PLANET SWAMP

Turnover is UP year on year, not sure which accounts your looking at there? £15m posted loss has come after 5 successive (I think) profitable seasons. That also included the cost to build the training facility at fairwood and unexpected non recurring costs such as a succession of management pay-offs. Costs in infrastructure are not taken into consideration with FFP.

We would certainly get £25m minimum for Gylfi of that there is no doubt, relegation or not. They will not asset strip I assure you, they are their own assets, why would they? It would be financial suicide. The only time they would consider an asset strip is after the parachute years, until then they have a golden chance to bounce back to a land where the turnover is £120m per annum and growing while they are being subsidised by the FA. Not to mention that as the fans own 21% of the club, any monies syphoned away when that time comes will also be coming their way which will strengthen their position to purchase shares. Its not viable.

Ironically with the worst side we have had in our PL history is probably best equipped to go down, the changes would be minimal and the impact less destructive. If we had gone down under laudrup it would have been carnage, most of our team would need to be replaced as well as the manager. Bouncing back woukd have been highly unlikely.

With respect you were never going to come back up. You had bundles of debt and you mist certainly did not have a good squad, it mustered the lowest points in the Premier League that year many of which then left. That £40m is on top of the parachute payments mind, as well as normal seasonal income. I can assure you the Americans would not have to fund anything in the parachute years. Owning your own ground doesn't mean a lot, Man City, and Inter Milan don't for starters. The key is the rights to income from the stadium. £60m is an absolute bargain for a company with assets in the £100's of millions with the potential for a yearly revenue stream of even more (Sigurdsson is worth half that alone). Just being realistic.

I certainly can't see Clement being sacked anytime soon.

We were pre-season favourites with all the bookies to be promoted and should have been but we had terrible manager, in that I can see so many similarities with Clement. We had debt but it was all to the owner and he wasn't calling it in, indeed he gave OGS even more money to spend which he did very badly.

The parachute payments are the biggest myth in football. On paper they look very impressive and we were lucky in that we had 4 seasons worth when we came down. But in reality they get sucked away settling liabilities from the PL contracts and plugging the hole for the drop in income, even if you have relegation clauses in player contracts. The £40m you mention will also disappear fast especially if as I suspect your American owners take back some of their share investment. We received £26m for Steven Caulker, Gary Medel and Jordon Mutch and it didn't do us much good.

With respect you are no Man City or Inter Milan and absolutely no-one would buy you for £60m as a mid table Championship club who don't even own their own ground. You are showing the naivety that most relegated PL clubs display when believe they will bounce back quickly, just ask Blackburn, Aston Villa and Sheffield W fans how easy that is.

The fact is your skint and you know you are and I predict you will have a transfer embargo just like we did for breaching FFP at some point.

I think you could have had Mourinho in charge and you wouldn't have gone back up. That is no slight on you, your team was not good enough and you had real off the field drama. Not to mention Tan had to cut his cloth accordingly as you were not up there long enough to save/build. OGS being a bad manager compounded that, but didnt cause it.

They are not a myth, they allow teams to keep hold of their good players. So the likes of Mawson, Olsson and Carroll we can probably now keep hold of, where as without the payments we would undoubtedly have to get rid. It allows us to keep the nucleus of our PL squad together.

You sold Medel, Caulker and Mutch but for years had over spent and reached £100m+ in debt. We have no debt and a cash income for players sold (Ayew, Williams, Bony) which is still payable year on year and continues into the Championship, this is on top of the guaranteed money we will get for out current PL stars.

I agree nobody would buy us for £60m as a mid table Championship side. But we arent - we are a PL side, one with £100's of millions in assets and will be in a great position to bounce right back with £100's of millions of guaranteed income streams. £60m is an absolute snip and the Americans profited from the old shareholders not being wealthy men and wanting to cash in. There is nothing naive about my view, I say it as I see it.

The last paragraph unfortunately took this from a semi sensible debate (if a little far fetched) to the absurd. We are about as far away from a transfer embargo as you can get for a club like us. We will be absolutely nowhere near breaching FFP rules. I am all for open and honest debate but that is just silly, or wishful thinking as it seems to be developing as.

As I said far bigger clubs than you have thought they would bounce back straight away and failed. I admire your optimism but it is so naïve and you will find that out soon enough. The para payments will simply paper over the cracks they won't provide the springboard you seem to think and frankly to think the players you have mentioned are Championship superstars that will provide the bedrock of a promotion winning team is laughable.

Your last accounts showed a loss of £15m with reduced incomes to come from relegation. That loss is more than we had when we came down (£13m). Historical debt is has no bearing on FFP it is your ongoing losses over a 3 year period. £15m is £2m over the maximum allowed for one year and as I said with reduced incomes from relegation those losses will only get worse. You can stick your head in the sand if you like (we did the same) but FFP is a reality of life in the Championship and you will have to get used to it. Just because I'm stating some uncomfortable truths that doesn't mean I'm being dishonest

Captain bullsit has raised its head again I see....fir a team that has spent 6 years in the sunshine you have a shocking team at present. No balls or backbone or old heads to steer you through, I predict you will go straight through again if you do go down.
2 huge games coming up eh lonesome dingo??

Turnover is UP year on year, not sure which accounts your looking at there? £15m posted loss has come after 5 successive (I think) profitable seasons. That also included the cost to build the training facility at fairwood and unexpected non recurring costs such as a succession of management pay-offs. Costs in infrastructure are not taken into consideration with FFP.

We would certainly get £25m minimum for Gylfi of that there is no doubt, relegation or not. They will not asset strip I assure you, they are their own assets, why would they? It would be financial suicide. The only time they would consider an asset strip is after the parachute years, until then they have a golden chance to bounce back to a land where the turnover is £120m per annum and growing while they are being subsidised by the FA. Not to mention that as the fans own 21% of the club, any monies syphoned away when that time comes will also be coming their way which will strengthen their position to purchase shares. Its not viable.

Ironically with the worst side we have had in our PL history is probably best equipped to go down, the changes would be minimal and the impact less destructive. If we had gone down under laudrup it would have been carnage, most of our team would need to be replaced as well as the manager. Bouncing back woukd have been highly unlikely.

You moan about an 'honest' debate then distort the facts. Turnover can go through the roof it is not the deciding factor with FFP that is profit/loss SCFC lost £15m in your last accounts which is £2m over the permitted £13m and that is dependent on your owners putting in £8m of equity over and above what is already there before. If they didn't (which is likely then you would be £8m over the permitted limit.)

That is hurtling towards a transfer embargo whether you sell your star players or not. The para payments only last 2 years now so if you are lurking in mid table and facing a transfer embargo around Christmas/New Year then that would be a good enough reason to asset strip and get out.

Captain bullsit has raised its head again I see....fir a team that has spent 6 years in the sunshine you have a shocking team at present. No balls or backbone or old heads to steer you through, I predict you will go straight through again if you do go down.
2 huge games coming up eh lonesome dingo??

Sometimes I wonder why I try to have a reasoned debate with people like Snackajack when I should put it in far simpler terms like you have goats

With respect you were never going to come back up. You had bundles of debt and you mist certainly did not have a good squad, it mustered the lowest points in the Premier League that year many of which then left. That £40m is on top of the parachute payments mind, as well as normal seasonal income. I can assure you the Americans would not have to fund anything in the parachute years. Owning your own ground doesn't mean a lot, Man City, and Inter Milan don't for starters. The key is the rights to income from the stadium. £60m is an absolute bargain for a company with assets in the £100's of millions with the potential for a yearly revenue stream of even more (Sigurdsson is worth half that alone). Just being realistic.

I certainly can't see Clement being sacked anytime soon.

We were pre-season favourites with all the bookies to be promoted and should have been but we had terrible manager, in that I can see so many similarities with Clement. We had debt but it was all to the owner and he wasn't calling it in, indeed he gave OGS even more money to spend which he did very badly.

The parachute payments are the biggest myth in football. On paper they look very impressive and we were lucky in that we had 4 seasons worth when we came down. But in reality they get sucked away settling liabilities from the PL contracts and plugging the hole for the drop in income, even if you have relegation clauses in player contracts. The £40m you mention will also disappear fast especially if as I suspect your American owners take back some of their share investment. We received £26m for Steven Caulker, Gary Medel and Jordon Mutch and it didn't do us much good.

With respect you are no Man City or Inter Milan and absolutely no-one would buy you for £60m as a mid table Championship club who don't even own their own ground. You are showing the naivety that most relegated PL clubs display when believe they will bounce back quickly, just ask Blackburn, Aston Villa and Sheffield W fans how easy that is.

The fact is your skint and you know you are and I predict you will have a transfer embargo just like we did for breaching FFP at some point.

I think you could have had Mourinho in charge and you wouldn't have gone back up. That is no slight on you, your team was not good enough and you had real off the field drama. Not to mention Tan had to cut his cloth accordingly as you were not up there long enough to save/build. OGS being a bad manager compounded that, but didnt cause it.

They are not a myth, they allow teams to keep hold of their good players. So the likes of Mawson, Olsson and Carroll we can probably now keep hold of, where as without the payments we would undoubtedly have to get rid. It allows us to keep the nucleus of our PL squad together.

You sold Medel, Caulker and Mutch but for years had over spent and reached £100m+ in debt. We have no debt and a cash income for players sold (Ayew, Williams, Bony) which is still payable year on year and continues into the Championship, this is on top of the guaranteed money we will get for out current PL stars.

I agree nobody would buy us for £60m as a mid table Championship side. But we arent - we are a PL side, one with £100's of millions in assets and will be in a great position to bounce right back with £100's of millions of guaranteed income streams. £60m is an absolute snip and the Americans profited from the old shareholders not being wealthy men and wanting to cash in. There is nothing naive about my view, I say it as I see it.

The last paragraph unfortunately took this from a semi sensible debate (if a little far fetched) to the absurd. We are about as far away from a transfer embargo as you can get for a club like us. We will be absolutely nowhere near breaching FFP rules. I am all for open and honest debate but that is just silly, or wishful thinking as it seems to be developing as.

As I said far bigger clubs than you have thought they would bounce back straight away and failed. I admire your optimism but it is so naïve and you will find that out soon enough. The para payments will simply paper over the cracks they won't provide the springboard you seem to think and frankly to think the players you have mentioned are Championship superstars that will provide the bedrock of a promotion winning team is laughable.

Your last accounts showed a loss of £15m with reduced incomes to come from relegation. That loss is more than we had when we came down (£13m). Historical debt is has no bearing on FFP it is your ongoing losses over a 3 year period. £15m is £2m over the maximum allowed for one year and as I said with reduced incomes from relegation those losses will only get worse. You can stick your head in the sand if you like (we did the same) but FFP is a reality of life in the Championship and you will have to get used to it. Just because I'm stating some uncomfortable truths that doesn't mean I'm being dishonest

And so have far smaller clubs, it isn't really a barometer. The most useful thing to look at is the individual clubs themselves and as far as we are concerned, we are in a favourable position if we go down. That is just the way it is. If we were in a mess I would happily state that. Bartley is captaining Leeds to a promotion challenging season with Leeds, he was sent out on loan due to him not being able to get into our defence. Mawson is better than Bartley, the defence is fine. The midfield is certainly top level championship standard. Again that is not far fetched, Cork, Britton, Narsingh and Fer would walk into most Championship sides.

Our last set of accounts has nothing to do with next years income. You can not offset last years loss with next years income, its illogical, especially when we are not even relegated. With a loss of income will come a loss of net spend. That's why we have relegation clauses in place and wages will come off the book with guaranteed sales. Of course FFP is a part of life, but we tend to cut our cloth accordingly and I see no concerning data in the last set of accounts that suggests it would come close to breaching FFP rules. Thats just the way it is.

Captain bullsit has raised its head again I see....fir a team that has spent 6 years in the sunshine you have a shocking team at present. No balls or backbone or old heads to steer you through, I predict you will go straight through again if you do go down.
2 huge games coming up eh lonesome dingo??

Not a very good side you are right. Spending time in the PL doesn't guarantee a continuous good side, it is cyclical. Look at Man Utd, from dominating the English game to happy to break into the top 4. Thats football.

You may predict that if you like, it will certainly make me feel more comfortable knowing that you have predicted that anyway

Turnover is UP year on year, not sure which accounts your looking at there? £15m posted loss has come after 5 successive (I think) profitable seasons. That also included the cost to build the training facility at fairwood and unexpected non recurring costs such as a succession of management pay-offs. Costs in infrastructure are not taken into consideration with FFP.

We would certainly get £25m minimum for Gylfi of that there is no doubt, relegation or not. They will not asset strip I assure you, they are their own assets, why would they? It would be financial suicide. The only time they would consider an asset strip is after the parachute years, until then they have a golden chance to bounce back to a land where the turnover is £120m per annum and growing while they are being subsidised by the FA. Not to mention that as the fans own 21% of the club, any monies syphoned away when that time comes will also be coming their way which will strengthen their position to purchase shares. Its not viable.

Ironically with the worst side we have had in our PL history is probably best equipped to go down, the changes would be minimal and the impact less destructive. If we had gone down under laudrup it would have been carnage, most of our team would need to be replaced as well as the manager. Bouncing back woukd have been highly unlikely.

You moan about an 'honest' debate then distort the facts. Turnover can go through the roof it is not the deciding factor with FFP that is profit/loss SCFC lost £15m in your last accounts which is £2m over the permitted £13m and that is dependent on your owners putting in £8m of equity over and above what is already there before. If they didn't (which is likely then you would be £8m over the permitted limit.)

That is hurtling towards a transfer embargo whether you sell your star players or not. The para payments only last 2 years now so if you are lurking in mid table and facing a transfer embargo around Christmas/New Year then that would be a good enough reason to asset strip and get out.

I am not moaning about anything at all, I am just telling you how things are in the most open way possible. Where have I distorted facts? You said our income is down year on year, I corrected you and said it is in fact UP year on year. That isnt me distorting facts, a fact is a fact, you cannot distort it. Profit and loss is not the key clause with FFP. Infrastructure is not counted there are certain regulations in place where it does not stunt a clubs growth.

Clubs are allowed to lose £35m for any PL season counted in the FFP 3 season calculation. So last years account came in at £20m under FFP. We will be allowed to lose £13m next season if relegated and £13m the year after. So by 2020 to be in breach of FFP we would have to have posted a cumulative loss of £61m. It is safe to say we will be nowhere near that.

Happy to discuss sensible points but this is scraping the barrel and doesn't feel like genuine discussion, I dont think it can lead to a sensible discussion.

Captain bullsit has raised its head again I see....fir a team that has spent 6 years in the sunshine you have a shocking team at present. No balls or backbone or old heads to steer you through, I predict you will go straight through again if you do go down.
2 huge games coming up eh lonesome dingo??

Sometimes I wonder why I try to have a reasoned debate with people like Snackajack when I should put it in far simpler terms like you have goats

If neither of you want to chat about it sensibly then feel free to resort to silly insults. But scraping the barrel and talking about spurious scenarios with incorrect fact really isn't a good way to go about a good discussion.

I am the first to admit we are not a good side this season, first to admit things aren't perfect behind the scenes, first to admit we will probably go down this year and first to admit if we don't go down then we probably deserved to. I have no problem admitting the clubs flaws. But I see no point in inventing branches of discussion with absolutely no value to them just for the sake of 'rivalry'.

Turnover is UP year on year, not sure which accounts your looking at there? £15m posted loss has come after 5 successive (I think) profitable seasons. That also included the cost to build the training facility at fairwood and unexpected non recurring costs such as a succession of management pay-offs. Costs in infrastructure are not taken into consideration with FFP.

We would certainly get £25m minimum for Gylfi of that there is no doubt, relegation or not. They will not asset strip I assure you, they are their own assets, why would they? It would be financial suicide. The only time they would consider an asset strip is after the parachute years, until then they have a golden chance to bounce back to a land where the turnover is £120m per annum and growing while they are being subsidised by the FA. Not to mention that as the fans own 21% of the club, any monies syphoned away when that time comes will also be coming their way which will strengthen their position to purchase shares. Its not viable.

Ironically with the worst side we have had in our PL history is probably best equipped to go down, the changes would be minimal and the impact less destructive. If we had gone down under laudrup it would have been carnage, most of our team would need to be replaced as well as the manager. Bouncing back woukd have been highly unlikely.

Interesting you say turnover is up year on year when your own club says and I quote:

Turnover was £97.2million compared with £103.9million from the previous accounts, with total operating costs also down to £117.5million from £120.8million."

"

Turnover is UP year on year, not sure which accounts your looking at there? £15m posted loss has come after 5 successive (I think) profitable seasons. That also included the cost to build the training facility at fairwood and unexpected non recurring costs such as a succession of management pay-offs. Costs in infrastructure are not taken into consideration with FFP.

We would certainly get £25m minimum for Gylfi of that there is no doubt, relegation or not. They will not asset strip I assure you, they are their own assets, why would they? It would be financial suicide. The only time they would consider an asset strip is after the parachute years, until then they have a golden chance to bounce back to a land where the turnover is £120m per annum and growing while they are being subsidised by the FA. Not to mention that as the fans own 21% of the club, any monies syphoned away when that time comes will also be coming their way which will strengthen their position to purchase shares. Its not viable.

Ironically with the worst side we have had in our PL history is probably best equipped to go down, the changes would be minimal and the impact less destructive. If we had gone down under laudrup it would have been carnage, most of our team would need to be replaced as well as the manager. Bouncing back woukd have been highly unlikely.

You moan about an 'honest' debate then distort the facts. Turnover can go through the roof it is not the deciding factor with FFP that is profit/loss SCFC lost £15m in your last accounts which is £2m over the permitted £13m and that is dependent on your owners putting in £8m of equity over and above what is already there before. If they didn't (which is likely then you would be £8m over the permitted limit.)

That is hurtling towards a transfer embargo whether you sell your star players or not. The para payments only last 2 years now so if you are lurking in mid table and facing a transfer embargo around Christmas/New Year then that would be a good enough reason to asset strip and get out.

I am not moaning about anything at all, I am just telling you how things are in the most open way possible. Where have I distorted facts? You said our income is down year on year, I corrected you and said it is in fact UP year on year. That isnt me distorting facts, a fact is a fact, you cannot distort it. Profit and loss is not the key clause with FFP. Infrastructure is not counted there are certain regulations in place where it does not stunt a clubs growth.

Clubs are allowed to lose £35m for any PL season counted in the FFP 3 season calculation. So last years account came in at £20m under FFP. We will be allowed to lose £13m next season if relegated and £13m the year after. So by 2020 to be in breach of FFP we would have to have posted a cumulative loss of £61m. It is safe to say we will be nowhere near that.

Happy to discuss sensible points but this is scraping the barrel and doesn't feel like genuine discussion, I dont think it can lead to a sensible discussion.

You say income is up yet your club says :

"Additionally, the loss in revenue from a lower Premier League finish (dropping from 8th in 2015 to 12th last season), a larger playing squad and continued investment in the club’s training facilities and academy set-up. "

I'd argue a loss in revenue is a drop in income.

Turnover is UP year on year, not sure which accounts your looking at there? £15m posted loss has come after 5 successive (I think) profitable seasons. That also included the cost to build the training facility at fairwood and unexpected non recurring costs such as a succession of management pay-offs. Costs in infrastructure are not taken into consideration with FFP.

We would certainly get £25m minimum for Gylfi of that there is no doubt, relegation or not. They will not asset strip I assure you, they are their own assets, why would they? It would be financial suicide. The only time they would consider an asset strip is after the parachute years, until then they have a golden chance to bounce back to a land where the turnover is £120m per annum and growing while they are being subsidised by the FA. Not to mention that as the fans own 21% of the club, any monies syphoned away when that time comes will also be coming their way which will strengthen their position to purchase shares. Its not viable.

Ironically with the worst side we have had in our PL history is probably best equipped to go down, the changes would be minimal and the impact less destructive. If we had gone down under laudrup it would have been carnage, most of our team would need to be replaced as well as the manager. Bouncing back woukd have been highly unlikely.

Interesting you say turnover is up year on year when your own club says and I quote:

Turnover was £97.2million compared with £103.9million from the previous accounts, with total operating costs also down to £117.5million from £120.8million."

"

Not really interesting, it is exactly as I said it was.

The £103.9m was due to it being based over a 14 month period as opposed to a 12 month period. All the more encouraging that although the accounts were an extra 2 months, operating costs also decreased.

They also go on to say ''However, as in previous years, the club is currently on course to record a post-£10m profit for the current financial year (to July 31, 2017) to counter those losses and maintain the club’s long-standing sound financial philosophy.''

But I guess that's not as much fun

Turnover is UP year on year, not sure which accounts your looking at there? £15m posted loss has come after 5 successive (I think) profitable seasons. That also included the cost to build the training facility at fairwood and unexpected non recurring costs such as a succession of management pay-offs. Costs in infrastructure are not taken into consideration with FFP.

We would certainly get £25m minimum for Gylfi of that there is no doubt, relegation or not. They will not asset strip I assure you, they are their own assets, why would they? It would be financial suicide. The only time they would consider an asset strip is after the parachute years, until then they have a golden chance to bounce back to a land where the turnover is £120m per annum and growing while they are being subsidised by the FA. Not to mention that as the fans own 21% of the club, any monies syphoned away when that time comes will also be coming their way which will strengthen their position to purchase shares. Its not viable.

Ironically with the worst side we have had in our PL history is probably best equipped to go down, the changes would be minimal and the impact less destructive. If we had gone down under laudrup it would have been carnage, most of our team would need to be replaced as well as the manager. Bouncing back woukd have been highly unlikely.

Interesting you say turnover is up year on year when your own club says and I quote:

Turnover was £97.2million compared with £103.9million from the previous accounts, with total operating costs also down to £117.5million from £120.8million."

"

Not really interesting, it is exactly as I said it was.

The £103.9m was due to it being based over a 14 month period as opposed to a 12 month period. All the more encouraging that although the accounts were an extra 2 months, operating costs also decreased.

They also go on to say ''However, as in previous years, the club is currently on course to record a post-£10m profit for the current financial year (to July 31, 2017) to counter those losses and maintain the club’s long-standing sound financial philosophy.''

But I guess that's not as much fun

Hope you live life as positive as you see everything. As it stands your clubs operating at a loss, income is down, your close to being relegated, your key players will be sold off, those that aren't are the wrong side of 30 and with the yanks acquisition and no money actually put into the club it's not pretty. Amy predictions they put with account statements are exactly that a prediction.
But I suppose there's the old adage "positive mental thinking"

Turnover is UP year on year, not sure which accounts your looking at there? £15m posted loss has come after 5 successive (I think) profitable seasons. That also included the cost to build the training facility at fairwood and unexpected non recurring costs such as a succession of management pay-offs. Costs in infrastructure are not taken into consideration with FFP.

We would certainly get £25m minimum for Gylfi of that there is no doubt, relegation or not. They will not asset strip I assure you, they are their own assets, why would they? It would be financial suicide. The only time they would consider an asset strip is after the parachute years, until then they have a golden chance to bounce back to a land where the turnover is £120m per annum and growing while they are being subsidised by the FA. Not to mention that as the fans own 21% of the club, any monies syphoned away when that time comes will also be coming their way which will strengthen their position to purchase shares. Its not viable.

Ironically with the worst side we have had in our PL history is probably best equipped to go down, the changes would be minimal and the impact less destructive. If we had gone down under laudrup it would have been carnage, most of our team would need to be replaced as well as the manager. Bouncing back woukd have been highly unlikely.

Interesting you say turnover is up year on year when your own club says and I quote:

Turnover was £97.2million compared with £103.9million from the previous accounts, with total operating costs also down to £117.5million from £120.8million."

"

Not really interesting, it is exactly as I said it was.

The £103.9m was due to it being based over a 14 month period as opposed to a 12 month period. All the more encouraging that although the accounts were an extra 2 months, operating costs also decreased.

They also go on to say ''However, as in previous years, the club is currently on course to record a post-£10m profit for the current financial year (to July 31, 2017) to counter those losses and maintain the club’s long-standing sound financial philosophy.''

But I guess that's not as much fun

Hope you live life as positive as you see everything. As it stands your clubs operating at a loss, income is down, your close to being relegated, your key players will be sold off, those that aren't are the wrong side of 30 and with the yanks acquisition and no money actually put into the club it's not pretty. Amy predictions they put with account statements are exactly that a prediction.
But I suppose there's the old adage "positive mental thinking"

It isn't positive, it is reality. A reality you are falling over yourself to try and distort by comparing 12 months figures to 14 months figures and continuing to use that as if it doesn't matter. Why you would want to do that when we are trying to have a sensible debate I will never know.

If I earn 3k a month and compare 14 months earnings to the following 12 months earnings, It wouldn't mean I am earning less or have had a decrease in income. We are not operating at a loss, our last set of accounts showed a loss, but we are currently operating at a profit as the chairman said, as we have been for the 5 years before last. The loss was also due to investment in infrastructure, an infrastructure which now has a value added to the company.

We are close to being relegated yes, but we have addressed that. Of course we are close to losing key players, we lose key players every season. As do most clubs outside the top 6. It is nothing new.

I am not sure why you focus on the Yanks not putting anything into the club? We haven't had owners put anything into our club for the last few decades have we? We spend what we earn, we don't operate with subsidies. Odd that you are dismissing forecast projections as they are ''just predictions'' yet your stance is laced with them, far fetched ones at that.

I am not moaning about anything at all, I am just telling you how things are in the most open way possible. Where have I distorted facts? You said our income is down year on year, I corrected you and said it is in fact UP year on year. That isnt me distorting facts, a fact is a fact, you cannot distort it. Profit and loss is not the key clause with FFP. Infrastructure is not counted there are certain regulations in place where it does not stunt a clubs growth.

Clubs are allowed to lose £35m for any PL season counted in the FFP 3 season calculation. So last years account came in at £20m under FFP. We will be allowed to lose £13m next season if relegated and £13m the year after. So by 2020 to be in breach of FFP we would have to have posted a cumulative loss of £61m. It is safe to say we will be nowhere near that.

Happy to discuss sensible points but this is scraping the barrel and doesn't feel like genuine discussion, I dont think it can lead to a sensible discussion.

I was clearly talking about a drop in income when you fall into the Championship, that is certainly distorting the facts unless you are claiming your will be the first ever to INCREASE income when relegated from the PL? Profit and loss is absolutely central to FFP and to state otherwise is completely stupid and total misinformation. Infrastructure is not exactly a strong card to play as you don't own your ground and it doesn't matter how many potential superstars you claim to have in your academy that won't stop you from an FFP transfer embargo if you keep losing money at the rate you are.

You won't be judged on PL FFP once in the Championship, if you were we won't have received a transfer embargo in 2015 To be honest mate you are scraping the barrel and in denial about your club. It happened with us when we came down and all the same ingredients exist at SCFC. More concerning from your point of view is you don't have a benefactor willing to pick up the tab so the lookout is even worse.

I am not moaning about anything at all, I am just telling you how things are in the most open way possible. Where have I distorted facts? You said our income is down year on year, I corrected you and said it is in fact UP year on year. That isnt me distorting facts, a fact is a fact, you cannot distort it. Profit and loss is not the key clause with FFP. Infrastructure is not counted there are certain regulations in place where it does not stunt a clubs growth.

Clubs are allowed to lose £35m for any PL season counted in the FFP 3 season calculation. So last years account came in at £20m under FFP. We will be allowed to lose £13m next season if relegated and £13m the year after. So by 2020 to be in breach of FFP we would have to have posted a cumulative loss of £61m. It is safe to say we will be nowhere near that.

Happy to discuss sensible points but this is scraping the barrel and doesn't feel like genuine discussion, I dont think it can lead to a sensible discussion.

I was clearly talking about a drop in income when you fall into the Championship, that is certainly distorting the facts unless you are claiming your will be the first ever to INCREASE income when relegated from the PL? Profit and loss is absolutely central to FFP and to state otherwise is completely stupid and total misinformation. Infrastructure is not exactly a strong card to play as you don't own your ground and it doesn't matter how many potential superstars you claim to have in your academy that won't stop you from an FFP transfer embargo if you keep losing money at the rate you are.

You won't be judged on PL FFP once in the Championship, if you were we won't have received a transfer embargo in 2015 To be honest mate you are scraping the barrel and in denial about your club. It happened with us when we came down and all the same ingredients exist at SCFC. More concerning from your point of view is you don't have a benefactor willing to pick up the tab so the lookout is even worse.

Give up on him. Everything points to the club being in a worst position than it was 3 years ago yet listen to him it's great at Swansea at the moment.

It isn't positive, it is reality. A reality you are falling over yourself to try and distort by comparing 12 months figures to 14 months figures and continuing to use that as if it doesn't matter. Why you would want to do that when we are trying to have a sensible debate I will never know.

If I earn 3k a month and compare 14 months earnings to the following 12 months earnings, It wouldn't mean I am earning less or have had a decrease in income. We are not operating at a loss, our last set of accounts showed a loss, but we are currently operating at a profit as the chairman said, as we have been for the 5 years before last. The loss was also due to investment in infrastructure, an infrastructure which now has a value added to the company.

We are close to being relegated yes, but we have addressed that. Of course we are close to losing key players, we lose key players every season. As do most clubs outside the top 6. It is nothing new.

I am not sure why you focus on the Yanks not putting anything into the club? We haven't had owners put anything into our club for the last few decades have we? We spend what we earn, we don't operate with subsidies. Odd that you are dismissing forecast projections as they are ''just predictions'' yet your stance is laced with them, far fetched ones at that.

Christ your in denial

It isn't positive, it is reality. A reality you are falling over yourself to try and distort by comparing 12 months figures to 14 months figures and continuing to use that as if it doesn't matter. Why you would want to do that when we are trying to have a sensible debate I will never know.

If I earn 3k a month and compare 14 months earnings to the following 12 months earnings, It wouldn't mean I am earning less or have had a decrease in income. We are not operating at a loss, our last set of accounts showed a loss, but we are currently operating at a profit as the chairman said, as we have been for the 5 years before last. The loss was also due to investment in infrastructure, an infrastructure which now has a value added to the company.

We are close to being relegated yes, but we have addressed that. Of course we are close to losing key players, we lose key players every season. As do most clubs outside the top 6. It is nothing new.

I am not sure why you focus on the Yanks not putting anything into the club? We haven't had owners put anything into our club for the last few decades have we? We spend what we earn, we don't operate with subsidies. Odd that you are dismissing forecast projections as they are ''just predictions'' yet your stance is laced with them, far fetched ones at that.

Christ your in denial

You should know from his previous posts under various user names that he will never accept he is wrong.

I am not moaning about anything at all, I am just telling you how things are in the most open way possible. Where have I distorted facts? You said our income is down year on year, I corrected you and said it is in fact UP year on year. That isnt me distorting facts, a fact is a fact, you cannot distort it. Profit and loss is not the key clause with FFP. Infrastructure is not counted there are certain regulations in place where it does not stunt a clubs growth.

Clubs are allowed to lose £35m for any PL season counted in the FFP 3 season calculation. So last years account came in at £20m under FFP. We will be allowed to lose £13m next season if relegated and £13m the year after. So by 2020 to be in breach of FFP we would have to have posted a cumulative loss of £61m. It is safe to say we will be nowhere near that.

Happy to discuss sensible points but this is scraping the barrel and doesn't feel like genuine discussion, I dont think it can lead to a sensible discussion.

I was clearly talking about a drop in income when you fall into the Championship, that is certainly distorting the facts unless you are claiming your will be the first ever to INCREASE income when relegated from the PL? Profit and loss is absolutely central to FFP and to state otherwise is completely stupid and total misinformation. Infrastructure is not exactly a strong card to play as you don't own your ground and it doesn't matter how many potential superstars you claim to have in your academy that won't stop you from an FFP transfer embargo if you keep losing money at the rate you are.

You won't be judged on PL FFP once in the Championship, if you were we won't have received a transfer embargo in 2015 To be honest mate you are scraping the barrel and in denial about your club. It happened with us when we came down and all the same ingredients exist at SCFC. More concerning from your point of view is you don't have a benefactor willing to pick up the tab so the lookout is even worse.

Give up on him. Everything points to the club being in a worst position than it was 3 years ago yet listen to him it's great at Swansea at the moment.

I agree WP you posted information which blew his argument out of the water yet he came back with another load of waffle. The Jacks are in shit street and all that laughing at us over Vincent Tan/rebrand/relegation will come back to haunt them in the near future.

It isn't positive, it is reality. A reality you are falling over yourself to try and distort by comparing 12 months figures to 14 months figures and continuing to use that as if it doesn't matter. Why you would want to do that when we are trying to have a sensible debate I will never know.

If I earn 3k a month and compare 14 months earnings to the following 12 months earnings, It wouldn't mean I am earning less or have had a decrease in income. We are not operating at a loss, our last set of accounts showed a loss, but we are currently operating at a profit as the chairman said, as we have been for the 5 years before last. The loss was also due to investment in infrastructure, an infrastructure which now has a value added to the company.

We are close to being relegated yes, but we have addressed that. Of course we are close to losing key players, we lose key players every season. As do most clubs outside the top 6. It is nothing new.

I am not sure why you focus on the Yanks not putting anything into the club? We haven't had owners put anything into our club for the last few decades have we? We spend what we earn, we don't operate with subsidies. Odd that you are dismissing forecast projections as they are ''just predictions'' yet your stance is laced with them, far fetched ones at that.

Christ your in denial

You should know from his previous posts under various user names that he will never accept he is wrong.

Fair enough SZ guilty as charged he caught me out I should have known better.

I am not moaning about anything at all, I am just telling you how things are in the most open way possible. Where have I distorted facts? You said our income is down year on year, I corrected you and said it is in fact UP year on year. That isnt me distorting facts, a fact is a fact, you cannot distort it. Profit and loss is not the key clause with FFP. Infrastructure is not counted there are certain regulations in place where it does not stunt a clubs growth.

Clubs are allowed to lose £35m for any PL season counted in the FFP 3 season calculation. So last years account came in at £20m under FFP. We will be allowed to lose £13m next season if relegated and £13m the year after. So by 2020 to be in breach of FFP we would have to have posted a cumulative loss of £61m. It is safe to say we will be nowhere near that.

Happy to discuss sensible points but this is scraping the barrel and doesn't feel like genuine discussion, I dont think it can lead to a sensible discussion.

I was clearly talking about a drop in income when you fall into the Championship, that is certainly distorting the facts unless you are claiming your will be the first ever to INCREASE income when relegated from the PL? Profit and loss is absolutely central to FFP and to state otherwise is completely stupid and total misinformation. Infrastructure is not exactly a strong card to play as you don't own your ground and it doesn't matter how many potential superstars you claim to have in your academy that won't stop you from an FFP transfer embargo if you keep losing money at the rate you are.

You won't be judged on PL FFP once in the Championship, if you were we won't have received a transfer embargo in 2015 To be honest mate you are scraping the barrel and in denial about your club. It happened with us when we came down and all the same ingredients exist at SCFC. More concerning from your point of view is you don't have a benefactor willing to pick up the tab so the lookout is even worse.

But if you were talking about IF we get relegated then that is off set against a reduction in operating costs. That is the simple fact, unless you think we will be the first club in history to INCREASE our operating costs after relegation? Profit and loss is central yes, but it is not strictly based on that, there are provisions, the type of provisions which make the subject we are talking about (£14m loss) - not a £14m loss. You are allowed to invest in infrastructure and it not be placed against FFP. It makes no difference if we own our own ground, infrastructure in the case we are talking about (the £14m loss) is the training ground at Fairwood and the academy, neither of which are marked against FFP. FFp states that in the last 3 years we can lose £105m, I think we are currently £7m in profit over the last 3 years. It is a futile discussion.

Yes we will be judged on PL once in the championship. FFP is based on your last 3 seasons. If any of those were in the PL then there is an allowance of £25m loss for that season, for a Championship season it is £13m loss allowance (again investment in infrastructure over this period does not count).

It is an amusing story but thats all it is, a story. about as far from reality as Peter Pan.

I agree WP you posted information which blew his argument out of the water yet he came back with another load of waffle. The Jacks are in shit street and all that laughing at us over Vincent Tan/rebrand/relegation will come back to haunt them in the near future.

Which information was that? That Swansea had less income in 12 months than it did in 14 months?

If we are going to go down the route of ill informed point scoring then at least make it a little bit hard. This started as a pretty fair discussion. Now it has turned into an absolute playground of nonsense

Christ your in denial

Denial about what? I cannot deny a fact. It is a fact that month on month (or over 12 month period) income has increased. You can compare a 14 month period to a 12 month period if you really feel you need to but it doesn't change the above.

Captain bullsit has raised its head again I see....fir a team that has spent 6 years in the sunshine you have a shocking team at present. No balls or backbone or old heads to steer you through, I predict you will go straight through again if you do go down.
2 huge games coming up eh lonesome dingo??

Sometimes I wonder why I try to have a reasoned debate with people like Snackajack when I should put it in far simpler terms like you have goats

Yep, the freak show roathie is at it again, i'm sure that if the tramps get relegated he will spend all summer telling anyone who's prepared to listen that it didn't happen and they will start next season in the premier league.

Yep, the freak show roathie is at it again, i'm sure that if the tramps get relegated he will spend all summer telling anyone who's prepared to listen that it didn't happen and they will start next season in the premier league.

Do you dispute any of the facts stated here then? If so, which ones?

Very easy to resort to the playground and spout a raft of throwaway detracting comments, not so easy when asked for specifics. Why people are so offended by the truth is beyond me, things aren't that bad down there are they? You seem to be doing ok to me. Just debate sensibly. No need for all this rubbish.

No need to waste time reading all that. In simple terms, just like their dump of a city, they're fucked. Happy Easter.

Yep, the freak show roathie is at it again, i'm sure that if the tramps get relegated he will spend all summer telling anyone who's prepared to listen that it didn't happen and they will start next season in the premier league.

Do you dispute any of the facts stated here then? If so, which ones?

Very easy to resort to the playground and spout a raft of throwaway detracting comments, not so easy when asked for specifics. Why people are so offended by the truth is beyond me, things aren't that bad down there are they? You seem to be doing ok to me. Just debate sensibly. No need for all this rubbish.

What's the point of giving you specifics you only ignore them if they don't fit your agenda. TBH the only specific that counts is the post above and Happy Easter although I'm sure you'll argue it's Christmas

No need to waste time reading all that. In simple terms, just like their dump of a city, they're fucked. Happy Easter.

Made my day

What's the point of giving you specifics you only ignore them if they don't fit your agenda. TBH the only specific that counts is the post above and Happy Easter although I'm sure you'll argue it's Christmas

I haven't ignored any specifics. You said income had gone down year on year, I proved it hadn't. Just a simple fact.

When I did this you said I was in denial?

Not sure what else you want in a debate? Surely if you bring a fact into it then that is helpful not offensive? Unless accuracy is not what we want to achieve in the discussion... which seems like it is the case.

No need to waste time reading all that. In simple terms, just like their dump of a city, they're fucked. Happy Easter.

Made my day

Says it all...