FFP was put on hold, back on again

[G STAR RAM]

Not strictly true.I can't remember the exact figures,but seem to remember the bid was £37m.This would have effectively matched the £16m the owners paid for the club and 'bought' the cash injection they'd put in up to that date (rather generous,seeing as much of it produced failure).I also seem to remember that the £5m extra investment was to be for a transfer kitty and was to be net (Clough to get proceeds of sales).Many on the DET thought this was nowhere near enough to secure promotion-how much have the owners put in net since the bid (with the brakes now seemingly applied).

Not sure as none of us know the timing of the cash injections

[davenportram]

Ramblur Would the PBSE you mention in the accounts thread for player purchases and sales give us a clue as to net transfer activity since the bid? It shows just over £2m.

[ramblur]

Not sure as none of us know the timing of the cash injections

Given that the total investment stands at £44.6m,and given that we know £5.8m was injected in 11/12,it's already close enough.Also,as the bid was March 10,the £6.8m loan came after his bid.So he therefore more than 'bought' their investment up to that point.

It amuses me that some who thought £5m net to be derisory now seem to think we might do it with this (or less),given that we now seem to be entering a period of horse trading

[ramblur]

Ramblur Would the PBSE you mention in the accounts thread for player purchases and sales give us a clue as to net transfer activity since the bid? It shows just over £2m.

I'll try and have a look Davenport,but this kind of thing is never easy,in fact,even as I type I realise it's impossible, because you never know what happens with June transfers in the books.The DET this year seemed to suggest certain players were included in the 10/11 accounts,whereas PBSE suggests otherwise.

[ramblur]

I'll try and have a look Davenport,but this kind of thing is never easy,in fact,even as I type I realise it's impossible, because you never know what happens with June transfers in the books.The DET this year seemed to suggest certain players were included in the 10/11 accounts,whereas PBSE suggests otherwise.

Had a quick look at the purchase side-PBSE gives £2.467m for 11/12 and the accounts proper give £1.401m for 10/11.Even if Bailey and Brayford crept into 9/10,there's scarcely enough to get to £5m gross,let alone net.I need a very clear head to even attempt the sales side,which I don't have courtesy of a stinking cold,but I might have a go tmw-if I don't post I'll have given it up as an impossible job.You're basically talking Hulse,Commons,Moxey and Varney (I think).

[Woodys woman]

You called them parasites. I am not sure how you class people who have invested £26million into the club as parasites. Maybe if we had a more loyal fanbase instead of fickle people like you then their cash could be used on signings rather than covering losses.

Do you think they would use their cash for signings if they weren't covering losses

[ramblur]

As luck would have it,there was nothing shown due to us in respect of player sales as at 30/6/10,so we received £374k cash in 10/11 and £519k was shown as due to us at 30/6/11,to which we must add the £196k shown in PBSE.I make that £1.089m to deduct from purchases.

[davenportram]

So that would be £2.8m net then. A bit more than I expected.

[ramblur]

So that would be £2.8m net then. A bit more than I expected.

Depending on what happened to Bailey and Brayford-seem to remember (though I may be wrong) that they were those wretched June types that are difficult to tie down to the right year.I suspect you may be surprised simply because the sales are net of anything we might owe to other clubs (Moxey definitely comes to mind,and I guess we must have owed a lot on Varney,or we've been hoodwinked).

[ramblur]

So that would be £2.8m net then. A bit more than I expected.

A quarter of the way to promotion from what some said on the DET.

[RotherhamRam]

Depending on what happened to Bailey and Brayford-seem to remember (though I may be wrong) that they were those wretched June types that are difficult to tie down to the right year.I suspect you may be surprised simply because the sales are net of anything we might owe to other clubs (Moxey definitely comes to mind,and I guess we must have owed a lot on Varney,or we've been hoodwinked).

The thing with the likes of Brayford and Bailey should imagine there would be some add ons like number of appearances incurring more money to Crewe. If remember rightly the rumour why Moxey went was because one more game meant a similar payment to Exeter. So may never know the true cost of players transfers unless specifically broken down in the public eye which I dont think will ever be the case

[ramblur]

The thing with the likes of Brayford and Bailey should imagine there would be some add ons like number of appearances incurring more money to Crewe. If remember rightly the rumour why Moxey went was because one more game meant a similar payment to Exeter. So may never know the true cost of players transfers unless specifically broken down in the public eye which I dont think will ever be the case

There's a section in the accounts which gives contingent liabilities in respect of players.Maximum liabilities under sell on clauses are given,but liabilities due to appearances etc aren't.This must mean that players are brought into the accounts at a value that assumes the criteria are to be met.If the player is subsequently sold,then the whole issue is sorted out under 'profit/loss on sale of players'.

I can tell all that our maximum liability under sell on clauses was £1.248m as at 30/6/11 and £1.809m as at 30/6/10.

Furthermore,there were contingent liabilities regarding signing and other bonuses due to players under the terms of their contracts of £267k as at 30/6/11 and £204k as at 30/6/10.

We may receive payments in future in a number of circumstances including number of appearances (other circumstances not stated-no values given).

[G STAR RAM]

Pointless speculating.

[ramblur]

The article clearly says it was expected to happen. Not everything that changes in life is a lie or a conspiracy.

The objection is that the' Mail' article suggests that the clubs weren't due to meet again until June.This appears to conflict with what we were told.

[ramblur]

Just as an aside, do people here generally welcome FFP or would people prefer it not to come in at all?

I'd prefer it not to come in.'Fair' appears to be very misleading to me-how could it possibly be fair when it gives relegated sides such an advantage? There's already evidence that promoted sides aren't spending so much,probably because subsequent relegation wouldn't be such a big deal in view of massively increased chute riches.

I think there should be a clampdown on Revenue compliance (with very stiff penalties),allied to measures aimed at preventing the introduction of new debt funding operating losses.In other words,if owners want to fund such losses out of equity,then so be it.This means that fans of the likes of Doncaster,Barnsley,Coventry et al could always live the dream that a rich local benefactor might one day propel them to a level they might not otherwise have dreamed of.The FFP alternative appears to consign many to the wilderness.Many would point to the fact that 'lesser' clubs have achieved promotion-would they have been able to do it on break even?

[ramblur]

As a rider to my last post,if you can't make it fair,don't make it less fair than it already is.

[davenportram]

It says clubs are not scheduled to meet again until the AGM in June, it doesnt say there were no meetings held between Febraury and the date of the article.

.

[uttoxram75]

Ramblur has nailed it I think. It is safe to assume that any new rule or regulation will be in the long term favour of the clubs currently in the prem.

There is no other consideration really as they would just veto initiatives like FFP and the EPPP if it gave Championship (or lower), clubs a chance of gaining ground on them.

Turkeys voting for christmas comes to mind.

[ramblur]

It says clubs are not scheduled to meet again until the AGM in June, it doesnt say there were no meetings held between Febraury and the date of the article.

.

Have you heard any reports of another meeting in any of the media? SSN were present outside PP following the last meeting-surely,if there were a chance that some proposals were to be rubber stamped at a subsequent meeting,they'd again have been in attendance? Of course I'd apologise and retract if I'm wrong,but I'd first like to see the evidence.

[ramblur]

It says clubs are not scheduled to meet again until the AGM in June, it doesnt say there were no meetings held between Febraury and the date of the article.

.

[url=http://www.football-league.co.uk/page/SearchResult/0,,10794,00.html?searchQuery=Financial]http://www.football-...Query=Financial fair play

The PP meeting (as I'd originally thought,which is why I followed SSN at the time) was convened for a formal vote,not as a talk in leading to a later formal vote

For some reason the link doesn't display what I originally saw.Try throwing "Financial fair play" into the site's search engine..