Honestly think it's point 1.
We'll be over by £1.50.
you will we be ok mate?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Honestly think it's point 1.
We'll be over by £1.50.
I agree - have we still got some auditors? If they sign off on our capitalising these interest charges then it should be fairly straightforward- that’s if esk is correct and that this is what is tipping us into non-compliance.But it depends what the interest relates to. If it was for constructing long lived assets then fine BUT if it's for borrowing to meet operating costs then it's not fine.
A) see ReadingWould the shareholders be able to take legal action against the majority shareholder and the Board he appointed for total lack of fiduciary duties? Albeit one is deceased, they all got scandalous pay-offs which presumably are part of the over-budget costs?
Will the media (like Das Spiegal), or an individual investigative journalist earn their spurs by looking into the questionable activities of Richard Masters and his cohorts?
Will the Club question why David Ornstein seemingly knew that two Clubs were in breach before they themselves knew?
it may be flexible accounting, if the end aim of the loan was for the stadium but we utilised it in the mean time for cash flow, it couldn't be done this way if it was solely for the stadium but it eventually was used for the stadium. A moot technical point.It's amazing that so many people including Evertonians don't seem to have got this yet.
The loans that this interest has been accumulated on are the loans we always have to take out for cash flow operations of the footballing business from a mainstream bank or an alternative lender like Rights and Media Funding Limited.
We can all thank Kenwright for those genius business decisions.
Transfer ban would be a logical punishment imoThis is exactly why the idea of a sporting advantage, at least to me, is a total nonsense.
I'm still baffled how a huge points deduction is deemed appropriate for what to me is not even a sporting issue. It's totally illogical.
Koff grampsExactly. But I do believe it's an open secret...
Take your sarcasm to RAWK.
you will we be ok mate?
Possibly, but even that doesn't feel quite right with me considering our losses are mainly due to stadium costs.Transfer ban would be a logical punishment imo
This is exactly why the idea of a sporting advantage, at least to me, is a total nonsense.
I'm still baffled how a huge points deduction is deemed appropriate for what to me is not even a sporting issue. It's totally illogical.
actually thats taking into account the time they spent in the championship, the statement sets out how they calculate it.. its why its £61mill over the 3 year period, they reduce it £22mill per year in the championship over the period..I think that time would have been better spent having a pot noodle and a w—k. Forest are a special case as they have not spent the whole r3 year reporting period in PL
Koff yourself with your puerile attempt at sarcasm. You're dead clever, eh, with your open secret...Koff gramps
Everton don't get pens, mate.Commemorative Pens!
For me, the worst case scenario and most probable if our mitigation (stadium) is rejected on appeal, is 12 points for the 2 breaches with the first one reduced to 6.we aren’t getting them back
you said we won’t another deduction
then said we will
For me, the worst case scenario and most probable if our mitigation (stadium) is rejected on appeal, is 12 points for the 2 breaches with the first one reduced to 6.
If stadium mitigation is accepted, I am thinking 6 to 8 points deduction with second breach cancelled as within psr limit (with stadium mitigation).
We need to try forget about it and focus on the games and I am sure dyche will do exactly that. Get the most points possible and then we'll see at the end of the season where we are.