Mfcdanny 771 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 36 minutes ago, diggerlad07 said: Clarke has agreed to join and has visited training ground over the past few days. Problem I have heard is we were haggling over the loan period because spurs want a 18month loan deal with fee and wages but we only want a 6month loan deal and to review it in the summer. Not quite sure if any party had changed there stance from Thursday when I last heard information. Randolph hasn't asked to leave contrary to reports in papers today - Boro are wanting to move him on as we need the money desperately and we are happy with Pears performance of late. I then believe we will finish off with a centre half and our business will be complete. Gibson has said he would come back on loan providing a financial package can be agree but we are way off on that until someone leaves How much faith do you have in the guy who feeds you this information. It makes sense mind Link to post Share on other sites
Changing Times 12,343 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 3 hours ago, Lurker said: Financially we are fine, it really is just FFP restrictions limiting us. Our wage bill is far too big. The gamble didn't pay off and we still need to massively cut it. Gibson will back Woodgate when he can. I appreciate that you're ITK but that doesn't make any sense to me at all. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr_Maz 2,899 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 1 minute ago, Changing Times said: I appreciate that you're ITK but that doesn't make any sense to me at all. Means, cash flow isn't an issue. But wage bill and other costs exceed income by more than ffp allows. Therefore we need to lower the wage bill Link to post Share on other sites
BoroJake 2,345 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 2 minutes ago, Changing Times said: I appreciate that you're ITK but that doesn't make any sense to me at all. I’m guessing it means that we do have money to spend, but we can’t spend it due to FFP Link to post Share on other sites
wilsoncgp 9,283 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 43 minutes ago, diggerlad07 said: Clarke has agreed to join and has visited training ground over the past few days. Problem I have heard is we were haggling over the loan period because spurs want a 18month loan deal with fee and wages but we only want a 6month loan deal and to review it in the summer. Not quite sure if any party had changed there stance from Thursday when I last heard information. Randolph hasn't asked to leave contrary to reports in papers today - Boro are wanting to move him on as we need the money desperately and we are happy with Pears performance of late. I then believe we will finish off with a centre half and our business will be complete. Gibson has said he would come back on loan providing a financial package can be agree but we are way off on that until someone leaves Surely makes sense for Spurs to review in 6 months time too, really. They'll want to be sure he's getting the game time and we'll want to be sure we can continue affording him. Seems a shame for the deal to fall down because of that but let's hope we can get it over the line. Link to post Share on other sites
Changing Times 12,343 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 Just now, Mr_Maz said: Means, cash flow isn't an issue. But wage bill and other costs exceed income by more than ffp allows. Therefore we need to lower the wage bill Sorry, yeah, I understand what it means, what I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense for it to be correct. Link to post Share on other sites
Mr_Maz 2,899 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 Just now, Changing Times said: Sorry, yeah, I understand what it means, what I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense for it to be correct. I'm what way? Money in the bank is no longer a measure of finances with FFP. It's purely profit or loss per year {and 3 rolling years} Link to post Share on other sites
DevKWat 2,370 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 I’m assuming we desperately need the Randolph money to ease FFP rather than because we are struggling for cash then? Link to post Share on other sites
diggerlad07 3,694 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 15 minutes ago, Mfcdanny said: How much faith do you have in the guy who feeds you this information. It makes sense mind A lot as he knows nearly everyone at the club 2 Link to post Share on other sites
DanFromDownSouth 1,706 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 7 minutes ago, Changing Times said: Sorry, yeah, I understand what it means, what I'm saying is that it doesn't make sense for it to be correct. That financially maybe this season we are ok in terms of income and expenditure, but due to the past 2 seasons financial performances we are at the FFP limit? That's my take from it. Link to post Share on other sites
mendieta420 1,006 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, DevKWat said: I’m assuming we desperately need the Randolph money to ease FFP rather than because we are struggling for cash then? That's the problem with ffp.. you have owners that have money to spend but aren't allowed. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
DanFromDownSouth 1,706 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 4 minutes ago, mendieta420 said: That's the problem with ffp.. you have owners that have money to spend but aren't allowed. On the flip side it stops chairmen running up huges debts for the football club, then bailing out when it fails. Leaving clubs with huge debt. Link to post Share on other sites
SzilardNemethsCurtains 2,844 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 7 minutes ago, mendieta420 said: That's the problem with ffp.. you have owners that have money to spend but aren't allowed. Also our wage bill is too high Link to post Share on other sites
RiseAgainst 3,793 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said: On the flip side it stops chairmen running up huges debts for the football club, then bailing out when it fails. Leaving clubs with huge debt. Yet Bury still went under, Bolton scraped survival and Macclesfield are on the brink. If that's how the football authorities are trying to save clubs from going out of business, it's working about as well as the fit and proper persons test. 2 Link to post Share on other sites
wilsoncgp 9,283 Posted January 4, 2020 Share Posted January 4, 2020 3 minutes ago, DanFromDownSouth said: On the flip side it stops chairmen running up huges debts for the football club, then bailing out when it fails. Leaving clubs with huge debt. Well, that's the theory anyway. I'm not sure how effective it is at doing that when we're still losing clubs from the Football League. You can still throw everything at the pursuit of success and risk your club in the process, you just might get the FFP sanctions on top of your own mess. It doesn't seem very fit for purpose, to me. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now