• All - as you will understand, the forum is exceptionally busy at this time. The admins and moderators simply don't have time to read every post in every thread. Could you PLEASE use the "Report" option below a post to flag any content that you feel we need to be aware of. We'll review everything reported as a priority and deal with it accordingly. Thank you.

Kelvin Wilson - Confirmed

T

TribalWars

Banned
Bosman is different - it was challenging holding registrations against a specific European law which it broke

FFP is a set of rules that govern how a club can be run within the football league. All clubs have agreed to them, and the details too. Challenging the rules after you have broken them is like changing the rules to a game just because you are losing.
 
★PsYcHoSpiKe★

★PsYcHoSpiKe★

John Robertson
eh Harry - ya seem like a decent bloke - why don't you switch allegiance to the trickies mate - LCFC are gonna freefall pretty soon and wouldn't want to see you suffer in that way - no one would think any less of you. Call it "Rats jumping from a sinking ship" if you will
 
Barry

Barry

Where's me hammer?
TribalWars said:
Was that when they went into administration?

FOr those quibbling about FFP not standing up in law it's not a legal thing

The Football league has adopted a set if rules for its competition, the owners of the clubs have agreed to abide by those rules. What's to argue about? I guess it's because of Jimbo (I can't practice law anymore) comments about it.
Click to expand...

Yeah but werent the transfer system pre marc bosman part of a set of rules for a competition as well? That ended up in court and the game as we know it was changed forever.

Breaking it down Bosman was only arguing the case of being able to move "stock" more freely from "company" to "company" whereas this is a rule that stops owners of the companies investing in their own company based on profit potentially preventing them from developibg the business further. Like i say a specilist lawyer woukd rip this to shreds.
 
Last edited:
GOBIAS

GOBIAS

Ian Bowyer
BillySharp24 said:
Apparently Shaun Barker is better than Kelvin Wilson....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA my f***ing sides are killing!
Click to expand...

Even if it is up for debate surely it should read "was". Barker is injured and hasn't played for over a year and will struggle to get back to his previous standard so it is not relevant. Bobby Moore was better than Kelvin. But he isn't better than Kelvin now.
 
puds1970

puds1970

Steve Chettle
Back to Kelvin Wilson.
Welcome back big man. It's great to have the extra insurance of his pace at the back. I have to say I am more content with our first choice back four than I have been in a long time.
A lot of teams will struggle to create a great deal against Wilson and Hobbs. Both compliment each others wonderfully. Yesterday is a great example. Leon Best and Rhodes are a handful but our defence limited them to penalty claims and the odd half chance.
It may had been a scrappy game but its a fantastic result. And the fact we came out on top in a 50-50 game at a ground where we have struggled so many times can only bode well for the future.
YOU REDS!.
 
T

TribalWars

Banned
No 5 Terry Wilson said:
Yeah but werent the transfer system pre marc bosman part of a set of rules for a competition as well? That ended up in court and the game as we know it was changed forever.

Breaking it down Bosman was only arguing the case of being able to move "stock" more freely from "company" to "company" whereas this is a rule that stops owners of the companies investing in their own company based on profit potentially preventing them from developibg the business further. Like i say a specilist lawyer woukd rip this to shreds.
Click to expand...

It doesn't stop them investing it limits the amount that can be used to offset clubs losses. Aimed at stopping the scenario of clubs running at a loss due to costs such as wages.

The owners could put in £15m to buy players, but only £5m I think can be offset against losses. Their may be an embargo until proving they now fall into FFP, with points deductions for future offences. However if the £15m wasn't covering massive operating losses (ie an unsustainable wage bill) then the embargo would end with the next accounts. So it would mean one January and one August transfer window at most.
 
V

virgo

Geoff Thomas
TribalWars said:
It doesn't stop them investing it limits the amount that can be used to offset clubs losses. Aimed at stopping the scenario of clubs running at a loss due to costs such as wages.

The owners could put in £15m to buy players, but only £5m I think can be offset against losses. Their may be an embargo until proving they now fall into FFP, with points deductions for future offences. However if the £15m wasn't covering massive operating losses (ie an unsustainable wage bill) then the embargo would end with the next accounts. So it would mean one January and one August transfer window at most.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you are missing the point, no matter that all the clubs have signed-up to the rules, you can bet your bottom dollar that as soon as the toothless Football League challenge a club, and try to enforce FFP, it will end up in court.

With Bosman, he challenged the "rules" because they conflicted with "The law of the land" (the European laws, that is). The "law of the land" always takes precedent over any "private" rules that any institute or company may introduce.
 
T

TribalWars

Banned
virgo said:
Yes, but you are missing the point, no matter that all the clubs have signed-up to the rules, you can bet your bottom dollar that as soon as the toothless Football League challenge a club, and try to enforce FFP, it will end up in court.

With Bosman, he challenged the "rules" because they conflicted with "The law of the land" (the European laws, that is). The "law of the land" always takes precedent over any "private" rules that any institute or company may introduce.
Click to expand...

What law is FFP breaking? I don't think any. Don't be blinded by Jimbos it won't stand up in law. Don't you think one of the Big European clubs would already be challenging UEFA if that was the case?
 
V

virgo

Geoff Thomas
TribalWars said:
What law is FFP breaking? I don't think any. Don't be blinded by Jimbos it won't stand up in law. Don't you think one of the Big European clubs would already be challenging UEFA if that was the case?
Click to expand...

I don't know-that's why I said "you can bet your bottom dollar it will end up in court". I don't think that is too hard a principle to grasp.

Small minnow clubs will have no choice but to accept FFP, but you can also "bet your bottom Dollar" that as soon as a Man. City, or Chelsea, or Barcelona or PSG get challenged, it will be triples all round for the lawyers.

I will stick my neck out now, and predict that FFP will quietly disappear over the next few years, as it is totally "unfit for purpose".
 
T

TribalWars

Banned
virgo said:
I don't know-that's why I said "you can bet your bottom dollar it will end up in court". I don't think that is too hard a principle to grasp.

Small minnow clubs will have no choice but to accept FFP, but you can also "bet your bottom Dollar" that as soon as a Man. City, or Chelsea, or Barcelona or PSG get challenged, it will be triples all round for the lawyers.

I will stick my neck out now, and predict that FFP will quietly disappear over the next few years, as it is totally "unfit for purpose".
Click to expand...

It will stay until the challenge from the Bosman Lawyer is heard at the earliest - and then if the Europran courts hold up the decision from the EU competitions Commissioner from last year - it will stay.
 
V

virgo

Geoff Thomas
TribalWars said:
It will stay until the challenge from the Bosman Lawyer is heard at the earliest - and then if the Europran courts hold up the decision from the EU competitions Commissioner from last year - it will stay.
Click to expand...

I will re-phrase it then-it will become meaningless as accountants find ways around it.
 
T

TribalWars

Banned
Well at least one appeal against FFP and its sanctions has already been lost

http://sports.ndtv.com/football/news/212119-financial-fair-play-has-club-backing-says-uefa

Spanish side Malaga were the first to fall foul of the system, when they were banned from competing in either the Champions League or Europa League for one season from this year due to outstanding debt payments.

The Andalusians -- quarter-finalists in last season's Champions League -- appealed to the Court of Arbitration for Sport in June but lost.
Click to expand...
 
McLeftfoot

McLeftfoot

First Team Squad
Thought Wilson was magnificent yesterday. Him n Hobbs look quite the partnership already. A few loose balls here n there but that's about it for stuff he did wrong. They both kept two very capable strikers at bay for most of the match. Not an easy thing to do and can't off the top of my head think of any other centre back pairing that couldve coped so well with them. His tackles were superb and very eye catching. Looked every bit the player that can play at a higher level and certainly worth that 2.5 million price tag.
 
Last edited:
Barry

Barry

Where's me hammer?
TribalWars said:
And of course ways round it that the clubs auditors and football league Auditirs won't find and challenge
Click to expand...

There will be a loophole that will be exploited, you dont become a multi millionaire able to buy a football club with out having the right people around you to over come circumstances like FFP.

I admire you confidence in FFP but i cant see it making a bit of difference when it comes to the crunch.
 
T

TribalWars

Banned
No 5 Terry Wilson said:
There will be a loophole that will be exploited, you dont become a multi millionaire able to buy a football club with out having the right people around you to over come circumstances like FFP.

I admire you confidence in FFP but i cant see it making a bit of difference when it comes to the crunch.
Click to expand...

It already has to some clubs - 41 have been penalised by UEFA some with suspended exclusions from tournaments and others have already been excluded.
 
V

virgo

Geoff Thomas
TribalWars said:
And of course ways round it that the clubs auditors and football league Auditirs won't find and challenge
Click to expand...

Of course it will be challenged-in a court of law (blimey, this is like pulling teeth).

A good accountant could bury any FFP stuff so deep that it would take the football league a few years to uncover it. It's not as though accounts have two columns, namely money coming in, and money going out. They are a bit more complicated than that, and before sanctions have to be applied, you have to have total proof, via the accounts, that foul play has been committed. Now, at what point does it become totally un-economical for the football league (or whoever)to counter challenge any club when they are sanctioned. The club will hand them over the full accounts, probably taken to the football league headquarters in a transit van, and say "here you are, that's our accounts for last season, now show us where we have disobeyed FFP". It would then be down to the Football authorities to prove that in a court of law. That's just one club. Imagine if all of them did it, or just the rich ones even, the Football Authorities would go bankrupt trying to prove that FFP rules had been broken. It is totally unworkable, and that's the whole reason the clubs signed-up for it in the first place, allied with the fact that the football authorities are historically toothless, so why do you think they are suddenly going to become aggressive over FFP?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom