daveyboy66 Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 3 minutes ago, handworth52 said: well I predicted 2016/17 wage bill to massively increase from 17 million to 26 million and got slated for it, when figures were released at the end of feb of this year there were even higher at 27 million , last season I reckon 28-29 million wont find that out till next feb . been in the shiiiiiite clearly aint what I want . if we didn't have a clueless idiot in carlos and chansiri taking his and others stupid advise we wouldn't have the likes of jones,boyd ,abdi on our books draining us . Ah Carlos...the trump card Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ever the pessimist Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 1 hour ago, punkskaphil said: Hopefully nothing. Birmingham signed a player for £2million whilst under their embargo. We didn't. We did, however, get players signed up to new contracts. Hopefully the FL recognise that this is actually financially prudent as gives us greater value assets rather than us being cavalier. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HIGHERSTATE Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 My girlfriend the hull fan replied 'still winning!' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birley Owl 1867 Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 1 hour ago, WelshOwl74 said: best memory of Birmingham ,was when we played them at their place in the FA cup under megson and some chav was giving it large in the home stand and Wednesdayites where singing 'tracksuit from Matalan' at him Had that song in my head all way home Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 I think some might be overly optimistic on this. We know we are ok this season but unless we raise revenue get promoted DC has said we might face the same. I think we can assume Birmingham are the test case here and we will follow suit unless we sort our losses out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrickyTrev Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 So Birmingham get a 12 point fine and the likes of Leicester and Bournemouth get a fine which is easily payable now they’re in the Premier League? It seems to me that it’s just random punishments all over the place. Still, if they do get deducted 12 points that’s one relegation spot we don’t have to worry about, the other will be taken by Toy Town so that’s just one left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Bluesteel said: I think some might be overly optimistic on this. We know we are ok this season but unless we raise revenue get promoted DC has said we might face the same. I think we can assume Birmingham are the test case here and we will follow suit unless we sort our losses out. Do any of us really have a clue? The whole things seems completely arbitrary to me. If we release several first teamers, flog Rhodes then it would be hard for the EFL to turn around and accuse us of not trying to mitigate our losses? Birmingham have signed a player whilst under embargo. We haven't done that. Edited September 7, 2018 by SiJ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 In fact, the main point of contention appears to be the signing of Pedersen. Birmingham have completely ignored the rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StudentOwl Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 36 minutes ago, Ever the pessimist said: We did, however, get players signed up to new contracts. Hopefully the FL recognise that this is actually financially prudent as gives us greater value assets rather than us being cavalier. Did we? Can you remember what ones? To my memory the only player we sorted the contract out for was Nuhiu, and that was because it was within four weeks of expiring and thus means we could actually sort out his contract (you can't renew players under contract but as he was at the end of his it's all different) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yellowbelly Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 50 minutes ago, Minton said: To stop clubs just spending whatever they like and making the league completely biased. It's a level playing field with P&S, rich owner or not, the clubs are constrained by the same rules, rich or poor. It is completely biased though - towards clubs that have recently been relegated and have parachute payments & saleable assets. There are many models to run a successful club and all FFP etc. does is remove the owner investment option. This may seem a controversial opinion but if a club mismanages it’s budgets and goes bust then, in all honesty, tough. Failure in football can be attributed to many things - poor players, poor performances, bad management, injury crisis or bad ownership and lousy financial control. You pays yer money & you take yer chances. We’ve just endured a 20 year slump which included relegation to the third tier and all the while being relatively healthy & secure financially. Leeds were on the brink of financial ruin and yet are arguably in a healthier position than ourselves despite massive financial mismanagement. Meaning long term these things generally make little or no difference a football club. Yes Yes Portsmouth etc - but some would say they’ve found their natural level and it was the fact the owners spent all that money that gave them any idea of what success in football was in the first place - experiencing the highs have made the lows seem disproportionately worse. But the main thing for me is that you can’t just introduce something at second tier level and disregard the effect that will have on the clubs trying to achieve promotion to the next level. It just widens the gap to an unrealistic level and cements the leagues in place. Remove owner investment and you take away the chance of an ambitious owner wanting to invest and revolutionise a club - like Man City or Chelsea before them. If football is now a business then a club should be allowed to operate like one - with all the risks of failure attached. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 (edited) 40 minutes ago, Ever the pessimist said: We did, however, get players signed up to new contracts. Hopefully the FL recognise that this is actually financially prudent as gives us greater value assets rather than us being cavalier. This isn't a breach though. We did this once the embargo was lifted. Under p and s you can only renew contracts upon expiration, which was the case with Nuhiu and Pudil. Bannan and Joao renewed after the embargo was lifted. Edited September 7, 2018 by SiJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Chow Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 Should just fine clubs by deducting points that’s the only way things will stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 15 minutes ago, SiJ said: Do any of us really have a clue? The whole things seems completely arbitrary to me. If we release several first teamers, flog Rhodes then it would be hard for the EFL to turn around and accuse us of not trying to mitigate our losses? Birmingham have signed a player whilst under embargo. We haven't done that. I don’t think anyone knows exactly, but given what we’ve been told by the chairman and the accounts posted to date then it’s easy to make an assumption. The treatment of solvent clubs with money to spend as if they are in admin in the name of sustainability doesn’t seem right to me. But if it comes to fruition with Birmingham then presumably we would fall somewhere on the scale if we breach the rules albeit with some mitigating factors in terms of putting it right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluesteel Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 I think if clubs owners want to spend and write off losses so there is no debt or minimal debt then they could achieve the same outcome. The curb on spending isn’t really making it a fair competition any more than a free market would. But if a punishment was needed surely just denying promotion would sort it as it makes the spending pointless. Rather than deductions and relegation which could ruin a club for years and affects the supporters unfairly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 I know why P and S is in place...they want to clubs going into administration, spending more than they have and so on. Thing is, they face the prospect of turning the league into a complete sham. For all intents and purposes, you can only be punished if you don't go up or if you're relegated the season after promotion. The fines handed out to the likes of Leicester and Bournemouth were laughable. QPR were forced to pay 40 million? No way that happens if QPR were still in the Prem. You've also got the prospect of relegation and promotion being decided by committee. I might be wrong, but isn't the EFL governed by its member clubs i.e, the chairman of each club has some sort of say? Seems like a system ripe for exploitation by those minded to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luke Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 56 minutes ago, Birley Owl 1867 said: Had that song in my head all way home only time I've gone home laughing after a 3 nil loss Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minton Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 31 minutes ago, Yellowbelly said: with all the risks of failure attached. Without P&S / FFP what are those risks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maddogbob Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 2 hours ago, Minton said: This is the first season with the new P&S rules and Birmingham are the first to fall foul of them, so they will throw the book at them as a deterrent. FFP was mocked for being toothless and clubs weren't bothered about the financial penalties, so the EFL have set out the new rules with the punishments being fines, embargoes, points deductions or any of those 3 combined. 12 points is the same penalty as going into administration, so it's hardly a random figure. Yeah I see what you mean. I think im just getting ffp and p&s all muddled into one. I'll change my statement and say it feels very random to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherlyegg Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 Any punishment for a breech, will be given during the same season as the breech took place. (endeavor too, they say) So I would imagine we will be watching very carefully what the Brums get. 12 pts won't be far off, or 6 and a massive fine.... But given the punishment was never known upfront the Brums will have case. Will end up going on for months imho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vulva Posted September 7, 2018 Share Posted September 7, 2018 The League do right. Fans have moaned (rightfully) for years about money ruining the game and the League are clamping down. Best thing for football would be for Sky and the other big players to go bust. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now