In case you missed Ben Mansford's interview

I know.
My forte is banging your Missus in the Cadbury Canal.

Yours in sport,

Stevey T.

 

Sorry to say this mate, but we split up when she got AIDS of the arsehole.

You might see out the season.

 

Luckily I've been using a prosthetic Kyel Reid **** since mine was blown off by your Mum in a tragic "queef backdraft" accident.

My favourite bit:

The Manchester-based solicitors have written to the league's chief executive, Shaun Harvey, objecting over six pages to the FFP rules, arguing they suffer from not being the same as those of the Premier League, will prevent clubs competing, restrict investment by owners .... It is likely that, unless the FFP rules are modified, the Football League should expect a challenge from any number of clubs and/or players or agents suffering sanctions or the consequences of sanctions," warns Brabners' letter.

Go on, Maurice.
Stick up for those poor Premier League & Overseas owned clubs.

I agree with Gordon, it's not black & white.
It's a complex issue ... but Ben stating the obvious downfalls of FFP (which are outweighed by the positives by a factor of 23 billion) while Maurice defends the clubs who, in my opinion, have the most to lose by FFP is simply staggering.

Insert something about "spoff" here ...

 

Just listened to that. Can't fault Ben. Always speaks very well.

As for the last WSB bit...... unexpected, although very greatful.

Top lad

 

Didn't know you could read.

 

I think some fecker has stolen my password.
Erm, tits, jizz, spoff and all that.

Again - I think Ben speaks really well ... very impressed by him.
But it doesn't compensate for the actions of Maurice & Barry.

On a stick. Sideways. In a soup. Au gratin.

 

I agree. Ben has come across very well this year (I've even said so in the latest issue of WSB, available at most **** shops).

And if Maurice was challenging FFP on behalf of Barnsley football club then absolutely fine. Explain the reasons, why it doesn't benefit us and then do so. But his links to the practice challenging it on behalf of clubs owned by faceless millionaires so they can spend what they want isn't what I want. And as for Barry, Ben's done a good job of trying to imply he was badly quoted and misinterpreted but the fact remains that our Director would seemingly accept a name change in the hope that a bloke would come in and loan us £75 million. I don't know anyone that wants that.

 

The real problem is the idea that anything can fix the huge disparity between revenue streams between the Premiership and the Championship. Its like someone holding out a carrot with £60m quid written on it, whilst in the other hand there is a rubber stick saying naughty boy. It is the disparity that attracted foreign owners, encouraged cheating and created a culture that is ripe for exploitation by solicitors and barristers. The game has gone mad and you were right when you said so often, "Football is ****". It is also bent.

 

That's the point I was trying to explain to Gordon.
If Maurice was challenging FFP for the reasons Ben mentioned, then fine ... but he isn't.
Conspiracy theories are generally cobbled together by mentalists from rumour & half truths, but the facts in this case are in the public domain.
I can't see what's so difficult to understand.

Don't get me started on Barry. I hope his Farahs sponateously combust.

 

Just because something that is pretty **** has been explained nicely doesn't make it any less ****.

 

Agreed, but doing nothing about it will just make it worse.
The principle of FFP is to protect football clubs who don't have billionaire benefactors and make the playing field a little more level.
Totally agree about the carrot & stick ... and I also agree with Jay about wage caps etc.
But, again, the principle of FFP has to be fought for.
Football is **** now ... but if we're not careful it will be inaccessible and ****.
The game is slipping away from us - and if we let politicians like Blatter and bloody Solicitors like Maurice rule the roost, then we're doomed - DOOMED I SAY.

Lovely weather out there today.

 

He interviews very, very well does our Ben. He's an impressive individual.
However - he skirted 'round the two things I wanted to know about.
That may have thrown some off the scent, but not me.

Great that he wants to engage with WSB too.
I suggest you interview him.
Over a game of Twister.

 

I was very surprised and pleased when I heard his reaction. I think he understands what we're about (or at least he's saying that in public).

He actually writes for us. He's the one that does all the really good ones with no name attached and some daft Scott Wiseman images.

 

got my stones question answered - well sort of. Sidestepped it with a "confidentiality clause". In other words - we dont want to embarass ourselves even more than what we have done already with the sale.

 

Yeah using confindentiality to get out of answering the question I guess Don Rowing was right when he said their were no clauses

 

Okay. Listened to it all now.
Again - he speaks extremely well ... very pleased he's with us.

However: he clearly states that Maurice will be pushing to change FFP (not with regards to parachute or embargo) but to allow clubs to lose more money than they agreed to previously (I think he states £12.8m ... which basically doubles previous losses agreed).
Great.
That's just great.

We make £900k & get relegated.
Other clubs gamble tens of millions on promotion & Maurice jumps on board good ship cash-cow.
It's wrong, Jay. However I look at it ... it's wrong.

I know I'm a gobby tit, but we can't hide from the fact that our Chairman is supporting something designed to make things more difficult for the club he is representing.

 

There is another way, but it is radical and you may hate it.

If the Football League breaks the link with the Premier League that promotion and relegation affords it, then there is no incentive for billionaire foreign owners to chase the carrot and there is not the inequality in the league structure that comes from parachute payments. I have not thought all the consequences through yet, but for the good of the game, this might be the best solution.

 

I don't disagree with you, but your original arguments seem to suggest that Brabners and BM are both fighting the same battle and share the same argument, which they are not, hence I don't see why BM should get any stick about what Brabners are doing. I'm pretty sure that, whilst BM raises some valid points about how the FFP may have negative effects on us and clubs like us, he would be much more comfortable if his chairman's company wasn't representing the clubs he is, because their reasons for challenging the FFP are nothing to do with the interests of clubs like us.

Personally, and I've said it before, MW either needs to dissassociate himself from the representation of the clubs his firm is representing, or he needs to step down as BFC chairman. I get that he is a lawyer, everybody deserves representation and his employees have families to feed and I have no problem with that, but if the head of Childline was a lawyer and his firm started defending paedophiles I don't think that argument would stick.

 

The problem with fannying around with FFP before it's actually been tested us that it over complicates and already complicated idea. Surely the best way to look at it would be to have a 3 year trial period with rolling annual reviews to adjust the areas that it is agreed are not working. I think there is clearly a conflict of interest between the actions of Watkins firm and BFC though not necessarily between Watkins himself and BFC. I think the interview overstates the negatives and underestimates the positive. What is clear is that football in it's current state is dying.

Hate football love Barnsley.

 

Talking about getting the younger players in, a made in Barnsley route. Try and get 3 loans in and say a number of academy graduates in the 18 every match.

Expectation would be to challenge to get promoted or at least put a lot of challenge in for that next season. Doesn't think League one will have the budgets in it of this season and Barnsley will be one of the bigger teams in it.

They have an idea of the players they would like to keep, Wants characters in the changing room but the league where in will have a big say.

John Stones. Ben doesn't say but from what he does say and reading between the lines I think there is a sell on clause and maybe international cap bonus. ''If the Barnsley want to cheer for John stones to go to the world cup and do well then that would be well received.''.

Maurice will do whats best for BFC but his Law firm are challenging it with some of there lawyers. Repeat some of his colleagues not Watkins himself. They will vote for the best of Barnsley. They want clubs to buy players. Fine then, don't stop them buying players.

Talks about Chris O'Grady, Luke Steele and Martin Cranie. Say they may want to keep them up ultimately it might be down to the player.

Talks about Paul Digby who had a op 10 days ago. Says whichever division Barnsley are in next season Digby will hopefully be a big part of the season. People are talking about John Stones, just wait until Digby gets going.

Those who have seen Digby at youth level will understand that comment, get Digby fit and firing and we'll have a player on our hands that clubs at Championship level can't buy.

Says the days of this Football club selling players cheaply are gone. Looks like theres more to come from the Golbourne deal with them going up.

We've spent money this season and the scoreboard turned out not to be higher of the priority list.. If we stay up then it's something they will revisit in the summer.

If the Rotherham rugby union team get promoted then Barnsley WILL benefit from it. All this BS the other day of Barnsley not owning the ground was rubbish. The club's owned by the same people who own the ground. Barnsley again WILL get money if they use the ground.

Talks about Barry Taylor and also mentioned that the club would be down by 3 million if relegated. Saw a few posters mention 6 million on here the other day. So thought i'd mention that. We currently get 4.2 I think from FL and they would get around 1.2 ish if they went down.

On the barry stuff, sorry I disagree with Dyson and the others. Someone wants to invest 70 million in to Barnsley Football Club they could change the name in to what they want.

Personal note.

Ben Mansford and Maurice Watkins are massive for us in the transfer window,