Man CitHEHEHE

[Winston Biscuit]

I still can't belive teams like Forest got off so lightly for trashing PSR rules

It still irks me that Leicester put themselves into administration to not pay bills and then they got promoted. IIRC the points deduction for going into admin was brought in because of their behaviour

[Sutekh]

I still can't belive teams like Forest got off so lightly for trashing PSR rules

It still irks me that Leicester put themselves into administration to not pay bills and then they got promoted. IIRC the points deduction for going into admin was brought in because of their behaviour

If they were in breach of PL PSR you’d think they must also be sailing very close to FL PSR rules even with parachute money….

[Winston Biscuit]

I still can't belive teams like Forest got off so lightly for trashing PSR rules

It still irks me that Leicester put themselves into administration to not pay bills and then they got promoted. IIRC the points deduction for going into admin was brought in because of their behaviour

If they were in breach of PL PSR you’d think they must also be sailing very close to FL PSR rules even with parachute money….

I was talking about 2002. They had just come down from the PL with parachuted payments, moved into a new stadium, put themselves into administration to avoid paying debts and got promoted to the PL in the same season.

Clubs were outraged at their behaviour and the FL had to change the administration rules as a direct result of their shenanigans

[BRO_BOT]

2-0 to PaLOLace...maybe 3-0

[BRO_BOT]

offside

[stealthpapes]

It still irks me that Leicester put themselves into administration to not pay bills and then they got promoted. IIRC the points deduction for going into admin was brought in because of their behaviour

If they were in breach of PL PSR you’d think they must also be sailing very close to FL PSR rules even with parachute money….

I was talking about 2002. They had just come down from the PL with parachuted payments, moved into a new stadium, put themselves into administration to avoid paying debts and got promoted to the PL in the same season.

Clubs were outraged at their behaviour and the FL had to change the administration rules as a direct result of their shenanigans

There's a little bit more to it than that. IIRC, what pushed them over the edge was Eric Hall issuing a winding up petition for a small debt (but also allegedly in revenge for them sacking Dennis Wise)

Administration orders were made in respect of Leicester City Football Club plc, holding company Leicester City plc and the owner of the club's ground, Leicester City Developments Ltd.

Their counsel, Lloyd Tamlyn, said they had originally faced a winding-up petition presented by football agent Eric Hall, but he had agreed to administration after the companies acknowledged he was owed a debt.

https://www.theguardian.com/football/20 ... ory.sport5

[From Despair To Where?]

I think the issue is more that, regardless of how they went into administration, they kept hold of their squad on Premier League wages, defaulted on payments towards their ground and went up as a result.

[Sutekh]

I think the issue is more that, regardless of how they went into administration, they kept hold of their squad on Premier League wages, defaulted on payments towards their ground and went up as a result.

Seems this club have a record of getting away with things. Their relegation can’t come quickly enough! Hope they stay down and that the FL find some way to throw another book or two at them.

[Sutekh]

The ludicrous farce that is City ramps up further, now their own fans are threatening legal action against them over the changes to the club’s season tickets conditions that means fans must attend at least 10 games a season

[Hendo]

The ludicrous farce that is City ramps up further, now their own fans are threatening legal action against them over the changes to the club’s season tickets conditions that means fans must attend at least 10 games a season

Good move, imo - stops people buying STs to just sell them on the re-sale market.

[Dirk Gently]

The ludicrous farce that is City ramps up further, now their own fans are threatening legal action against them over the changes to the club’s season tickets conditions that means fans must attend at least 10 games a season

Good move, imo - stops people buying STs to just sell them on the re-sale market.

Try telling that to the pregnant woman who wants to keep her seat but is unlikely to be able to attend that many games. Or the cancer patient who will be receiving six months of intensive chemo etc.

[Stranded]

The ludicrous farce that is City ramps up further, now their own fans are threatening legal action against them over the changes to the club’s season tickets conditions that means fans must attend at least 10 games a season

Good move, imo - stops people buying STs to just sell them on the re-sale market.

Try telling that to the pregnant woman who wants to keep her seat but is unlikely to be able to attend that many games. Or the cancer patient who will be receiving six months of intensive chemo etc.

I get what you are saying but I can understand clubs being in a position where they have a waiting list of people wanting an ST but can tell that X number of current STs are not attending half the games - seems somewhat fair to say that if you don't attend over 50% of our league home games then maybe a ST isn't right for you and you should spend your money elsewhere (or save it).

In terms of those in situations as you describe, a club bringing in such a rule should bring in an exemption process allowing someone to not be impacted by the change in a particular season.

[Snowflake Royal]

Good move, imo - stops people buying STs to just sell them on the re-sale market.

Try telling that to the pregnant woman who wants to keep her seat but is unlikely to be able to attend that many games. Or the cancer patient who will be receiving six months of intensive chemo etc.

I get what you are saying but I can understand clubs being in a position where they have a waiting list of people wanting an ST but can tell that X number of current STs are not attending half the games - seems somewhat fair to say that if you don't attend over 50% of our league home games then maybe a ST isn't right for you and you should spend your money elsewhere (or save it).

In terms of those in situations as you describe, a club bringing in such a rule should bring in an exemption process allowing someone to not be impacted by the change in a particular season.

This. This. This.

[Dirk Gently]

Try telling that to the pregnant woman who wants to keep her seat but is unlikely to be able to attend that many games. Or the cancer patient who will be receiving six months of intensive chemo etc.

I get what you are saying but I can understand clubs being in a position where they have a waiting list of people wanting an ST but can tell that X number of current STs are not attending half the games - seems somewhat fair to say that if you don't attend over 50% of our league home games then maybe a ST isn't right for you and you should spend your money elsewhere (or save it).

In terms of those in situations as you describe, a club bringing in such a rule should bring in an exemption process allowing someone to not be impacted by the change in a particular season.

This. This. This.

Of course they should. But that's the whole point. They haven't.

There's no granularity, no exemptions, no special cases, no taking individual circumstances into account - just a set, inflexible number you must attend.

[stealthpapes]

Good move, imo - stops people buying STs to just sell them on the re-sale market.

Try telling that to the pregnant woman who wants to keep her seat but is unlikely to be able to attend that many games. Or the cancer patient who will be receiving six months of intensive chemo etc.

I get what you are saying but I can understand clubs being in a position where they have a waiting list of people wanting an ST but can tell that X number of current STs are not attending half the games - seems somewhat fair to say that if you don't attend over 50% of our league home games then maybe a ST isn't right for you and you should spend your money elsewhere (or save it).

In terms of those in situations as you describe, a club bringing in such a rule should bring in an exemption process allowing someone to not be impacted by the change in a particular season.

or - ludicrous edge cases shouldn't be the basis for inaction.

Try it out on other topics, it's great fun.

[Hendo]

I get what you are saying but I can understand clubs being in a position where they have a waiting list of people wanting an ST but can tell that X number of current STs are not attending half the games - seems somewhat fair to say that if you don't attend over 50% of our league home games then maybe a ST isn't right for you and you should spend your money elsewhere (or save it).

In terms of those in situations as you describe, a club bringing in such a rule should bring in an exemption process allowing someone to not be impacted by the change in a particular season.

This. This. This.

Of course they should. But that's the whole point. They haven't.

There's no granularity, no exemptions, no special cases, no taking individual circumstances into account - just a set, inflexible number you must attend.

Just because it isn't spelt out in any announcement doesn't mean individual cases won't be looked at.

I would imagine if it was spelt out, it would be seen as a loop-hole and those who would want to exploit it, would do so.

There is also the argument that they've got to draw the line somewhere and if there are a handful of people that are hard done by with this rule, they're in the minority - City are clearly trying to solve an issue which plagues football.

[Dirk Gently]

This. This. This.

Of course they should. But that's the whole point. They haven't.

There's no granularity, no exemptions, no special cases, no taking individual circumstances into account - just a set, inflexible number you must attend.

Just because it isn't spelt out in any announcement doesn't mean individual cases won't be looked at.

I would imagine if it was spelt out, it would be seen as a loop-hole and those who would want to exploit it, would do so.

There is also the argument that they've got to draw the line somewhere and if there are a handful of people that are hard done by with this rule, they're in the minority - City are clearly trying to solve an issue which plagues football.

I think you're being too generous to them, because it's perfectly practical to define a set of circumstances for which exceptions will be allowed, together with details of what supporting documentation is required. There are also potential solutions like permitting a temporary transfer of the ST to someone else for the period of incapacity.

But they just can't be arsed - the sledghammer to crush a nut solution is the easiest and cheapest for them. Doing the right thing will take up admin time and so cost them money so is a no-no.

[Sutekh]

Try telling that to the pregnant woman who wants to keep her seat but is unlikely to be able to attend that many games. Or the cancer patient who will be receiving six months of intensive chemo etc.

I get what you are saying but I can understand clubs being in a position where they have a waiting list of people wanting an ST but can tell that X number of current STs are not attending half the games - seems somewhat fair to say that if you don't attend over 50% of our league home games then maybe a ST isn't right for you and you should spend your money elsewhere (or save it).

In terms of those in situations as you describe, a club bringing in such a rule should bring in an exemption process allowing someone to not be impacted by the change in a particular season.

This. This. This.

The complaint I heard from the City fans was that while City actually offered an exemption process it was simply to tell fans to downgrade their ST rather than actually provide an exemption.

[Snowflake Royal]

This. This. This.

Of course they should. But that's the whole point. They haven't.

There's no granularity, no exemptions, no special cases, no taking individual circumstances into account - just a set, inflexible number you must attend.

Just because it isn't spelt out in any announcement doesn't mean individual cases won't be looked at.

I would imagine if it was spelt out, it would be seen as a loop-hole and those who would want to exploit it, would do so.

There is also the argument that they've got to draw the line somewhere and if there are a handful of people that are hard done by with this rule, they're in the minority - City are clearly trying to solve an issue which plagues football.

Again. This.