John Terry Ate My Hamster

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About John Terry Ate My Hamster

  • Rank
    CFCnet Member

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Team
  1. New Stadium Plans

    Based on matchday income Arsenal and Man Utd should be miles ahead of anyone else, as it happens we've won as many major domestic and European trophies as both of them combined during the 10 years you've been having conversations about it. Based on capacity we should be finishing one place above Sheffield Wednesday, and in three years time West Ham will have just pipped Newcastle to 3rd in the league. Based on the reality of TV money increasing at a rate of knots, as well as sponsorship and prize money etc, we'll cope better than most in an era when matchday revenue's shrinking as a proportion of earnings for all PL clubs.
  2. New Stadium Plans

    Always depressing to read views like this. For the majority of matchgoing fans, the day we move from the Fulham Road is the day a big part of the club dies. We don't need an extra £200m, certainly not at that cost anyway.
  3. Name Change

  4. Name Change

    Think you're getting confused with this imposter -
  5. Name Change

    Can someone change my name from Caspar to John Terry Ate My Hamster please? Cheers in advance.
  6. Non Chelsea: Premier League

    Yes but you fail to take into account the cultural differences between Uruguay and here - sticking up a middle finger roughly translates to "hi mate" in uruguayan.
  7. CFC Offer To Buy Back CPO Shares. Stadium Move On The Cards?

    So what if he did, everyone's entitled to make their own decision.
  8. Josh Mc Eachran

    After years of not quite getting round to it I finally did the SB stadium tour yesterday. Probably the most striking thing was seeing the home team dressing room (in which each locker has the player's name and number engraved) now has a permanent locker for Big Josh. In contrast Daniel Sturridge's had the number 23 written on in biro where the brass number plaque should be. I appreciate it's far from sound logic but I interpret that as a pretty positive sign that JMcE won't be loaned out this season, and will be almost exclusively involved with the 1st team this year rather than the reserves.
  9. Didier Drogba

    I know it's not necessarily a popular opinion but I can't help but feel that Torres minus Drogba = good season for Torres next year, whereas Torres plus Drogba = bad season for both. I'm struggling to get excited over Gourlay's comments if I'm honest.
  10. New Kits

    I can't stand Arsenal and/or Nike but even I have to say they've got it spot on with their kits the last few years and this year is no different. Sleek, elegant and simple, even the training gear at the bottom looks like it was designed more for people to wear to the ground on a matchday - Adidas, please take note and stop pissing around with body armour, dark patches on the back, electric green etc etc.
  11. Media / Press

    It's a bunch of cliched, unoriginal mutterings from a journo who pretends to know a lot about Roman, a man I doubt he's ever met or spoken to. Next.
  12. New Kits

    The away one is just an old Le Coq Sportif kit (89/90?) with the new logo and Adidas put on it. Very poor attempt at a wind up.
  13. Chelsea Finances Thread

    Yes, it is only losses that are restricted, decrementally to €5m. The Club Licensing Regulations document makes no restrictions whatsoever on capital injections, quite the opposite in fact, it insists on this being the method of covering the losses allowed above €5m. The spirit of the regulations is effectively to encourage owners injecting money (on the basis that debt is a bigger evil than non-football money being pumped into the game), but just not to CFC / MCFC levels of free spending. Anyway, take a look at the document to see for yourselves. Link - The relevant parts are: - - Article 58 - definitions of income and expenses - Article 61 - acceptable deviations - note here it states "The acceptable deviation is EUR 5 million. However it can exceed this level up to the following amounts only if such excess is entirely covered by contributions from equity participants and/or related parties" - Annex X item D - definition of "Contributions from equity participants and/or related party(ies)" Obviously I can't reference the part where restrictions on capital injections are not mentioned, but take a look, there's no limits in there as to how much can be put in as equity. However as previously mentioned although owners can put in as much as they like, there remains restrictions on how much can then be spent.
  14. Chelsea Finances Thread

    In theory probably not. But even as a ST holder I'd probably rather they got £90m in aid, food and medical supplies than an adidas top, just so we can buy another couple of Shevchenkos. I'm not sure 'generous' is the right term for what you're suggesting!
  15. Chelsea Finances Thread

    OK, so your basic point is 'where there's a will, there's a way' which may be true to a limited extent but I'll disect your post and point out the obvious flaws. As with most clubs CFC is owned by a holding company so that part's irrelevant. The offshore part is also unrelated to FPP so I won't go into that. But consider two questions - - If Roman was one of the main proponents in encouraging Platini to come up with rules that limit spending in the first place, why would he now in one hit inject more money now than he has in total between 2003 - 2011? - Wider than Chelsea but with a specific emphasis on Man City. Clubs already have to report all relevant financial data to the FA and UEFA annually, and it's safe to assume that these kinds of figures could not be hidden from them. UEFA are both the lawmakers and the police on these rules, and it's clearly very important to Platini personally. So, why would a) they let any club, especially an English club, attempt to manipulate their own rules right under their noses? And b) say Man City's lawyers found a loophole why would it not be closed immediately? UEFA don't answer to anyone on these rules, so if they want them to work they will make them work, what makes you think any differently? The transfer scenario you outlined (SWP to Oilriggers FC) was relevant to the provision I highlighted "relevant income and expenses from related parties must be adjusted to reflect the fair value of any such transactions" So you think that after the work UEFA have put into this, their intention is to watch the pennies and ignore the pounds? Yes, I don't doubt there will be, in much the same way that companies and rich individuals manage to avoid some of their tax liabilities. But take the mickey and UEFA will, for the sake of their own credibility, chuck you out the CL (doubly quick if you're English, and trebly quick if your name starts with Chelsea and ends with FC). So in short yes I'm sure clubs will test the boundaries, but no not to anywhere near the extent being suggested. Ignoring for a moment the very clear rules on having ownership or interests in more than one club (for which Roman was previously investigated just for sponsoring CSKA Moscow) that's an otherwise flawless idea. Very debatable. Sheikh Mansour has met with Platini and assured him they will comply. Garry Cook has publicly stated on a few occasions that they have every intention of complying, and are confident they can do so. And finally Mancini has said after this year they will only look to add 2-3 players max per season. What from that suggests they couldn't care less about the rules? They will have a clearout in the summer and will be fine initially given the £39m leeway, and then have a few years to worry about getting annual CL football and otherwise getting turnover up to a level that will sustain them. I'd also expect them, in the next 2-3 years to buy the COMS from Manchester City Council so they'll no longer pay rent, take 100% of football gate recipts, get the current income from non-football events and give them the option of selling the naming rights. That alone could save / earn them up to £40m a year which is probably more than their current annual losses ignoring transfer fees. They'll be fine, within the rules.