NFFC Financial Talk

[Salvatore Matrecano]

Sorry guys but think some comments are veering towards the Derbyesque Mel Morris is innocent type.

P&S is looking at a rolling 3 years in isolation. If your argument about sporting advantage applied then by the same logic Everton could claim their squad cost is a fifth of Liverpool’s and they should be able to spend £800m to be able to compete with their neighbours.

We theoretically had the same allowable loss as any other promoted team and by breaking that allowable loss we could have gained an advantage on them.

Im not denying the rules are unfair or that the system is hopelessly skewed towards the bigger teams. However that is the monster we created back in 1993 and unfortunately the monster we are aiming to be a  part of.

This is even more ridiculous, I think all of us are accepting we are in breach of the rules, those idiots still don't think they did anything wrong. 

With the wording of the Everton outcome is what has annoyed me with anyone deemed to be in breach gaining a sporting advantage, how on earth is our breach gaining a sporting advantage SM?

I'll look forward to you explaining that to me when we had a squad deficit, a financial deficit with us the only team in the league allowed to post only a 61m loss, against every single team in the league. how has the amount we spent gained us a sporting advantage after the other 19 teams have spent heavier than we have over the 3 year cycle we are being judged for? 

I'm accepting the breach but not the tone in which we are being judged when it was never a level playing field to start with. 

Parachute payments to teams going to the championship certainly does quantify giving you a sporting advantage against everyone else in the league, and we managed to navigate a way out of that league against teams that did have those advantages but now we've gone up we were not allowed to compete on a level playing field.

That is not derby that is common sense and those 2 do not go together.

See my post above. Had we been promoted alongside Luton and Boro we would have spent more than those teams and gained an advantage. You cant make up the rules as you go along.
Its one of the reasons in the Championship we all moaned that parachute payments were unfair.

You cannot speak hyperthitically when making a legal judgement, they didn't go up, we are not being judged hyperthetically. We are being deemed to have gained a sporting advantage against the other 19 teams competing in the prem last year over a 3 year rolling cycle. 

Middlesborough as a club have had lots of parachute payments over recent times and had sporting advantages against others including us in the championship. Remember when they paid us 15m for Britt. 

Luton as a club have been brilliant. Nothing more to say on them. 

But again on facts of last year and the 3 year cycle we are being judged for, could you kindly explain how we gained a sporting advantage on the other 19 teams that we competed against last season over a 3 year rolling period? As per anyone deemed to be in breach by the outcome of the commission on Everton's appeal?

The rules are not made hypothetically or retrospectively either. They apply to any team promoted from the Championship all of who have an equal chance of promotion at the start of the season. We would have gained an advantage on those teams.
That the allowable loss for a promoted team is less is clearly unfair and is the reason that the 3 promoted teams are immediate favourites to be relegated. The PL has always wanted to be a closed shop whatever they say about a Superleague. Can see them dropping to 18 teams at some stage and that will be the start of it.