WE CARNT SPEND IT ALL ANYROAD!!!

[gicslater]

Was listening to football heaven!!!And how I understood it is as follows!!!If the Prince gives us £10 million for example as a gift,this amount would be included in our accounts as turnover with everything else the club does!!!therefore due to FFP we could only spend a proportion of this this amount,which wouldn't be anywhere near the above amount!!!which Mr Winter pointed also!!!

Have I got the above wrong guys or not???

 

[TarquinDelouche]

I count eighteen exclamation marks, including the thread title. Yet I see no reason for you bringing so much punctuation to my screen.

 

[PeterNdlovu081]

 

[1889]

Yes, specifically 'Carnt', which of course should be 'Can't'.

Sorry but it was only a matter of time before someone pointed it out and you did ask. I think 'Carnt' might possibly be posh cockney for 'Cunt', but I could be wrong?

UTB

 

[Hartley Hare]

Glory be, we really are in a bad way on and off the pitch.

 

[SwissBlade]

Why would we need to spend so much? We can buy players for £20 that are better than some of the shite at the club

I'll add my exclamation quota as well !!!!!!!!!!!!!¡¡¿¿@§

 

[Bayingblade]

Was listening to football heaven!!!And how I understood it is as follows!!!If the Prince gives us £10 million for example as a gift,this amount would be included in our accounts as turnover with everything else the club does!!!therefore due to FFP we could only spend a proportion of this this amount,which wouldn't be anywhere near the above amount!!!which Mr Winter pointed also!!!

Have I got the above wrong guys or not???

A couple of things to point out:

1. The rule applies to everyone.

2. If...sorry...IF...... our new man from the desert does put £10 Million in as a gift, 65% of that is available as I understand it under the FFP rules, so £6.5 Million. That's about £8.5 Million more than we have currently got!

 

[Bath Blade]

A couple of things to point out:

1. The rule applies to everyone.

2. If...sorry...IF...... our new man from the desert does put £10 Million in as a gift, 65% of that is available as I understand it under the FFP rules, so £6.5 Million. That's about £8.5 Million more than we have currently got!

I don't think that's correct, as the FFP rules are (partly) designed to prevent wealthy benefactors having an unfair advantage, so a gift isn't counted as turnover. The way Man City are doing it is to have the wealthy owners sponsoring the ground or shirt, and paying a vastly inflated sum, which gets the money into the club as turnover.

 

[Bayingblade]

I don't think that's correct, as the FFP rules are (partly) designed to prevent wealthy benefactors having an unfair advantage, so a gift isn't counted as turnover. The way Man City are doing it is to have the wealthy owners sponsoring the ground or shirt, and paying a vastly inflated sum, which gets the money into the club as turnover.

Thanks BB. I'm pretty sure that if the Prince wants to put a few quid in the coffers for players, the club will find a way to comply...................


I hope!

 

[alcoblade]

I don't think that's correct, as the FFP rules are (partly) designed to prevent wealthy benefactors having an unfair advantage, so a gift isn't counted as turnover. The way Man City are doing it is to have the wealthy owners sponsoring the ground or shirt, and paying a vastly inflated sum, which gets the money into the club as turnover.

I don't understand how it works either, but I think "gifts" are OK. It's the loaning of money that sits as debt expecting to be paid back that's not acceptable. That's what leads to club's living beyong their means. Gifts don't.

It would seem daft to ban gifts, as clearly this is all that's happening when stadium's are renamed for £100,000,00 in return.

UTB

 

[cooperblade]

Was listening to football heaven!!!And how I understood it is as follows!!!If the Prince gives us £10 million for example as a gift,this amount would be included in our accounts as turnover with everything else the club does!!!therefore due to FFP we could only spend a proportion of this this amount,which wouldn't be anywhere near the above amount!!!which Mr Winter pointed also!!!

Have I got the above wrong guys or not???

Didn't hear much of last night's show but as I understood it, it's only basic wages that count - fees and bonuses are exempt.

So, we could, for example, buy Callum Wilson for £1.5m, pay him £2k a week basic with a goal bonus of £3k and a promotion bonus of £200k.

 

[Selly]

I don't understand how it works either, but I think "gifts" are OK. It's the loaning of money that sits as debt expecting to be paid back that's not acceptable. That's what leads to club's living beyong their means. Gifts don't.

It would seem daft to ban gifts, as clearly this is all that's happening when stadium's are renamed for £100,000,00 in return.

UTB

As I understand it.

Injections of cash in return for Equity - spend it all
Increases in Turnover - spend in proportion
Debt - naughty naughty can't spend this on wages

So assuming we are at the 65% limit now

And the prince puts £10m in as equity, and £10m in for shirt sponsorship over the next year.

We can spend all of the first 10m on wages (if we want), and 6.5m of the second £10m

Of course this would be bloody stupid, as most of the players would be on 2-4 year contracts, and thus unless we can be sure we get another £10m equity injection next year, we would simply be giving ourselves an issue.

The best way to look at it is probably, equity injections allow you to buy players, turnover injections allow you to pay them.

 

[Rodley]

I count eighteen exclamation marks, including the thread title. Yet I see no reason for you bringing so much punctuation to my screen.

Any need for that?

 

[UnitedBlade]

As I understand it.

Injections of cash in return for Equity - spend it all
Increases in Turnover - spend in proportion
Debt - naughty naughty can't spend this on wages

So assuming we are at the 65% limit now

And the prince puts £10m in as equity, and £10m in for shirt sponsorship over the next year.

We can spend all of the first 10m on wages (if we want), and 6.5m of the second £10m

Of course this would be bloody stupid, as most of the players would be on 2-4 year contracts, and thus unless we can be sure we get another £10m equity injection next year, we would simply be giving ourselves an issue.

The best way to look at it is probably, equity injections allow you to buy players, turnover injections allow you to pay them.

Good summary, I think that's probably right.

You only have to look at Bournemouth last season, there is no way they would have complied with SCMP without an equity injection.

Did you notice who accounted for a third of all fees paid to agents in L1 last season ?

Bournemouth

 

[mattbianco1]

Was listening to football heaven!!!And how I understood it is as follows!!!If the Prince gives us £10 million for example as a gift,this amount would be included in our accounts as turnover with everything else the club does!!!therefore due to FFP we could only spend a proportion of this this amount,which wouldn't be anywhere near the above amount!!!which Mr Winter pointed also!!!

Have I got the above wrong guys or not???

This only counts towards wages NOT Transfer fees or signing on fees.

So basically, we could loan a player and pay say £1m loan fee to the owners in exchange for them to pay his wages. Simples

 

[TarquinDelouche]

Any need for that?

Yes.

 

[SouthEssexBlade]

Yes.

Beat me to it, Tarqs, you old grammar monster. *#¬~£^@</*^$

 

[alcoblade]

Have applications for the role of unpaid internet bulletin board spell checker now closed?

Seriously chaps, does it matter?

UTB

 

[Fazak]

Yes.

Why?

Surely in the context of the core purpose of the Forum it's an almost complete irrelevance. People should be able to post freely, regardless of their views, without fear of censorship or ridicule from the grammar police.

It's a matter for the editor. Perhaps he could start suspending people from posting until they have a faultless appreciation of the use of the apostrophe?!!!!!!!

 

[TarquinDelouche]

Perhaps if people want to be taken seriously they should write in an appropriate manner. If you or anybody else doesn't care that you (or they) start with the disadvantage of looking like a manic squirrel on caffeine by scattering your (or their) post with exclamation points then it's really up to you. Or them.

 

[Darren]

Perhaps if people want to be taken seriously they should write in an appropriate manner. If you or anybody else doesn't care that you (or they) start with the disadvantage of looking like a manic squirrel on caffeine by scattering your (or their) post with exclamation points then it's really up to you. Or them.

Some people are good at writing good conventional English and some aren't. A bit like other things in life. If you were playing football with your kid and someone said "bloody hell, you're shit, you're not even up to conference standard", you would think they were a bit of an arse wouldn't you?

In my view, if you can understand what a poster is saying, there really is no need for smart arse comments about their writing style.

 

[Jon Bon]

Why?

Surely in the context of the core purpose of the Forum it's an almost complete irrelevance. People should be able to post freely, regardless of their views, without fear of censorship or ridicule from the grammar police.

It's a matter for the editor. Perhaps he could start suspending people from posting until they have a faultless appreciation of the use of the apostrophe?!!!!!!!

Fuck off! Who the fuck asked you for your opinion anyway? *


*This post has been brought to you by the Big Mart Memorial Association (BuMMA). BuMMA is a non-charitable organisation dedicated to the memory of our former fallen comrades who so selflessly sacrificed their own memberships to say out loud what the rest of us were thinking. Please – Remember them.

 

[TarquinDelouche]

Some people are good at writing good conventional English and some aren't. A bit like other things in life. If you were playing football with your kid and someone said "bloody hell, you're shit, you're not even up to conference standard", you would think they were a bit of an arse wouldn't you?

In my view, if you can understand what a poster is saying, there really is no need for smart arse comments about their writing style.

I really fail to see the connection with playing football in a park. If someone has trouble with spelling, I have no problem with that. If they have problems getting the hang of apostrophes that's fine. Like you said, "some people are good at writing good conventional English and some aren't."

But these are intentional flourishes that bring nothing to the message other than an unwarranted urgency. To use your football analogy, it's like Maguire trying a couple of Ronaldo stepovers then losing the ball in the penalty area rather than booting it clear. You'd be within your rights to point out that it was unnecessary.

 

[Selly]

Some people are good at writing good conventional English and some aren't. A bit like other things in life. If you were playing football with your kid and someone said "bloody hell, you're shit, you're not even up to conference standard", you would think they were a bit of an arse wouldn't you?.

I'd actually think they had undercooked their commenst somewhat, as anyone who has seen me play will terstify I'm not even up to "playing football in the park with my kid" standard, never mind the conference.

In my view, if you can understand what a poster is saying, there really is no need for smart arse comments about their writing style.

N I fink u iz talkin bollox m8.

 

[Darren]

I really fail to see the connection with playing football in a park. If someone has trouble with spelling, I have no problem with that. If they have problems getting the hang of apostrophes that's fine. Like you said, "some people are good at writing good conventional English and some aren't."

But these are intentional flourishes that bring nothing to the message other than an unwarranted urgency. To use your football analogy, it's like Maguire trying a couple of Ronaldo stepovers then losing the ball in the penalty area rather than booting it clear. You'd be within your rights to point out that it was unnecessary.

Yes and no.

I suppose there is an analogy with Bert's continual referring to himself in the third person, which I (and many others) find annoyingly self referential and which I (and others) have not failed to point out to him. However, Bert strikes me as the sort of person who takes that sort of criticism in his stride.

This a new guy with - what some might think - an idyiosyncratic method of expressing himself. It seems to me a little uncharitable to respond to his post by having a go at his style.

 

[Selly]

This a new guy with - what some might think - an idyiosyncratic method of expressing himself. It seems to me a little uncharitable to respond to his post by having a go at his style.

And yet if we don`t, how do we maintain the good standard of debate on here?

I (and perhaps others) don`t want this turning into Blades Mad Mk II.

 

[MobileBlade]

Why?

Surely in the context of the core purpose of the Forum it's an almost complete irrelevance. People should be able to post freely, regardless of their views, without fear of censorship or ridicule from the grammar police.

It's a matter for the editor. Perhaps he could start suspending people from posting until they have a faultless appreciation of the use of the apostrophe?!!!!!!!

I agree to a certain extent. People should be free to writ it down anyroad.

 

[TarquinDelouche]

Yes and no.

I suppose there is an analogy with Bert's continual referring to himself in the third person, which I (and many others) find annoyingly self referential and which I (and others) have not failed to point out to him. However, Bert strikes me as the sort of person who takes that sort of criticism in his stride.

This a new guy with - what some might think - an idyiosyncratic method of expressing himself. It seems to me a little uncharitable to respond to his post by having a go at his style.

TarquinDelouche actually likes Bert's style. It takes great discipline to remain in character for so long.

Also, the fact that he hasn't posted too many times is irrelevant to me. I'm sure these aren't his first ever attempts at the written word. If they are, then fair enough and I have nothing but respect for him. I hope he found my advice helpful for the future.

Question though: why is it acceptable for someone to willingly inflict excessive punctuation on others but unacceptable for someone to say they think it's unnecessary?

 

[TarquinDelouche]

I agree to a certain extent. People should be free to writ it down anyroad.

This I agree with. I'm not telling anybody NOT to write however they like to. Just be aware that others may be forming a negative opinion of you regardless of what it is you're actually writing.

 

[Darren]

And yet if we don`t, how do we maintain the good standard of debate on here?

I (and perhaps others) don`t want this turning into Blades Mad Mk II.

I don't know about you, but I don't see my role as some Lone Ranger of the S24su board, dedicated to wiping out bad writing, wherever I find it.

There's obviously room in the world for a board like this and a board like BladesMad. People will gravitate to the board that suits them.