UK time is: 09:38:28
Vital Login
Social Login

Choose your club

Other Sites

Network Navigation

Vital Partners

'If It's Football, It's Vital'

Report Abusive Comment


Thank you for the alert, before you submit it, PLEASE make sure it is a worthy alert.

We canít cater for whether you like another user or not, and please do bear in mind all our editors are in full time jobs and as an independent network, we are low on resources. Valid alerts are very welcome, please make sure your alert is valid!

If you require an answer, please make sure that your registered email is a current one. Please note we canít guarantee that we will respond to every alert but every alert will be looked at.

We thank you for your help in keeping Vital the leading place for sports fans views.

---------------------------------------


Please enter a category.
Comment:
Couch - not casting doubt but clearly looking to clarify!. IF the income for the trading period April 09 to March 10 was as you suggest £35M, ( direct P L monies let's exclude the trading activity number of £11M in order that we can identify the Prem Monies only) then two separate parachute drops would need to make up the final£25M to get us to the assumed £60M ( £35m initial drop+£25 split two seasons= £60M) so I guess we need to establish what was the Parachute payment last year and is it correct to suggest our final payment is £16M this year, if this figure is correct that means we would over 3 years have had PL income ABOVE the suggested £60M, because some would suggest there is a weighting issue and we would have received a larger parachute last year than the £16M for this our final year, also it would be improbable that it would reach £90M but probable than we would exceed the original £60M do you agree Couch? ...

Posted By: hollinsclaret

Date/Time: 22/07/2011 12:26:00

Category:

Please add any additional comment you feel may be relevant