wilsdenrover

In some instances yes - for example, I’m not convinced we’d have won 3-0 in Pakistan playing the more traditional way.

I disagree that they’ve done okay - I think they’ve merely relied on the fact some fans will renew/buy ‘whatever the price’.

He doesn’t seem to comprehend that the same tactic can be good against one team but not against another.

Further questions( in bold) and answers given - it doesn’t look like that humility is coming any time soon… Is the plan just to keep continuing with the attacking approach?: "We've seen in the last year this is how this team operates, gets boundaries and break records. We have the courage to see how far we can take it. What is your response to the criticism of your approach?: "People will have their opinions. We have our idea, part of that was taking the option today. "I'm not going to get into this argument, no-one said it was reckless versus New Zealand, no-one said it was reckless when Joe Root played that reverse scoop. We tried to get them off that length and score."

Our spin bowling coach was asked after today’s play: ’Is it approach over result?’ He answered with: ’It is until after day five’ What does that even mean??

and learn from your mistakes (whether that’s tactics, mindset, or execution)

Common sense and humility.

Do we claw any of that expense back through no longer having the costs of maintaining the training ground or is this still the club’s responsibility?

Haven’t we been with Macron for two years?

I believe it was the ‘pulled out of their arse’ method 😁

Wham - Last Christmas

Would have taken that at the start of the day.

I’ve edited my previous post to include what I think must be the rule you’re referring to. It looks like it covers the sale of tangible assets whether that’s to a connected party or not.

Thank you for the clarification. I’m presuming its part (b) of the following?: 1.1.4 Adjusted Earnings Before Tax means Earnings Before Tax adjusted to exclude: (a) costs (or estimated costs as the case may be) in respect of the following: (i) depreciation and/or impairment of tangible fixed assets (net of any capital grants); (ii) amortisation or impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets (but excluding amortisation and/or impairment of the costs of players’ registrations); (iii) Women’s Football Expenditure; (iv) Youth Development Expenditure; (v) Community Development Expenditure; and (vi) in respect of Seasons 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22 only, COVID-19 Costs; and (b) with effect from, and including the Accounting Reference Period covering Season 2021/22, profit/loss on disposal of any tangible fixed asset. See @KentExile I told you it was dangerous to defer to my knowledge 😁

Not to worry 👍

You asked me what the contradiction in Chaddy’s post was - I was just trying to explain.

Sounds dangerous to me 😁

Would it not come under the following part of the regulation? 1.1.8 Associated Party Transaction means any transaction, whether directly or indirectly, between a Club and an Associated Party. In considering whether a transaction is an Associated Party Transaction, The League will direct its attention to the substance of the transaction and not merely the legal form. Which, as far as I understand it, means such transactions are allowed but they will be scrutinised more closely to ensure they are for the true market value.

Thank you again 👍

1. The fact we didn’t bowl well doesn’t alter the fact the conditions were ideal. 2. Therefore Anderson clearly has had ideal conditions to bowl in. 3. Therefore that can’t be used as an argument against him being over the hill* * Just to be clear, I don’t think he is over the hill. Edit to add - I agree with most of the rest of your post, the bit I disagree with is that it’s our worst attack for a decade (don’t ask me to name a worse one though!)

I guess that increases your chances of winning the argument 😁

I see your logic about Huddersfield et al. I’m sure we could make lots of arguments about Everton 😁

Under FFP you can lose £5 million a season but this rises to £13 million with owner ‘contributions’. This is assessed over a three year period so essentially you can lose £15 million (or £39 million) over this period. Owner contributions must be in the form equity, which ‘on paper’ increases the value of the club (they’re clearly not going to get all their money back!). I don’t know if this is the reason for this injection but it’s why they usually do it.