| Just revisiting the “Simms†debacle 10:23 - Jul 12 with 10515 views | TalkingBlues |
for a brief moment, to all those suggesting we couldn’t compete with Coventry cos they had just received £20 million (it wasn’t, that was a figure in €, so roughly £17 million) do you still think we can’t compete on the money front?
£47 million pumped in already by the Pension mob and plenty more available. |  |
| |  |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:03 - Jul 12 with 1615 views | Keno |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 10:54 - Jul 12 by TalkingBlues |
I value a battered Mars Bar at £1.50 (give you £1 add on if I’m not sick afterwards) and that is my final offer 😀 |
No, its £50 or no deal |  |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:05 - Jul 12 with 1607 views | Stewart27 |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 10:32 - Jul 12 by FrimleyBlue |
Don't forget TB that a fair chunk of that input would be going on the pitch refurbs which is millions itself, let alone e the staples demolition. I'm sure ( but also guessing) that a large majority of it will also just be similar to M.Es input but much larger, to minimise the losses.
We aren't skint.
The pot has money. But we are still a loss making club so there's a lot of balancing to do. And £7 transfers isn't the way to do It. |
Why bother giving him a credible answer mate?
He probably won’t feature any more in this thread.
He makes the average Norwich fan look intelligent. |  | | |
| Nah, that's Nerdy innit on 11:07 - Jul 12 with 1577 views | Dyland |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 10:40 - Jul 12 by SitfcB |
This has to be that Elephant guy, right? Or has this already been pointed out??
Downvote troll farm account. [Post edited 12 Jul 2023 10:41]
|
This poster is not nearly as articulate as Nerds. Equally wrong about most stuff though. |  |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:09 - Jul 12 with 1566 views | BlueandTruesince82 |
They ONLY got 17 mil....well that makes all the difference.
This is twisted and you are Delia Smith |  |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:11 - Jul 12 with 1558 views | jayessess |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 10:48 - Jul 12 by TalkingBlues |
Pretty sure we visited this stuff a few months ago and it was determined by those with greater knowledge on the subject, that the way the Pension mob were investing in the club meant that they could pump in as much as they wanted and the club were able to spend it, without attracting any FFP implications 🤷â€â™‚ï¸
That was League 1, could be different rules for Championship? But as the money was brought in before we were in the Championship, League 1 rules would apply I guess. |
In League One clubs' player wage budget is capped at 60% of turnover (Salary Cost Management Protocol), but the owners can increase that by directly investing money (but not by borrowing). As the title implies, the purpose of the rule is for every club to keep their wage costs sustainable.
In the entire EFL, clubs' losses are capped at £39m over 3 years, less if you're borrowing money (Financial Fair Play Rules). That loss is about revenue/expenses, it's irrespective of investment. As the title implies, the purpose of the rule is to promote "fairness" by restricting the competitive edge you can get from external investment. It applies in all 3 divisions, but it's quite difficult to spend £13m+ a year on 3rd/4th tier footballers, so you only really notice it in the Championship. [Post edited 12 Jul 2023 11:12]
|  |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:13 - Jul 12 with 1562 views | the_toff |
I think a certain amount of downvotes consistently should trigger an extended break from the forum.
You’re a tedious troll. Bore off. | | | |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:16 - Jul 12 with 1541 views | HighgateBlue |
FFP. Also FFS. |  | | |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:18 - Jul 12 with 1539 views | homer_123 |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:13 - Jul 12 by the_toff |
I think a certain amount of downvotes consistently should trigger an extended break from the forum.
You’re a tedious troll. Bore off. |
Is one enough!?  |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:19 - Jul 12 with 1532 views | the_toff |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:18 - Jul 12 by homer_123 |
Is one enough!? |
If I’m going down I’m taking you with me :) | | | |
| Okay Toffers you asked for this.... (n/t) on 11:19 - Jul 12 with 1529 views | Dyland |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:13 - Jul 12 by the_toff |
I think a certain amount of downvotes consistently should trigger an extended break from the forum.
You’re a tedious troll. Bore off. |
| |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:21 - Jul 12 with 1513 views | TalkingBlues |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 10:54 - Jul 12 by Nutkins_Return |
Not 'could be different rules' they are different rules for the championship. It will take you about 10 mins to read those rules and then you can up the level of your posts. |
Must have missed it, but I guess money accumulated prior to our inclusion doesn't fall under the Championship legislation as we were in league 1.
I believe the the allowed expenditure is 90% of income for the upcoming season isn't it? Sliding scale over the next few seasons down to 70%. Obviously we are allowed to overspend by way of "secure funding" up to £13 million I believe. Interesting bit is how the EFL treats the £30 million in the bank from share purchases whilst we were a league 1 club, classed as revenue? (probably not?) will we be able to spend all of that money before the 90% rules are applicable? maybe the club thought so which is why they were pumping as much in as they were, when they were? | |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:22 - Jul 12 with 1511 views | GlasgowBlue |
Why don’t you just piss off back to WOTB? |  |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:24 - Jul 12 with 1501 views | homer_123 |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:19 - Jul 12 by the_toff |
If I’m going down I’m taking you with me :) |
Oooofff | |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:24 - Jul 12 with 1497 views | TalkingBlues |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:22 - Jul 12 by GlasgowBlue |
Why don’t you just piss off back to WOTB? |
You said you had me on ignore, I'm glad you came to your senses GB | |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:26 - Jul 12 with 1501 views | DropCliffsNotBombs |
You have to assume the photos you have of board admin must be pretty incriminating for you to have not been booted from here yet, budgie. |  | | |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:26 - Jul 12 with 1495 views | TalkingBlues |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:05 - Jul 12 by Stewart27 |
Why bother giving him a credible answer mate?
He probably won’t feature any more in this thread.
He makes the average Norwich fan look intelligent. |
Wrong about the featuring.
What is the profile of an average Norwich fan? | |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:29 - Jul 12 with 1489 views | TalkingBlues |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:26 - Jul 12 by DropCliffsNotBombs |
You have to assume the photos you have of board admin must be pretty incriminating for you to have not been booted from here yet, budgie. |
Not my fault that some of you lot are angry and unpleasant with your responses to perfectly reasonable posts. | |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:29 - Jul 12 with 1481 views | Guthrum |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:21 - Jul 12 by TalkingBlues |
Must have missed it, but I guess money accumulated prior to our inclusion doesn't fall under the Championship legislation as we were in league 1.
I believe the the allowed expenditure is 90% of income for the upcoming season isn't it? Sliding scale over the next few seasons down to 70%. Obviously we are allowed to overspend by way of "secure funding" up to £13 million I believe. Interesting bit is how the EFL treats the £30 million in the bank from share purchases whilst we were a league 1 club, classed as revenue? (probably not?) will we be able to spend all of that money before the 90% rules are applicable? maybe the club thought so which is why they were pumping as much in as they were, when they were? |
It's a rolling three-year aggregate, which will include what we spent last financial year in League One until 2026-27. There is no benefit regarding FFP in money injection before July 1st as opposed to from that date on.
There may be other reasons why they wish to tuck it into the 2022-23 accounts, but not FFP. |  |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:30 - Jul 12 with 1479 views | homer_123 |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:29 - Jul 12 by TalkingBlues |
Not my fault that some of you lot are angry and unpleasant with your responses to perfectly reasonable posts. |
Why use the word debacle then? | |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:38 - Jul 12 with 1462 views | Illinoisblue |
“The pension mob” oh so edgy. |  |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:41 - Jul 12 with 1440 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:30 - Jul 12 by homer_123 |
Why use the word debacle then? |
I’m sure this is one of Frimley’s creations just to make his own posts look less flouncey. | |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:42 - Jul 12 with 1435 views | TalkingBlues |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:29 - Jul 12 by Guthrum |
It's a rolling three-year aggregate, which will include what we spent last financial year in League One until 2026-27. There is no benefit regarding FFP in money injection before July 1st as opposed to from that date on.
There may be other reasons why they wish to tuck it into the 2022-23 accounts, but not FFP. |
Presumably this cash injection would, on paper, wipe out any and all losses accrued last season (when we were under different rules anyway) in the accounts, effectively allowing us to make greater losses over the following 2 seasons given the 3 year aggregate scenario? | |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:42 - Jul 12 with 1431 views | Stewart27 |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:26 - Jul 12 by TalkingBlues |
Wrong about the featuring.
What is the profile of an average Norwich fan? |
Put it this way, they’re not splitting the atom any time soon.
They support a team which wears yellow and green home and away kits. They like getting up close and friendly with their families and they sing a song with the lyrics “kick it out, throw it in, have a little scrimmage”. | | | |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:45 - Jul 12 with 1404 views | Keno |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:30 - Jul 12 by homer_123 |
Why use the word debacle then? |
Is the answer 'Cos I'm a knob'? | |
| |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:46 - Jul 12 with 1393 views | TalkingBlues |
| Just revisiting the “Simms” debacle on 11:42 - Jul 12 by Stewart27 |
Put it this way, they’re not splitting the atom any time soon.
They support a team which wears yellow and green home and away kits. They like getting up close and friendly with their families and they sing a song with the lyrics “kick it out, throw it in, have a little scrimmage”. |
So, they're thick, garishly coloured clothes wearing, incestuous, degenerates, basically? | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
