Jump to content
oneBoro Forum

ScarBoro

Members
  • Content Count

    1,164
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

ScarBoro last won the day on November 7 2023

ScarBoro had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

836 Excellent

About ScarBoro

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yes, but assuming LU don’t see a future for him there, if he says he is staying they will still have to pay him. It’s therefore in LU interest to either persuade him to move on ( by paying up his contract, net of a reasonable transfer fee they might get?) or loan him out again. If they loan him, they won’t get anywhere near his full salary from anyone currently, so they will have to contribute to a level where clubs get interested. If they pay him off then he can choose. In either case, we might be able to afford it - particularly if he wants to come back here rather than elsewhere. Possibly a
  2. The other issue you have with anything to do with offside rule is that it has to be good for VAR and good for assistant refs in all other games - unless you have two different rules, depending on whether VAR was operating in game (I’m not recommending that by the way). So to use foot only wouldn’t work for assistant refs, I don’t think
  3. These changes would be great. I’d add another one - the handball rule needs changing. Whatever they do will have issues, unless they simply say all handball is a foul irrespective of circumstances, which is maybe too severe. Possibly go with - If it’s deliberate handball, it’s a foul and if accidental then no foul. Deliberate would include the unnatural position issue, but they should specify a distance the ball needs to have travelled. They also need to show clear pictures to the public of what is and what isn’t unnatural under the rules and train the officials to use them and stick by them.
  4. That’s where the instant system FIFA used would be great. If the Lino is sure then they flag, if unsure they say they think it might be and VAR does its job whilst the action is continuing. If a goal is scored, the automatic system has probably already decided, so no delay. The ref would almost be able to indicate straight away if there was an offside. Occasionally there might be multiple possible offsides and it could take longer, but it would be a huge improvement.
  5. You’re probably right - but they were maybe referring to when Ffp first came in that they didn’t want clubs with good academies being disadvantaged, so they allowed the deduction for ffp purposes
  6. Surely it’s neutral? If there was no woman’s team there would be no cost, so allowing any loss against ffp is simply leaving ffp untouched.
  7. All that article quotes is that Leicesters financial year doesn’t end until 30th June in 2023. In fact that is because they did exactly what I mentioned - they extended their year end which had been 31st May 2022 to be a 13 month period to 30th June 2023. EFL profit rules are in Appendix 5 of EFL Handbook. section 1.1.5 includes the wording referring to the yearly accounts ……accounting reference date (as defined in section 391 of the 2006 Act) which falls between 31 May and 31 July inclusive. If the accounting reference date falls at any other time, separate accounts for the Club or the G
  8. Don’t think so, Rob? The EFL rules allow a y/e of 31st May to 31st July for ffp rules, with no adjustment. Premier League rules are almost indecipherable unless you are a lawyer, but they seem to suggest different y/es are allowed without any adjustment. It doesn’t really matter - as long as a club doesn’t try to change up its year end as it will always be a rolling 36 months.
  9. Depending on their FFP situation, LU may prefer to pay him off and leave him as a free agent to sort himself out? Loss of transfer fee but with that he could negotiate a signing on fee wherever he goes?
  10. Their year end is 31st May, so you are right actually. I’d thought it was 30th June like Boro and the majority of clubs - and the transfer window last summer opened on 14th June. So yes it will go in next years accounts - but my point is I don’t think it makes any difference as SU will be relegated long before then, so any liability for AV to buy back will be set in stone before 31st May and thus need to b3 recognised in the 23/24 accounts
  11. I get your fugires and it all seems logical However, there are two possibilities First one - AV have an obligation to buy back immediately on relegation, in which case the whole transaction will obviously go in 23/24 and simply cancel out the profit AV had theoretically made. For FFP this means no profit for AV and their only option is to try to sell Archer before end of their financial year if they want/need to claw back the “lost” ffp profit. That gives an advantage to any potential purchaser in bargaining down the price, but makes a loan deal pretty unlikely (but they could try anothe
  12. That’s how the ffp accounting normally works, but I’m not sure it will for an Archer situation. Selling him and buying him back may mean that the two transactions and deemed to be connected and so cancel each other out for FFP. Remember FFP rules effectively come from the Accounting Standards set by the Accounting standards Boardm so it depends what their rules are on connected purchases and sales. If someone like Everton were up against FFP, they could have sold a player worth say £25m to another club for say £40m with an obligation to buy him back in the next six months for say £45m. Costs
  13. Why is this the major problem? (I get that it is - not arguing with that). Watched Liverpool v MC yesterday and part from the obvious huge gulf in class between Boro and them, what was obvious was speed of play. They both passed it around at back quite a lot, just like Boro, but the passes seemed to zip through to recipient, not trundle like a lot of ours do. They often missed out the middle man and went from side to side at back quicker, which pulled the opposition around. When they spotted an opening the centre backs were happy to move forward through the opposition forwards and create an
  14. We did to QPR what a lot of teams have done to us. A couple of chances they could have scored from in first half, but didn’t, then got caught out in second half. They pressed hard but couldn’t get through a solid defence. Good saves from Dieng, but both shots could easily have resulted in a goal, and result could have been very different. Although we weren’t “lucky” in winning, the close calls went our way in same as they went against us in some previous games. Could play just as well against Birmingham this week and still lose. We’re just a typical mid table team at moment where we might win
  15. We have shed Crooks and Roger’s wages, but adding Ayling and Thomas is £2m per annum between them (according to source figures). So seems to me we have probably increased wages, not reduced them. Can you believe the figures in the report though? It does say they are just estimates. The summary report says £13.5m, but if you go to Capology source date it says £16.5m for our wages cost currently. So table isn’t even accurate to base figures they say they have used. Our total wages bill to June 22 and to June 23 was £26m each year. One of few clubs that separates out players wages in C
×
×
  • Create New...