Its Going To Get Ugly / Ganging up [MERGED]

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

I'm stunned that united are allowed to be so blatantly corrupt with such little resistance. Why don't we just put them in charge and save some time?

Just watch, if we manage to fall foul to these new rules I've got a feeling the points will be docked retrospectively. They'll come off our total for last season, thereby bringing the scum another title and us a fine for the difference in prize money they would have earned in Europe as champions.

[Dameerto]

I don't see how this won't end up in court. (and totally agree that they have just fucled the fans - in the words of Yaz and regarding ticket prices: The only way is up)

[Beefymcfc]

I'd be interested to see the Prem's rules on voting, whether an abstention voids it from the overall vote.

If 20 voted and there were only 13 'Yes' then the vote could not be carried.

Just a minor thing but one that could be questioned.

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

Piccs,

I am interested why you are of the opinion that this decision suits us just fine and won't be a problem?
If that were the case, why didn't we simply vote for it?

Genuine question.

As we are now fourth in the money list, closely following Arse and possibly moving to third, we are fairly well situated within the elite.
The ladder has been pulled up on other clubs who will now really struggle to ever get to our level. Arsenal could well miss Chumps League, leaving them a further problem.
We have a training academy the like of which has not been seen before in this country. We also have the scope for an increase in capacity that would increase match day and consequently overall revenue.
In a nutshell, we're in already, and admission to rivals has been made nigh on impossible.

You know these clubs in the Prem are just a snap shot in time. So the likes of Norwich, Swansea Wigan and even us, get to decide on the future of top flight football, that will effect the likes of Derby Co, Leeds, Forest, Wolves Middlesbrough, Wednesday etc. They get no say. That could easily be us. Why don't all clubs get a voice in this as this will have a bearing on very many clubs business?

[Piccsnumberoneblue]

I'd be interested to see the Prem's rules on voting, whether an abstention voids it from the overall vote.

If 20 voted and there were only 13 'Yes' then the vote could not be carried.

Just a minor thing but one that could be questioned.

Yeah I was curious about this. I understood that 14 votes were needed. There were only 13. How does it get carried.

[Dameerto]

I'd be interested to see the Prem's rules on voting, whether an abstention voids it from the overall vote.

If 20 voted and there were only 13 'Yes' then the vote could not be carried.

Just a minor thing but one that could be questioned.

Yeah I was curious about this. I understood that 14 votes were needed. There were only 13. How does it get carried.

The RAG vote obviously counts double.

[Peter Doherty (AGAIG)]

Piccs,

I am interested why you are of the opinion that this decision suits us just fine and won't be a problem?
If that were the case, why didn't we simply vote for it?

Genuine question.

As we are now fourth in the money list, closely following Arse and possibly moving to third, we are fairly well situated within the elite.
The ladder has been pulled up on other clubs who will now really struggle to ever get to our level. Arsenal could well miss Chumps League, leaving them a further problem.
We have a training academy the like of which has not been seen before in this country. We also have the scope for an increase in capacity that would increase match day and consequently overall revenue.
In a nutshell, we're in already, and admission to rivals has been made nigh on impossible.

You know these clubs in the Prem are just a snap shot in time. So the likes of Norwich, Swansea Wigan and even us, get to decide on the future of top flight football, that will effect the likes of Derby Co, Leeds, Forest, Wolves Middlesbrough, Wednesday etc. They get no say. That could easily be us. Why don't all clubs get a voice in this as this will have a bearing on very many clubs business?

Their voices have already been muffled - very soon they'll be silenced - but that's the nub of the whole thing. It stinks to heaven.

[Alex Sapphire]

I'd be interested to see the Prem's rules on voting, whether an abstention voids it from the overall vote.

If 20 voted and there were only 13 'Yes' then the vote could not be carried.

Just a minor thing but one that could be questioned.

Yeah I was curious about this. I understood that 14 votes were needed. There were only 13. How does it get carried.

The RAG vote obviously counts double.

it needs a two thirds majority so they relied on the abstention.
only 19 votes were cast so 13 if more than two thirds

[Blue Since 76]

The thing I don't get is how silent the press are. There was no mention on the main radio programmes last night. Not even if its good or bad. Just no mention at all.

Most of the papers and websites just seem to have published the actual facts with no discussion or opinion. This has a huge implication on the number one sport in the country and many will feel it's the right thing, so why is no one discussing it?

[Beefymcfc]

I'd be interested to see the Prem's rules on voting, whether an abstention voids it from the overall vote.

If 20 voted and there were only 13 'Yes' then the vote could not be carried.

Just a minor thing but one that could be questioned.

Yeah I was curious about this. I understood that 14 votes were needed. There were only 13. How does it get carried.

Everything has stated (in the past) that it takes 14 votes (70%) of members to vote in favour of any change whereas this is not the case. Only 13 (65%) of the members voted in favour which means it should've gone back to deliberations to see if they could ratify the agreement. 20 members should be counted, not 19.

Unless stated otherwise, this agreement could fall foul of contractual regulations. Not by us, I may add, but by a few who want the same grace as we've had over the last couple of years.

[Sideshow Bob]

so when are trixi and soriano going to start leveraging that supposed insider status we've been hearing about??? from what i can tell, they've done fuck all for us in the transfer market and fuck all to head off this FFP shite.

[john68]

Beefers,

It clear states that a vote must be carried by a 2/3rds majority Mate. No matter which way you look at it, 13 for, 4 against + 1 abstention is more that required to pass the motion. In fact it is 1 more than the requirement. Had Reading voted against, the motion would have failed.

[Foreverinbluedreams]

so when are trixi and soriano going to start leveraging that supposed insider status we've been hearing about??? from what i can tell, they've done fuck all for us in the transfer market and fuck all to head off this FFP shite.

Tricky Burgerstain and Very SorryAnus OUT!!!

[john68]

Piccs,
What a lovely rosy picture you paint, sadly, it doesn't stand quite so rosy when studied a little deeper mate. I wish it did, it would save us all a lot of messing about....I get headaches when I think too much....:-)

Our turnover did indeed improve dramatically from £153M to £231M last years but that is only part of the picture. The balance sheet also shows that wages and operating costs rose dramatically too. Wages from £174M to £201.8M alone. The club were clever to ensure they sidestepped most in depth or critical analysis by releasing the figures late on a Friday and most of the media simply regurgitated the clubs more positive conclusions.
The truth remains that even with such a huge improved turnover, City still made a loss of around £100M and that has to be offset within the timescale given (both for the Prem and UeFA FFPRs).

Though City announced an improved performance of almost £100M, those figures don't fully reflect the truth. One off payments in the previous figures (£34M) and a one off income the latest figures (£12M), somewhat skew the true position and a truer reflection of our improvement would be around a little more than around £50M.

The point being that as a ball park calculation, our huge improvement in turnover was not reflected quite so well in the profit/loss sheet.

I don't doubt for one moment that our owners, backed by their teams of lawyers, accountants and advisors willfind some strategy to sort this problem out, but from the figures we know, we would wrong to consider the ladder already pulled up with us already secure. We are far from that position yet.

Sorry if that pisses on your chips...have a pie instead...:-)

[Beefymcfc]

Beefers,

It clear states that a vote must be carried by a 2/3rds majority Mate. No matter which way you look at it, 13 for, 4 against + 1 abstention is more that required to pass the motion. In fact it is 1 more than the requirement. Had Reading voted against, the motion would have failed.

Yeah, I get that mate but 13/20 is not 2/3rds the majority, it's only 65%. That's the whole point in setting the level where it is so that they have to get 14 clubs in agreement. Even though a club abstained that should not be taking one way of another, it is exactly what it is, abstention. Looking at the rules though, it could be argued either way.

27. Except where the Act specifies that a particular resolution of the Company requires a greater majority, two-thirds of such Members who are present and who vote by their Representative or by proxy at a General Meeting of which notice has been duly given shall be required for the passing of all resolutions of the Company.

Key words there 'who vote' so because Reading didn't vote they are discounted and the numbers taken are from those who voted; 19.

As you were ;-)

[Foreverinbluedreams]

John68,

Fear not, everything is well in hand

http://www.isportconnect.com/index.php? ... Itemid=177

[Beefymcfc]

John68,

Fear not, everything is well in hand

http://www.isportconnect.com/index.php? ... Itemid=177

The MEN re-confirmed today that we will have no problems complying with FFPR.

[Cocacolajojo1]

It's a shame the swiss rambler quit blogging. I would have liked him to write something about these new regulations.

[Goataldo]

Just had a peek over at The Dark Side and their take on FFP...amongst the predictable arrogant bile, there's a poster called Finneh, for whom it seems, the penny has dropped. Fair play to the rag:

http://www.redcafe.net/f7/so-these-fina ... dex13.html

Scum.

Indeed, PD.

Sorry Goataldo, I am not clicking on that.

From, Tzu's "Art of War" - '"Keep your friends close and your enemies closer"

Come on lads, not asking you to support the rag bastards.

I wonder if we'd have won the war if we hadn't wanted to decode German messages, cos they were nasty and German and smelled of sausages.

[john68]

John68,

Fear not, everything is well in hand

http://www.isportconnect.com/index.php? ... Itemid=177

The MEN re-confirmed today that we will have no problems complying with FFPR.

I don't doubt that Beefers Mate. Whilst we are mainly groping in the dark with what little knowledge and info we have been given, I have no doubt that our club has ben working on this shit with teams of informed experts for some time now.

THAT IS NOT THE PROBLEM...The problem is and has been largely ignored by all and sundry on here and it is how it has already affected our club, how it is currently affecting our club and how it may affect our club whilst we are pursuing a policy of compliance. Everyone seems to be concentrating their thoughts on 3 years time. THIS SHIT HAS ALREADY AFFECTED US AND IS CURRENTLY AFFECTING US.

....and that my dear Beefers is what I have been banging on about for fucling ages.

I am not so much worried to much whether a transfer embargo may be imposed by the Prem or UeFA in the 3 years time. But what about the club's SELF IMPOSED transfer embargo of the last 2 windows?