[Archived] FFP. When does the transfer embargo end?

[Jimmy612]

  On 31/03/2015 at 12:55, K-Hod said:

Depends on how you measure improvement (in the case of politics, Rovers have been done to death). Many things the Tories have done have been reprehensible.

Not as reprehensible as the previous government. Best of a bad bunch, K-Hod

[K-Hod]

We'll have to agree to disagree, as I can't trust them (or any politicians for that matter). Expense fiddling, tax avoidance for the hyper rich, meaning that they shine a light on those that can afford it the least. Programmes like 'Benefits Street' and 'Skint' to further hammer their point home, and sway people's opinion.

When we're just voting for people so detached from reality who go to schools you read about in the paper. Never done a day's work in their life.

It's like choosing terminal cancer or AIDS.....

[Jimmy612]

  On 31/03/2015 at 13:01, K-Hod said:

We'll have to agree to disagree, as I can't trust them (or any politicians for that matter). Expense fiddling, tax avoidance for the hyper rich, meaning that they shine a light on those that can afford it the least. Programmes like 'Benefits Street' and 'Skint' to further hammer their point home, and sway people's opinion.

When we're just voting for people so detached from reality who go to schools you read about in the paper. Never done a day's work in their life.

It's like choosing terminal cancer or AIDS.....

You won't be voting in 5 weeks time then?

[K-Hod]

  On 31/03/2015 at 13:08, Jimmy612 said:

You won't be voting in 5 weeks time then?

I will, a wasted vote doesn't allow a voice!

[OJRovers]

Earlier this month QPR posted a loss of just £9.8m for the last year, much less that the £65m loss the year before.

However, it appears that included in the £9.8m is a £60m 'gain' made when the shareholders wrote off loans to them. So actually the loss should be £69m (more in line with the prior year).

The Football League are looking at the treatment of the £60m. If they allow it to form part of the 'profit' for the year this is a good way of getting out of FFP trouble if your owners are prepared to write off any loans. Venkys London Limited could do the same and BRFC would make a gain from it.

This would completely undermine the FFP rules, so I can't see the Football League allowing it as an acceptible 'gain' for FFP purposes.

[ABBEY]

  On 31/03/2015 at 12:36, Jimmy612 said:

Fairly parallel situations if you ask me.

Venkys/Labour have left a complete and utter mess and those trying to recover the situation Tories/Bowyer, whilst admittedly not being perfect, are chastised despite overseeing general improvement in extremely difficult circumstances. You could also liken the two for the fact that most folk usually picking a side and stick to it, despite what a mess their 'side' is in.

However same rules should always apply; never change a winning team, especially not when the substitues are as hopeless as Ed Miliband. What a limp d*ck that man is - leader of our country... give me a break.

VENKYS and labour ? Venkys and Tories more like ... @#/? all over the Northern working class .

[tomphil]

  On 31/03/2015 at 13:43, OJRovers said:

Earlier this month QPR posted a loss of just £9.8m for the last year, much less that the £65m loss the year before.

However, it appears that included in the £9.8m is a £60m 'gain' made when the shareholders wrote off loans to them. So actually the loss should be £69m (more in line with the prior year).

The Football League are looking at the treatment of the £60m. If they allow it to form part of the 'profit' for the year this is a good way of getting out of FFP trouble if your owners are prepared to write off any loans. Venkys London Limited could do the same and BRFC would make a gain from it.

This would completely undermine the FFP rules, so I can't see the Football League allowing it as an acceptible 'gain' for FFP purposes.

Just can't see the V's doing that either.

[K-Hod]

  On 31/03/2015 at 15:04, tomphil said:

Just can't see the V's doing that either.

That'd involve some nous and some brains, of which they've displayed none.

[Amo]

  On 31/03/2015 at 13:13, K-Hod said:

I will, a wasted vote doesn't allow a voice!

Wrong. If you vote, and buy into the system, you have no right to complain about the results.

[broadsword]

If a politician has no philosophy, and no convictions, then what are they in politics for, except to serve themselves?

How many of the present-day politicians, or even parties, actually have a philosophy you could summarise in one sentence?

Before Blair came along, you knew who stood for what. These days, it's a case of doing what you need to do in order to feather your own nest. A Conservative/Liberal coalition would've been unthinkable not so long ago.

[tomphil]

  On 31/03/2015 at 15:16, K-Hod said:

That'd involve some nous and some brains, of which they've displayed none.

Plus it would take away the very convenient excuse they and those at the club can now hide behind...........

[K-Hod]

  On 31/03/2015 at 15:30, Amarillo said:

Wrong. If you vote, and buy into the system, you have no right to complain about the results.

The same as if you don't vote you don't have the right to complain about what you could have changed!

Anyway, you don't even know what I'm buying into!!

[Amo]

  On 31/03/2015 at 17:15, K-Hod said:

The same as if you don't vote you don't have the right to complain about what you could have changed!

Not so. If you don't vote, you have every right to complain because you didn't consent for ANY party to have control over you.

[K-Hod]

We'll have to agree to disagree.

No vote=no voice for me.

[Stuart]

  On 31/03/2015 at 17:32, Amarillo said:

Not so. If you don't vote, you have every right to complain because you didn't consent for ANY party to have control over you.

But that logic only holds if one of the possible outcomes is no government. Which there isn't.

Unless you fancy voting for Brewster...

[Proudtobeblue&white]

  On 31/03/2015 at 15:30, Amarillo said:

Wrong. If you vote, and buy into the system, you have no right to complain about the results.

If you don't like the system get out, if 90-100% of those entitled to vote did, then we can't complain.....comes down to this, Ribble Valley staunch Tory, BwD Labour, marginals make the difference, about 100 seats in total decide the government.....although this time might be different.

[Baz]

  On 31/03/2015 at 13:43, OJRovers said:

Earlier this month QPR posted a loss of just £9.8m for the last year, much less that the £65m loss the year before.

However, it appears that included in the £9.8m is a £60m 'gain' made when the shareholders wrote off loans to them. So actually the loss should be £69m (more in line with the prior year).

The Football League are looking at the treatment of the £60m. If they allow it to form part of the 'profit' for the year this is a good way of getting out of FFP trouble if your owners are prepared to write off any loans. Venkys London Limited could do the same and BRFC would make a gain from it.

This would completely undermine the FFP rules, so I can't see the Football League allowing it as an acceptible 'gain' for FFP purposes.

I'm wondering when their fine from last seasons promotion will be announced.

[pk1875]

Bolton now in debt of £172.9 million

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32138946

[davulsukur]

  On 01/04/2015 at 10:22, pk1875 said:

Bolton now in debt of £172.9 million

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32138946

How have they announced a loss of more than £8million (£9.1m) and not been put under an emabrgo?

[thenodrog]

  On 31/03/2015 at 12:55, K-Hod said:

Punishing the poor and letting the hyper rich avoid paying a fair share of tax being the main bones of contention.

Punishing? Are you just repeating age old sounbytes there K-Hod? Not particularly 'hyper rich' but I was informed the other day that in a comparison between 2 people between one earning 15k pa and another earning 150k pa that the 15k chap won't pay as much tax in his entire working life as the chap earning £150pa will pay in just one year! Now that IS NOT fair by any yardstick is it?

Humerous how political parties always bang on about protecting minorities but who protects the people who earn 150k? Surely they constitute a minority but asfar as I can see they receive very little representation?

[thenodrog]

  On 31/03/2015 at 15:47, broadsword said:

A Conservative/Liberal coalition would've been unthinkable not so long ago.

Could easily be so again. Will there be any Liberals left in a few weeks?

[onlyonejackwalker]

  On 01/04/2015 at 10:22, pk1875 said:

Bolton now in debt of £172.9 million

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/32138946

Ouch. What a mess. The people running football clubs amaze me.

[K-Hod]

  On 01/04/2015 at 10:50, thenodrog said:

Punishing? Are you just repeating age old sounbytes there K-Hod? Not particularly 'hyper rich' but I was informed the other day that in a comparison between 2 people between one earning 15k pa and another earning 150k pa that the 15k chap won't pay as much tax in his entire working life as the chap earning £150pa will pay in just one year! Now that IS NOT fair by any yardstick is it?

Humerous how political parties always bang on about protecting minorities but who protects the people who earn 150k? Surely they constitute a minority but asfar as I can see they receive very little representation?

I actually said that I don't agree with a 'high-earners tax' on many occasions and think it's unfair? I also think that it's little wonder tax avoidance schemes are so prevalent when taxation is so high when you earn above the threshold! Be thankful you don't live in France!!!

Starbucks, Amazon, Facebook- all corporations that haven't paid anywhere near their fair share of taxes, still the government clamps down on benefit claimants instead, how odd.

I can't abide this presumption that everyone on the dole is a dolloper that has an easy life, I've worked my entire adult life to date by the way, but I find the lack of empathy with those that are struggling quite callous to be honest.

[rhodie]

  On 01/04/2015 at 10:50, thenodrog said:

Punishing? Are you just repeating age old sounbytes there K-Hod? Not particularly 'hyper rich' but I was informed the other day that in a comparison between 2 people between one earning 15k pa and another earning 150k pa that the 15k chap won't pay as much tax in his entire working life as the chap earning £150pa will pay in just one year! Now that IS NOT fair by any yardstick is it?

Humerous how political parties always bang on about protecting minorities but who protects the people who earn 150k? Surely they constitute a minority but asfar as I can see they receive very little representation?

Funny thing is though Gordon, a lot of those minorities you mention will have several workers earning a pittance from them doing the daily slog, whilst being subsidised by tax credits etc. That in effect, is a considerable tax rebate for the 1 percenters. Recessions and slow downs of the economy are bonanza time for the gaffers, they instil fear in the workforce to get them to work twice as hard for half as much.

[tomphil]

  On 01/04/2015 at 10:30, davulsukur said:

How have they announced a loss of more than £8million (£9.1m) and not been put under an emabrgo?

Can only think it's because they've made great strides into reducing their debt and most is owed to a long term reliable owner. The people who look into the embargo stuff behind the scenes will be privy to all the gory details of the financial side of clubs that we can only speculate about. No coincidence that Rovers/Leeds/Forest have all had shonky and rather dodgy foreign ownership in the past few years with odd goings on. If they've clamped down on us and them there is probably a good reason for it, sadly !