We’ve been charged

Who are these criminals who dictate to us what their corrupt rules are and why we should adhere to them, there’s a reason why they get away with it and that’s because we, the majority, are far too passive and just want an easy life moaning down the pub or on an online group instead of standing up against them and organising ourselves to confront the problem, anyway I’m off to the fridge for a 🍺
 
shanetko said:
Be amazed if every single news outlet in the land decided to fabricate the story but stranger things have happened and it distracts from the real point that the club has been ran in a very shoddy manner.
Click to expand...
I'm not defending the useless cunts in charge at all. But we all know that it only takes one pissed hack to make some bollocks up, the rest lazily copy it, and hey presto it's regarded as fact.
 
MeltonFox said:
I suppose it's like any business really that you can't spend what you don't generate. I can see the reason for FFP to stop teams going to the wall. But it should be governed properly.
Click to expand...

How can Newcastle go to the wall ?
They can't spend because of the restrictions, yet they are one of the richest clubs in the world.
How the fuck are these rules protecting them ?
It's seems obvious to me that there is a cartel, hell bent on keeping any would be challenger Under the thumb.
The monopolies commission should call it out.
These rules to protect clubs from ruin are a load of bollox, they are there to protect the BCC's and to restrict everyone else.
Let's go back to a previous generation where the only deductions were for teams fielding ineligible players.
Let the clubs have free reign of their finances and if they fuck up then they only have themselves to blame.
Leeds, Portsmouth, us and other clubs spent years in the doldrums because of financial mismanagement, isn't that enough punishment for teams that overspend ?
These rules might be there to supposedly stop clubs from imploding but they are also stopping them from growing.
It stinks and it's ruining the game.
 
Last edited:
Was chatting to some Chelsea fans walking up to Stamford Bridge on Sunday.
I asked them about FFP.
They said we feel we are guilty but we will employ the best lawyers from the USA spend lots of money and clear our names.
Meanwhile the so called smaller clubs get punished.
 
Obviously the charge for breaking PSR rules has been anticipated for a while but the charge relating to not providing audited accounts to the EPL (presumably they were asked for and we said we didn't have to as we were no longer members) and the comments relating to "unlawful acts by the football authorities" & seeking "to exercise jurisdiction where they cannot do so" obviously indicate where the big battle ground will be. Personally I think this will end up being a very high risk strategy by the club. The EFL's actions reeked not only of over-reach but of actually ignoring their own rules but if I understand it correctly the EPL's seems more related to omission (i.e. I guess not specifically including past-member clubs in rules that cover a period when they were members) and, if so, I guess there is a chance that the independent commission may determine that even if not specifically included it was clear the club were still subject to those same rules. If it is a battle the club lose then, for all the conversations they have supposedly had with the authorities, it would presumably remove a major mitigation when determining any punishment that may be due.
 
Its simple let all clubs have the same transfer budget like American football. then it is equal for everyone? This is common sense, why allow a small section of clubs to have a larger spending power ? Because its all rigged !!!!!
 
Brauny said:
How can Newcastle go to the wall ?
They can't spend because of the restrictions, yet they are one of the richest clubs in the world.
How the fuck are these rules protecting them ?
It's seems obvious to me that there is a cartel, hell bent on keeping any would be challenger Under the thumb.
The monopolies commission should call it out.
These rules to protect clubs from ruin are a load of bollox, they are there to protect the BCC's and to restrict everyone else.
Let's go back to a previous generation where the only deductions were for teams fielding ineligible players.
Let the clubs have free reign of their finances and if they fuck up then they only have themselves to blame.
Leeds, Portsmouth, us and other clubs spent years in the doldrums because of financial mismanagement, isn't that enough punishment for teams that overspend ?
These rules might be there to supposedly stop clubs from imploding but they are also stopping them from growing.
It stinks and it's ruining the game.
Click to expand...
They should be able to spend whatever they want, if they have the money it’s the prerogative
 
foxesneverquit said:
Was chatting to some Chelsea fans walking up to Stamford Bridge on Sunday.
I asked them about FFP.
They said we feel we are guilty but we will employ the best lawyers from the USA spend lots of money and clear our names.
Meanwhile the so called smaller clubs get punished.
Click to expand...
We would be in this mess is they’d paid us the full whack for Fofana in one go ?
 
buz_not_buzz said:
Obviously the charge for breaking PSR rules has been anticipated for a while but the charge relating to not providing audited accounts to the EPL (presumably they were asked for and we said we didn't have to as we were no longer members) and the comments relating to "unlawful acts by the football authorities" & seeking "to exercise jurisdiction where they cannot do so" obviously indicate where the big battle ground will be. Personally I think this will end up being a very high risk strategy by the club. The EFL's actions reeked not only of over-reach but of actually ignoring their own rules but if I understand it correctly the EPL's seems more related to omission (i.e. I guess not specifically including past-member clubs in rules that cover a period when they were members) and, if so, I guess there is a chance that the independent commission may determine that even if not specifically included it was clear the club were still subject to those same rules. If it is a battle the club lose then, for all the conversations they have supposedly had with the authorities, it would presumably remove a major mitigation when determining any punishment that may be due.
Click to expand...
I currently have an old work acquaintance who is a Spurs fan, saying that they should have been awarded the title that season as we’d cheated our way to it.

I did have to point out two things:

1. The charges apply to the 2022/23 season

2. Even with a points deduction for Leicester, Spurs would still have finished 3rd.

Twat.
 
Coatsworth said:
We would be in this mess is they’d paid us the full whack for Fofana in one go ?
Click to expand...
The only possible impact would have been the interest on the loan that we took to get the money in one go for the day to day running of the club. Otherwise when you get the money makes no difference to the P&L and by extension the PSR calculation. And, really, which clubs do you think pay such transfer fees in one go? I would be really surprised if any did. If LCFC had insisted on it I would have expected Chelsea to either walk away or to have significantly reduced the offer which would have reduced the profit. So, no, we would still be in this mess.
 
It shows, once again, how dropping from 4th to 5th in the final week of the 20/21 season proved very costly.
And, granted probably not so significant, our inability to progress to the knockout stages of the Europa League in 2022.
Thanks TCR.
 
Coatsworth said:
I currently have an old work acquaintance who is a Spurs fan, saying that they should have been awarded the title that season as we’d cheated our way to it.

I did have to point out two things:

1. The charges apply to the 2022/23 season

2. Even with a points deduction for Leicester, Spurs would still have finished 3rd.

Twat.
Click to expand...
Update. We apparently won our trophies with crooked money.
 
Points Deduction
Player Sales [KDH]
No Money to buy players

seems like we are going to struggle big time. I knew the clowns in charge were no good when they missed out signing Silva, by 11 seconds, senior management should be ashamed.
 
WiggyFox said:
Points Deduction
Player Sales [KDH]
No Money to buy players

seems like we are going to struggle big time. I knew the clowns in charge were no good when they missed out signing Silva, by 11 seconds, senior management should be ashamed.
Click to expand...
So Enzo has a team meeting asking them to pull out all the stops to gain promotion.
The players then realise that none of them will be here next season, probably including him.
 
In practical terms it means we're back to being a Championship club for a few years one way or other. Been there before, we'll get used to it again. We had the glory days, now time to pay.
 
Will Hay said:
So Enzo has a team meeting asking them to pull out all the stops to gain promotion.
The players then realise that none of them will be here next season, probably including him.
Click to expand...
They will get better moves if they try, and we go up, rather than down tools, Surely most players want to win things and are not in it purely for the money?
 
peatlingfox said:
They will get better moves if they try, and we go up, rather than down tools, Surely most players want to win things and are not in it purely for the money?
Click to expand...
Not sure perhaps ask Ward, Bertrand and one or 2 others.
Better still ask Rudkin how he justified paying telephone number wages for average players.
 
What? said:
We should sell Rudkin to Pedigree Petfoods, it might knock a fiver off the bill.
Click to expand...
He's had a meeting with all staff and asked them to look down the back of the sofas and armchairs just incase they missed anything the last time.
 
buz_not_buzz said:
Obviously the charge for breaking PSR rules has been anticipated for a while but the charge relating to not providing audited accounts to the EPL (presumably they were asked for and we said we didn't have to as we were no longer members) and the comments relating to "unlawful acts by the football authorities" & seeking "to exercise jurisdiction where they cannot do so" obviously indicate where the big battle ground will be. Personally I think this will end up being a very high risk strategy by the club. The EFL's actions reeked not only of over-reach but of actually ignoring their own rules but if I understand it correctly the EPL's seems more related to omission (i.e. I guess not specifically including past-member clubs in rules that cover a period when they were members) and, if so, I guess there is a chance that the independent commission may determine that even if not specifically included it was clear the club were still subject to those same rules. If it is a battle the club lose then, for all the conversations they have supposedly had with the authorities, it would presumably remove a major mitigation when determining any punishment that may be due.
Click to expand...
I felt our statement to the EFL a few weeks back was more inflammatory than it had to be. Just riles them, unnecessarily.

And then felt the same this week, especially as we know forest were 'rewarded' for cooperation.

By all means point out a difference of opinion, but labelling it as an unlawful act, and outside their jurisdiction (as if they are facts, when i think they are untested opinions), won't help us long term. Adding a sop at the end about cooperation won't undo the previous paragraphs imo.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top