FFP 2.0

Here is the place to talk about all things city and football!

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby nottsblue » Wed Jan 24, 2018 11:14 am

To be honest, I don't see this latest attempt to derail either us or PSG or indeed any other upstarts threatening the G14 club cartel, succeeding. We have long gone past the days of having to pay over the odds for players and the wages on top to attract big names. The academy will likely either bring in good revenue or a couple of first teamers for the foreseeable future as well. Plus the crux of team have their best years ahead of them. Emerson, Walker, Mendy, Stones, KDB, Sterling, Sane, Jesus, Silva B, Foden all have a good five or more years left in the tank. Commercial revenue is steadily climbing and as we are improving in the CL when sponsorship deals are up for renewal we will be in better bargaining positions. We have zero or marginal debt and are unlikely to.

All we can do is keep winning on the field and everything else will just take care of itself
nottsblue
Colin Bell's Football Brain
 
Posts: 29572
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 5:17 pm
Location: Nottingham
Supporter of: manchester city
My favourite player is: niall Quinn & Kun

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby john68 » Wed Jan 24, 2018 5:43 pm

nottsblue wrote:To be honest, I don't see this latest attempt to derail either us or PSG or indeed any other upstarts threatening the G14 club cartel, succeeding. We have long gone past the days of having to pay over the odds for players and the wages on top to attract big names. The academy will likely either bring in good revenue or a couple of first teamers for the foreseeable future as well. Plus the crux of team have their best years ahead of them. Emerson, Walker, Mendy, Stones, KDB, Sterling, Sane, Jesus, Silva B, Foden all have a good five or more years left in the tank. Commercial revenue is steadily climbing and as we are improving in the CL when sponsorship deals are up for renewal we will be in better bargaining positions. We have zero or marginal debt and are unlikely to.

All we can do is keep winning on the field and everything else will just take care of itself


Whilst I agree that should City's commercial success continue, then in the longer term, it should not affect us too much.
What we should never forget is that it has and is already affecting us.
The original City project was planned carefully to evolve far more slowly than what actually happened . 1) To invest in a team that would make CL qualification, thus raising City's global profile, which in turn allowed City to grow commercially, globally. CL qualification would also allow City to access the UeFA income streams to help fund the next stage of growth. It was publically announced as a 15yr project, largely self financing.
FFP1 changed that. Kaldhoon publicly stated that FFP1 caused City to speed up the process of creating a team for CL qualification. Speeded up to bring in players before the UeFA accounting period began.
The FFP1 cost forced City to readically change spending plans and make unplanned spending of many many £millions. In the short term it cost City, in the longer term it did no damage. The damage was done by UeFA and David Gill's auditing staff by reducing their perceived value of City's related sponsorship, which then allowed them to bringin City's spending that had originally fallen outside the accounting period. eg, the Carlos Tevez costs. We failed the FFPrs.

I don't think that UeFA have finalised the details of the FFP2 yet but you can rest assured that there will be some fine financial minds looking at City and PSG and working on ways to limit us.

It was reported that the big European clubs define City and PSG as nation clubs with a limitless pot to spend. Another factor is that Abu Dabble and Quatar are fiercely competitive with each other and have broken off diplomatic relations.
I KNOW THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU THINK I WROTE, BUT I AM NOT SURE YOU REALISE THAT WHAT YOU READ IS NOT WHAT I MEANT
User avatar
john68
Kaptain Kompany's Komposure
 
Posts: 14629
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 4:47 pm
Location: Sittin' on the dock of the bay...wastin' time.
Supporter of: ST MARKS (W GORTON)
My favourite player is: BERT TRAUTMANN

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby Original Dub » Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:06 pm

Of course it's to safe guard the elite overall. It might be partly disguised as being for the "good of the game" but if anyone thinks financial play was brought about to protect your average club, they're being completely naive.

Ffp and all other versions of it were brought about to stifle the progress of any club capable of breaking up the old guard.

It's very simple
Original Dub
 

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby Chinners » Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:23 pm

Original Dub wrote:Of course it's to safe guard the elite overall. It might be partly disguised as being for the "good of the game" but if anyone thinks financial play was brought about to protect your average club, they're being completely naive.

Ffp and all other versions of it were brought about to stifle the progress of any club capable of breaking up the old guard.

It's very simple


Indeed
Image
User avatar
Chinners
Donated to the site
Donated to the site
Kaptain Kompany's Komposure
 
Posts: 14248
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 12:52 pm
Location: Hampton Court Palace
Supporter of: B*ll*x
My favourite player is: Kun Tueart

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby nottsblue » Wed Jan 24, 2018 6:50 pm

john68 wrote:
nottsblue wrote:To be honest, I don't see this latest attempt to derail either us or PSG or indeed any other upstarts threatening the G14 club cartel, succeeding. We have long gone past the days of having to pay over the odds for players and the wages on top to attract big names. The academy will likely either bring in good revenue or a couple of first teamers for the foreseeable future as well. Plus the crux of team have their best years ahead of them. Emerson, Walker, Mendy, Stones, KDB, Sterling, Sane, Jesus, Silva B, Foden all have a good five or more years left in the tank. Commercial revenue is steadily climbing and as we are improving in the CL when sponsorship deals are up for renewal we will be in better bargaining positions. We have zero or marginal debt and are unlikely to.

All we can do is keep winning on the field and everything else will just take care of itself


Whilst I agree that should City's commercial success continue, then in the longer term, it should not affect us too much.
What we should never forget is that it has and is already affecting us.
The original City project was planned carefully to evolve far more slowly than what actually happened . 1) To invest in a team that would make CL qualification, thus raising City's global profile, which in turn allowed City to grow commercially, globally. CL qualification would also allow City to access the UeFA income streams to help fund the next stage of growth. It was publically announced as a 15yr project, largely self financing.
FFP1 changed that. Kaldhoon publicly stated that FFP1 caused City to speed up the process of creating a team for CL qualification. Speeded up to bring in players before the UeFA accounting period began.
The FFP1 cost forced City to readically change spending plans and make unplanned spending of many many £millions. In the short term it cost City, in the longer term it did no damage. The damage was done by UeFA and David Gill's auditing staff by reducing their perceived value of City's related sponsorship, which then allowed them to bringin City's spending that had originally fallen outside the accounting period. eg, the Carlos Tevez costs. We failed the FFPrs.

I don't think that UeFA have finalised the details of the FFP2 yet but you can rest assured that there will be some fine financial minds looking at City and PSG and working on ways to limit us.

It was reported that the big European clubs define City and PSG as nation clubs with a limitless pot to spend. Another factor is that Abu Dabble and Quatar are fiercely competitive with each other and have broken off diplomatic relations.

All true.

But a big difference between us now and five years ago is where we are not off the field but on the field of play. Of all the teams in England we have the best squad both in terms of ability and drive but also age. We won't need to spend vast sums like previously
nottsblue
Colin Bell's Football Brain
 
Posts: 29572
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 5:17 pm
Location: Nottingham
Supporter of: manchester city
My favourite player is: niall Quinn & Kun

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby Beefymcfc » Wed Jan 24, 2018 7:08 pm

If they do bring in new regulations, hopefully the club will look for the loophole that Gill will use to fail us, prior to handing over the accounts.
In the words of my Old Man, "Life will never be the same without Man City, so get it in while you can".

The Future's Bright, The Future's Blue!!!
User avatar
Beefymcfc
Anna Connell's Vision
 
Posts: 46203
Joined: Thu Jun 21, 2007 7:14 am
Supporter of: The Mighty Blues

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby johnny crossan » Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:24 pm

Martin Samuel on our case
Manchester City spending fast so they don't fall foul of UEFA tricks
UEFA's Financial Fair Play 2.0 is the same old garbage that we are used to
It's an attempt by the established elite to place restrictions on new money
That is why Manchester City are doing big transfer business yet again
The whole City project has been accelerated by UEFA's attempts to shut it down

By Martin Samuel - Sport for the Daily Mail

PUBLISHED: 22:30, 29 January 2018 | UPDATED: 22:30, 29 January 2018

UEFA call it Financial Fair Play 2.0. Makes it seem like a reboot, an update, a new model. It’s not. It’s the same old garbage: an attempt by the established elite to place restrictions on new money and new challenges.

Another grab for power by the forces of entitlement. And as UEFA are terrified of the marquee names in their Champions League draw, no doubt they will capitulate and wave it through.

That is why Manchester City are doing transfer business again. That is why there is a rush to advance the transfers of Aymeric Laporte and Fred. They have to get inside the castle before the drawbridge is raised — and that’s not new, either.

Manchester City are spending fast so they don't fall foul of UEFA's same old tricks


The whole City project has been accelerated by UEFA’s attempts to shut it down. Other members of the City Football Group are not placed on this free-spending fast track; only the club that must comply with UEFA’s ever-changing moods and the restrictive practices of their rivals.

If UEFA were truly interested in competition, they would discuss wealth redistribution via Champions League prize money. More for the leagues, less for individual clubs. They don’t. They continue to kill domestic competitions around Europe by delivering huge sums to super clubs, making them untouchable.

Bayern Munich and Juventus are on the longest sequence of title wins the Bundesliga and Serie A have known. Olympiacos have won 19 of the last 21 titles in Greece, BATE Borisov the last 12 in Belarus.

City are in a rush to complete the signing of Atletic Bilbao central defender Aymeric Laporte

The first incarnation of FFP did nothing to address this. It was merely a device to negate the impact of new money in old leagues.

The European Clubs Association couldn’t care less that BATE are usurping the traditional dominance of Dinamo Minsk in Belarus. They just don’t want Manchester City sitting where Manchester United should be. FFP is about nothing more than preservation of an elite.

Before FFP 1.0, there was FFP 0.0, the original vision of Michel Platini that had among its targets leveraged buyouts such as the Glazer takeover at Manchester United. That, however, veered a little too close to home, so Platini was manipulated into taking on owner investment instead.

The Glazers, who saddled United with enormous debt, were given a free pass; Sheik Mansour, who brought new money into football and greatly benefited the local area, was the enemy.

The elite clubs knew emerging forces such as Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain did not yet have the revenue streams of the establishment, so attempted to stunt their growth.

Transfers, wages, amortised agreements, finance costs and dividends would be set against gate receipts, TV revenue, advertising, merchandising, disposal of tangible fixed assets, finance, player sales and prize money. Clubs could only lose £26million, balanced over a three-year period.

The whole City project has been accelerated by UEFA’s attempts to shut it down

That way City’s spending could be tied to income — and the income of a club that last won the league in 1968 could not possibly compete with the likes of Manchester United. The new clubs would be left to wither, unable to invest to grow. Even Chelsea backed this plan, having got where they needed to be under Roman Abramovich.

Buying in, he was now terrified of the competition if others did the same. Abramovich used to be the owner that Platini railed against. Then they ended up on the same side. That should have been the clue.

Fortunately, it did not work. Parts of FFP collapsed at the first legal test and Manchester City and Paris Saint-Germain were smarter than UEFA and their rivals had imagined.

They moved fast, recruited well, achieved success and balanced the books. Revenue increased through sponsorships, TV deals, merchandising, prize money. They could win and also comply.

This is why FFP 2.0 is on the table in May. It is the latest attempt by Barcelona and Real Madrid, among others, to return to the good old days. If it fails, they will shift criteria again for FFP 3.0.

So, how will it work this time? Now FFP is going to be purely about transfers. The rest of it, all those revenue streams that were considered so vital to the efficient running of a club, are being as good as abandoned.

FFP is going to be purely about transfers - the rest of it is are being as good as abandoned

If the current proposals are accepted, there will be a simple calculation, outlawing a transfer loss of more than £90million in one season. This won’t just affect Manchester City, but all Premier League clubs, as Europe seeks to limit the impact of the new television deal.

It terrifies La Liga that Leicester are now within £1m of Atletico Madrid in the 2016-17 revenue tables; Serie A are appalled that their league leaders Napoli are pegged behind Southampton in riches.

If revenue is no longer factored in, the Premier League television deal can be contained and the established elite will sign up for this, even in England, as a way of reining in Manchester City.

To hear Antonio Conte complain about the financial power of the Manchester clubs is to hear the conversations that go on behind closed doors. ‘These two big clubs can be seriously dangerous for other teams in the world,’ he said. ‘They are very strong already, and want to invest.’

Indeed, as Chelsea once did. Just because Conte has spent January looking at players who would simply not be considered in Manchester does not mean the system is wrong. It just means Abramovich has got what he wants from it and now hopes to scale down the arms race. Tough. You started it.

And, who knows, if Chelsea had not spent in the region of £80m sacking managers since Abramovich’s arrival, maybe they would have been able to join the bidding for Alexis Sanchez?

Fred is another City target and Pep Guardiola wants a deal done sooner rather than later

This explains why City are in a hurry again, rushing to complete deals for Laporte and Fred this January. It should not be hard to comply with a net loss of £90m, but at the current rates, significant upgrades are expensive. City spent £220m remodelling Pep Guardiola’s squad in the summer, and even bringing in £90m on transfers they were still £130m down — and £40m outside the new UEFA spending deficit.

In the current climate, losses are not unimaginable.

Suppose Liverpool think they need another Virgil van Dijk, because one alone isn’t working. If the going rate is the same, that is £150m on central defenders — and how might Liverpool raise £60m without losing another of their key players?

Yes, selling Philippe Coutinho more than balances the books, but that was a one-off. How often do deals of that nature come around?

Indeed, while Arsene Wenger is always up for economic sanctions on everybody else, the £90m limit may come as a shock to his employers when he leaves and the grand rebuilding begins. How much do Arsenal need to get competitive again? A lot more than £90m, that’s for certain.

Chelsea, with their production line academy — Christian Atsu played seven minutes for Newcastle at Stamford Bridge on Sunday, which is seven minutes more than he played there in almost four years as a Chelsea player — will be rubbing their hands together. Abramovich, back in the game.

Say what you like about the way he handles players and managers, like so many in the favoured elite, he certainly knows how to get the best out of UEFA.


Every season, there will be a point at which we are asked to believe in Neil Warnock as the charming, kindly uncle of English football. He’s been around, he’s a bit old school and he can turn it on in front of the cameras, have no doubt of that. Lots of good stories, lots of good humour, lots of good lines.

His analogy about getting his Cardiff team to chase pieces of paper in training to replicate the movement of Manchester City was quite brilliant. So, too, his sincere admiration for Pep Guardiola doing his own scouting at Cardiff’s replay with Mansfield. Arsene Wenger is depicted as a football obsessive but is hardly ever seen at matches; even Sir Alex Ferguson had largely given up on it by the end at Manchester United. It is not as if Guardiola needs a break from four walls at the Lowry hotel, either.

Warnock, the football man, appreciated Guardiola’s dedication. By publicly acknowledging it, he played all the right notes going into the match. Some neutrals may even have started rooting for him, his battle to overcome the odds, and a team with a philosophy rooted in continental ideas. And then his Cardiff side took the field and — mimes shielding eyes — oh, for heaven’s sake. Neil, throw us a bone here, would you? Give us something to work with, please.

There are plenty of old school English football men. Harry Redknapp is one. But Redknapp never sent a team out to do what Cardiff did to Manchester City — or tried to defend it after the game.

Some of the fouls may simply have been the result of a mismatch. City were faster and had the lion’s share of possession. Cardiff were outclassed at times and accidents happen. Yet others were spiteful and brutal. Joe Bennett may have deprived City of Leroy Sane for months — although he did at least apologise.

Warnock didn’t, though — and for him to then dismiss dangerous tackles as simply part of English football was wrong. Cardiff are not the first to kick Manchester City, and they won’t be the last, but it is a strategy that does not reflect well on the manager. For all his bonhomie, if his team plays ugly, Warnock looks that way, too.

Neil Warnock was wrong to dismiss dangerous tackles as part of English football was wrong



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/footba ... -UEFA.html
Image
User avatar
johnny crossan
Donated to the site
Donated to the site
Neil Young's FA Cup Winning Goal
 
Posts: 11706
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 8:25 am
Location: The Barcelona of The North
Supporter of: City
My favourite player is: Merlin

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby nottsblue » Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:40 pm

On point as usual
nottsblue
Colin Bell's Football Brain
 
Posts: 29572
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 5:17 pm
Location: Nottingham
Supporter of: manchester city
My favourite player is: niall Quinn & Kun

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby johnny crossan » Mon Jan 29, 2018 11:54 pm

nottsblue wrote:On point as usual
and there's still some nitwits on here that don't get it - as somebody once wisely said.....
Image
User avatar
johnny crossan
Donated to the site
Donated to the site
Neil Young's FA Cup Winning Goal
 
Posts: 11706
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 8:25 am
Location: The Barcelona of The North
Supporter of: City
My favourite player is: Merlin

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby carl_feedthegoat » Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:05 am

johnny crossan wrote:
nottsblue wrote:On point as usual
and there's still some nitwits on here that don't get it - as somebody once wisely said.....



Nigels tackle after reading the above article.

Image
THEY SAY SWEARING IS DUE TO A LIMITED VOCABULARY. I KNOW THOUSANDS OF WORDS, BUT I STILL PREFER "FUCK OFF" TO "GO AWAY"
carl_feedthegoat
Donated to the site
Donated to the site
Anna Connell's Vision
 
Posts: 30684
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2005 2:51 am
Supporter of: Man City

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby john68 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 4:52 am

nottsblue wrote:On point as usual


Not sure I understand NB. You agree with Samuels, yet disagreed when I said much the same?
I KNOW THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU THINK I WROTE, BUT I AM NOT SURE YOU REALISE THAT WHAT YOU READ IS NOT WHAT I MEANT
User avatar
john68
Kaptain Kompany's Komposure
 
Posts: 14629
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 4:47 pm
Location: Sittin' on the dock of the bay...wastin' time.
Supporter of: ST MARKS (W GORTON)
My favourite player is: BERT TRAUTMANN

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby patrickblue » Tue Jan 30, 2018 7:03 am

john68 wrote:
nottsblue wrote:On point as usual


Not sure I understand NB. You agree with Samuels, yet disagreed when I said much the same?


It's the way you tell 'um, John.
[img]https://giphy.com/gifs/3o7qDYcso3azifQVyg/html5[/img]
User avatar
patrickblue
Donated to the site
Donated to the site
Shaun Goater's 103 Goals
 
Posts: 7130
Joined: Wed Dec 14, 2005 9:49 pm
Location: Newbury Berks
Supporter of: City
My favourite player is: The one and only Goat

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby nottsblue » Tue Jan 30, 2018 8:03 am

john68 wrote:
nottsblue wrote:On point as usual


Not sure I understand NB. You agree with Samuels, yet disagreed when I said much the same?

I never said i didnt agree with you John. As it goes the points you made are very valid.

I was suggesting that despite the efforts of those behind FFP, i dont think it will affect us as much as before. Samuels isnt suggesting we will fail FFP 2.0, he is just pointing out the proposed legislation for what it is. An attempt to derail clubs not deemed to be worthy
nottsblue
Colin Bell's Football Brain
 
Posts: 29572
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 5:17 pm
Location: Nottingham
Supporter of: manchester city
My favourite player is: niall Quinn & Kun

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby Nigels Tackle » Tue Jan 30, 2018 9:41 am

carl_feedthegoat wrote:
johnny crossan wrote:
nottsblue wrote:On point as usual
and there's still some nitwits on here that don't get it - as somebody once wisely said.....



Nigels tackle after reading the above article.

Image


not at all. if you read the article in full, the headline focuses on our attempts to get business done early but the adverse implications of ffp 2.0 will actually hit the likes of arsenal, spurs, even liverpool much harder than us... echoes of bolton and gartside 10 years ago if they go along with it... i would even go as far as to say that it will play into our hands going forward.
ARMCHAIR FAN
Nigels Tackle
Donated to the site
Donated to the site
Alan Oakes' 668 Games
 
Posts: 17606
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2007 7:57 pm
Location: here, there, every fucking where
Supporter of: man love
My favourite player is: riyad meh!rez

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby johnny crossan » Tue Jan 30, 2018 10:14 am

latest financial rankings from Swiss Ramble
Image
Image
User avatar
johnny crossan
Donated to the site
Donated to the site
Neil Young's FA Cup Winning Goal
 
Posts: 11706
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 8:25 am
Location: The Barcelona of The North
Supporter of: City
My favourite player is: Merlin

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby john@staustell » Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:21 am

There's a thread on Deloittes. Mine as it happens!
“I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.”
User avatar
john@staustell
Allison's Big Fat Cigar
 
Posts: 18748
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:35 am
Location: St Austell
Supporter of: City

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby mr_nool » Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:35 pm

The one worrying thing in this new FFP outline that could really hurt us is the proposed limitation on number of players you can have on your books.
We have spent a lot of money on our academy and the business idea is to a big extent based on us loaning out the graduates to give them experience and to put them in the shopping window. I guess one work around could be to sell them cheaply to lower league clubs with big sell-on clauses, but I do think the club prefers to keep the players longer to have bigger control of their development.
Intelligent Vigilant Person
User avatar
mr_nool
Donated to the site
Donated to the site
Colin Bell's Football Brain
 
Posts: 26129
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 8:48 am
Location: Utrecht

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby BlueinBosnia » Tue Jan 30, 2018 6:15 pm

mr_nool wrote:The one worrying thing in this new FFP outline that could really hurt us is the proposed limitation on number of players you can have on your books.
We have spent a lot of money on our academy and the business idea is to a big extent based on us loaning out the graduates to give them experience and to put them in the shopping window. I guess one work around could be to sell them cheaply to lower league clubs with big sell-on clauses, but I do think the club prefers to keep the players longer to have bigger control of their development.

The more I've seen on this, the more confusing it becomes. I think every possible interpretation of this has already been covered in the thread, and without extra info, we can't really judge what it would entail.
"Ferguson. Žvaka kurac."
(Ferguson. Chewing-gum cock.)
Old man in a bar in rural Bosnia.
User avatar
BlueinBosnia
Donated to the site
Donated to the site
Paul Power's Tash
 
Posts: 10605
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:43 pm
Location: Sarajevo, BiH
Supporter of: Team Bridge

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby john68 » Tue Jan 30, 2018 11:36 pm

My only fear about this is that the same conditions that allowedus tobe dicked over by Gill and his bunch of auditors still exists....RELATED SPONSORSHIP.
It is the only part of the previous FFPs that was not factual or covered by figures in black and white.

Only days before the accounts were submitted, Gill gave a speech in Manchester. What wasn't publicised by a complicit media was that the speech was given at a get together of the staff who would actually be auditing City's accounts. Gill instructed them that the main target for them was RELATED SPONSORSHIP.
The problem we have with this issue is that it is wholly based on the opinion of the FFP auditors, who at their whim can devalue it to a figure they set, ora figure that last time was wholly convenient to them.
They devalued the Etihad figures and possiblt others that emanate directly from Abble Dabble. Their opinion, which appears to remain the same is that we are sponsored by a country, which they believe has unlimited funds to carry City to heights that not only competes with their cartel but has sufficient resources to overtake them and leave them trailing in our wake.
,
Our sponsorship figures are by no means massive compared to the old order, which certainly leaves thre door open for us to bring in another major global primary sponsor at a far higher figure than Etihad, thus also closing the only loophole they have to attack us.
I KNOW THAT YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU THINK I WROTE, BUT I AM NOT SURE YOU REALISE THAT WHAT YOU READ IS NOT WHAT I MEANT
User avatar
john68
Kaptain Kompany's Komposure
 
Posts: 14629
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 4:47 pm
Location: Sittin' on the dock of the bay...wastin' time.
Supporter of: ST MARKS (W GORTON)
My favourite player is: BERT TRAUTMANN

Re: FFP 2.0

Postby john@staustell » Wed Jan 31, 2018 5:50 am

Hence the tie up in the Commercial thread yesterday
“I may be drunk, Miss, but in the morning I will be sober and you will still be ugly.”
User avatar
john@staustell
Allison's Big Fat Cigar
 
Posts: 18748
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2007 9:35 am
Location: St Austell
Supporter of: City

PreviousNext

Return to The Maine Football forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BlueinBosnia, Majestic-12 [Bot] and 256 guests