Search results

If Hamer goes it more than levels things up. Without more quality signings they would become quite average.

Be careful. We're the only place that rips off drivers like this and all the governments previously have done nothing about it that makes a difference. But you would have a point on them not making a loss of £100 for just 3 minutes. But the law is against law abiding citizens.

Park and ride? It's what the wife and I used to do in our early years.

But Gyokeres was a big part of it. Most of the team were bought from what we got for him.

Jesus was never the same since the first cross came in for him.

They have their fair share of older players. Legs gone? More frequent injuries? Add to this the fitness levels needed at this level. It's a massive difference to League 1.

Can't see them getting it this season coming. Ipswich did it with a settled side. By the sounds of it they will bring in more players. They won't have the time to gel to make the top 2.

Ipswich I agree with. We saw what their second string did to us. Southampton? Not so sure. Will Still? Add to this can't see Birmingham being better than us. We have a settled side with good players used to this level.

To me they're as dodgy as Leicester on taking full advantage of the rules. I hope it goes tits up for them and after their major spend they end up just mid table after the first season then are limited to their spend over the next 2 seasons.

So why did the FL change their rules if it didn't count?

So loans are not equity investment? I agree the rules were wrong. That's why they changed them mid season.

Look above. For their time in League 1 they were allowed to spend 100% of any equity investment. As they invested a major amount of money the 60% meant nothing to them.

You seem to have missed this bit but 100% of any equity investment

Under the current SCMP rules, League One sides can spend 60% of turnover on wages and transfer fees and League Two sides 50%, but 100% of any equity investment. This was taken from the link you provided.

Still open to abuse. I liked the line 'if owners inject £100m they can only spend £60m' 😂 So Birmingham would have been able to spend an extra £60m and kept the other £40m for their new ground build.

But what were their losses from? IIRC year 1 they were allowed 80% of income to go.on wages then the second year 60% of income.

In League 1 and 2 the rules are about players wages and similar. SCMC or Salary Cost Management Protocol. The cost of signing players don't count other than their wages. Maybe they might take another look at the rules just in case it happens again. But it's really rare for League 1 and 2 clubs...

From what I remember they only started spending massive amounts after relegation. But it could make a difference as it's down to losses.

This has been spoken about on here recently. There's different rules for League 1 than the Championship. They more or less have a clean sheet to start with. The previous signings don't count as it was more about wages. From now it is something like a 3 year rolling amount of 39m losses. But I...

I'm a big lad myself but I have a mate who is bigger than me and as camp as they come....and yes he is gay. But you wouldn't want to mess with him.