ago, Tamworthram said: Give it rest B4. What rules have Peterborough broken? IF the club ever goes into administration then we can see if they’re treated differently. But are the Peterborough owners guilty of sharp practice here? Let's face it, if the owners of the club and the ground are one and the same, then it appears that the debt has effectively been transferred to the company owning the ground in order to avoid punishments being given to the club. Is the reason that the company owning the ground is in financial trouble, the fact that the club are not paying the going rate, to use the ground. In other words cheating to avoid FFP. If the club paid the going rate to use the ground, would it mean that it was the club going into receivership rather than the company owning the ground? Brighton have a similar arrangement, the owner of the club owns the ground which cost about £140m to build, he charges the club a nominal fee to use the ground and runs up losses at the company which owns the ground, these debt is now closer to £200m. The owner is effectively subsidising the club, much like the taxpayer is subsidising West Ham with the national stadium, but the taxpayer doesn't also own West Ham and so doesn't gain any benefit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tamworthram Posted March 29, 2023 Share Posted March 29, 2023 8 hours ago, ram59 said: But are the Peterborough owners guilty of sharp practice here? Let's face it, if the owners of the club and the ground are one and the same, then it appears that the debt has effectively been transferred to the company owning the ground in order to avoid punishments being given to the club. Is the reason that the company owning the ground is in financial trouble, the fact that the club are not paying the going rate, to use the ground. In other words cheating to avoid FFP. If the club paid the going rate to use the ground, would it mean that it was the club going into receivership rather than the company owning the ground? Brighton have a similar arrangement, the owner of the club owns the ground which cost about £140m to build, he charges the club a nominal fee to use the ground and runs up losses at the company which owns the ground, these debt is now closer to £200m. The owner is effectively subsidising the club, much like the taxpayer is subsidising West Ham with the national stadium, but the taxpayer doesn't also own West Ham and so doesn't gain any benefit. I don't know the full details of Peterborough's case or how much rent they pay but, as I see it, they haven't broken any rules so you can't accuse the EFL of treating us worse than them. If you think back to our circumstances, if Mel's company that owned PP had gone into administration but not Derby County then we wouldn't have been treated in the same was as we were. Crewton 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richinspain Posted March 29, 2023 Share Posted March 29, 2023 26 minutes ago, Tamworthram said: I don't know the full details of Peterborough's case or how much rent they pay but, as I see it, they haven't broken any rules so you can't accuse the EFL of treating us worse than them. If you think back to our circumstances, if Mel's company that owned PP had gone into administration but not Derby County then we wouldn't have been treated in the same was as we were. But the EFL could invent some new rules and backdate them! angieram, jimtastic56, LazloW and 8 others 1 6 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angieram Posted March 29, 2023 Share Posted March 29, 2023 9 hours ago, ram59 said: But are the Peterborough owners guilty of sharp practice here? Let's face it, if the owners of the club and the ground are one and the same, then it appears that the debt has effectively been transferred to the company owning the ground in order to avoid punishments being given to the club. Is the reason that the company owning the ground is in financial trouble, the fact that the club are not paying the going rate, to use the ground. In other words cheating to avoid FFP. If the club paid the going rate to use the ground, would it mean that it was the club going into receivership rather than the company owning the ground? Brighton have a similar arrangement, the owner of the club owns the ground which cost about £140m to build, he charges the club a nominal fee to use the ground and runs up losses at the company which owns the ground, these debt is now closer to £200m. The owner is effectively subsidising the club, much like the taxpayer is subsidising West Ham with the national stadium, but the taxpayer doesn't also own West Ham and so doesn't gain any benefit. Absolutely guilty of sharp practice. One of the men who owns the club and the ground also owns the company that loaned the money to buy the ground. Moving it around to take the hit where it causes least harm. But not against EFL rules. Currently. 😉 richinspain and Dordogne-Ram 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevinhectoring Posted March 29, 2023 Share Posted March 29, 2023 13 hours ago, Tamworthram said: Give it rest B4. What rules have Peterborough broken? IF the club ever goes into administration then we can see if they’re treated differently. Seems likely the stadium company is bust because the club can’t afford a market rent. But that the club is being kept away from the insolvency because that way the owners can do a deal with the banks without EFL sanctions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Buxton's Bat Posted March 29, 2023 Share Posted March 29, 2023 I don't know the ins and out of the Peterborough situation but it seems that there are many ways to run a club [i.e. players, staff, kit, ground and training facilities (owned or rented), travel etc] at a significant loss without falling foul of the very precise FFP rules. We've heard of various ruses.....selling ground to yourself, having a 'sister club to play the transfer market via inflated, under-inflated player values, having other companies under the same parent company and shifting funds around etc. Without proper scrutiny it's hard to know how much of this this true and how much is mud-slinging. Maybe the EFL and premier league would be better to take a holistic look at finances, state what activities are required to run a club and look at the aggregated profit and loss of the contrived portfolio of companies that are used to play accountancy gymnastics.....of course a bugger of a job. One thing that can't be disputed is that the company that owns the Peterborough ground is not in financial trouble because of over-spend on the number of toilets in the away end. CBRammette, SaffyRam and Dean (hick) Saunders 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account.
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now