What are you basing that statement on Pablo? The only club I know a bit about were seeking clarification on the matter, and clubs who are currently spending more than 65% of turnover on wages (all of them I presume) will not wish to have that curtailed. If they think they'll get away with spending 65% of net income, they will.
All clubs that have asked the FAi for clarification and received no response can quite legitimately claim they are doing nothing wrong by spending 65% of income.
Most of us (fans) agree its a good thing and I'm sure in time the clubs will agree, but as ****ing usual the implemention of this by the FAi has been a shambles
54,321 sold - wws will never die - ***
---
New blog if anyone's interested - http://loihistory.wordpress.com/
LOI section on balls.ie - http://balls.ie/league-of-ireland/
Actually, standard accounting practice does not provide comprehensive definitions on what constitutes turnover, it just provides genaral guidance, hence some of the major accounting scandals over the years (e.g. Enron).
If it's simply "turnover" what's to stop directors of a club "sponsoring" the club for, say, €100,000 and then have the club "sponsor" them for the same amount? "Turnover" for the club would be €100,000 under standard accounting rules and the club could thereby spend €65,000 on player costs that it doesn't actually have.
It's for that reason that the FAI have to define what they will allow to be included as "turnover" in their 65% formula.
54,321 sold - wws will never die - ***
---
New blog if anyone's interested - http://loihistory.wordpress.com/
LOI section on balls.ie - http://balls.ie/league-of-ireland/
Bookmarks