Eveready

Hate nonsense like that. Pulls his shirt for a yellow then pulls him by the neck after for no reason because he knows he's getting booked already.

I think it's the title as opposed to the salary which is misleading. It looks like the role is solely around email content. If a very small share of commercial revenue is driven through email traffic and there are a lot of 'managers' reporting into the Marketing Director (who could even be the director of only the e-commerce unit) then I could see £40k being a reasonable salary outside of London.

It was definitely an excuse he used but if we use the Pope deal as an example we paid £10m with payments spread. Burnley then went and got early financing for the future payments, which let's say cost them £500k. We could likely have struck a deal for £9.75m with the full amount paid upfront. We save £250k on FFP, Burnley get £250k additional cash. I don't think they care about FFP but if the cash is available then it's a win-win.

I'm not well versed on FFP but surely this is a purely cash transaction which has no impact on FFP (unless the interest payments are included in the cost side of FFP). I don't understand how someone said above that shareholder's aren't allowed to put money into clubs any more because of FFP. I can't find anything about it and find it extremely odd, but happy to be proven wrong. A shareholder's loan would've surely been the most sensible option on paper as it would incur low interest and you would imagine that PIF has enough cash sitting around that it wouldn't be an issue. I'd imagine that the ownership structure could be an issue with PIF owning 80% maybe the other partner's didn't want to contribute and this could effect the equity split until the loan is repaid? If interest isn't included in FFP costs then I don't see any real downside with what they're doing with HSBC though. Either way for FFP in the long term - trying to get as much of the deal paid upfront as we can afford as will likely result in a lower overall fee and therefore FFP cost would probably be the best bet. I'm guessing this could be their thinking in trying to generate as much cash as possible now. Edit: grammar

I agree. I also think that for Burnley the cash flow is a bigger issue than FFP. Since Burnley paid for factoring then they almost certainly would’ve accepted a lower fee. It would have been worse for us from a cash perspective but better from FFP, and if FFP is our only financial constraint then we should’ve taken the hit and given a shareholder loan to the club if required. I’m sure there’s a good reason we structured it in instalment, I’m just struggling to think of why. Overall I think we should be doing everything to keep our FFP burden as low as possible. I’m not suggesting in any way that we should do this, especially such a professional organisation like PIF, but even thinking of things like giving say Neymar a percentage of the club ownership (but no seat) as a signing bonus. Obviously that particular scenario probably wouldn’t work as there would be a monetary value of the shares but you could also argue that there is no direct cost to the club other than the legal fees.

It doesn’t directly but if Burnley paid say £800k for the factoring then surely we could have got £500k off the transfer fee and paid upfront. Burnley would receive £300k more and we would reduce our FFP burden. A shareholder loan would be if we don’t have the cash in our bank to pay for all the transfer fees upfront this way.

I’m a bit confused as to why we would have staggered the payments for Pope if it doesn’t have a FFP benefit and Burnley needed the cash. Surely the most effective way to beat FFP in the long term would be an interest free shareholder loan and paying full transfer fees upfront at a discounted prices.

Thanks for the explanation, very interesting to know how this stuff actually works. Do you know if a club bought a player for £100m on a 5 year deal but were sold to another club a year later for £50m then would there be a £30m write down of the asset at that point as it would still be valued at £80m on the books? Wondering if this could be a reason why more high valued players get loaned out these days as the clubs can't afford the write down triggered FFP rules.

If he hurdles the challenge then there's no way his feet are planted in time to get that ball before it goes out for a goal kick and the goalkeeper benefits massively from his own mistake. Pen all day.

Hmm that sounds like something Burnsie would say... Nah man oj, click on you're post you should see an icon on the right hand side & select edit post. That should do you well I'm in the camp of it's happening very soon & expect a local oil & gas company to be bought about ~3 months later by the same people, dont be surprised to see them sponsoring us in some way or form. "Okay Mr. Burns. What's your first name?" Sorry, I don't know who he is. Cheers for the help though mate. Still awake, hope this fucking Xanax kicks in soon, I think I'm rather coherent for someone in my state, mind.

It's 2am, I'm off my tits and can't find a way to edit. Meant to type chose instead of those. Dickhead.

Absolute bullshit. The city fans if anything have been the least salty about it. It won’t go to a replay in any case. We have to play them in the league remember also. I agree though, seems to my another media attempt at trying to cause problems Have I missed something about Man City fans being more against the takeover than other clubs? Why wouldn't there be protests at whatever neutral stadium they those?

owners or anyone who has at least 30% of the shares I think Thanks, do you happen to have a source for this by any chance? Just wondering if they might end up with the Saudi's purchasing their 80% of the club split across 3 separate legal entities, in that case they would then be exempt from having to undergo these tests and then only the directors would have to be vetted. just what I found on wikipedia Cheers. The Premier League page itself seems to state the 5% in which case I don't think it feasible for them to split the equity over so many legal entities so I guess it's a bit of a no go anyway. Just my simple brain trying to think of some loophole which I'm sure lawyers with triple my IQ have already ruled out.

owners or anyone who has at least 30% of the shares I think Thanks, do you happen to have a source for this by any chance? Just wondering if they might end up with the Saudi's purchasing their 80% of the club split across 3 separate legal entities, in that case they would then be exempt from having to undergo these tests and then only the directors would have to be vetted.

Should've read the Premier League page a little closer, I have found this: But even from this an average person would not qualify for exemption on being regulated and Baron Capital own over 5% of Man Utd despite being regulated and I can't find anything about them undergoing the Owners and Directors test, though I'd imagine the rules may have changed since they breached this threshold in 2014. Hoping someone with some legal knowledge or even anyone with above average intelligence could clear this up for me.

Absolutely ignorant on these matters so apologies if this has already been addressed. I have been trying to keep track of this, reading the last hundred pages or so. Does anyone know how the Owners & Directors test applies to a club like Manchester United, which is publicly traded, as surely anyone can technically become a 'part-owner'? Not sure if there's a threshold in terms of it only applying to people who own a certain percentage of the club, I skimmed their page extremely quickly but didn't see anything. Surely they can't be doing checks on anyone purchasing shares in club. Does that mean in their case that only directors need to be vetted? Does that then mean different rules apply to publicly and privately owned clubs? My legal knowledge is exceptionally limited, I'm expecting there's a simple and sensible answer to this.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/30540019

Brilliant clearance off the line by MYM as well, unless the was the Chelsea game. Good thing he's still here.

Lynsey Hipgrave. She's been good whenever I've seen her on other shows like. Shame that she's a mackem though. There's also Kay Murray but she's from smogside. Are you sure? The American who introduced her the other day said something along the lines of "You're from up Sunderland way" (presumably because Altidore plays for Sunderland) and she quickly corrected him to say she was from Newcastle.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/football/27789874 We can hope...

He's right. He almost killed Van Persie.

It does seem like he's been bulking, but in the same way an 18 year old kid would to do get big. Not in the way Bale added lean mass, or the way Marquez did for the 4th Pacquiao fight.

It may be a fraction of the loan but that is not the point, would it be a fraction of the interest?

http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/sylvain-marveaux-training-newcastle-uniteds-6722594

I thought he played well. Did he kiss the badge when he scored?