latemodelchild Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 11 minutes ago, owls_wawaw said: Think it will be Birmingham mate who will be made an example off And we will get the same punishment. The FA are just itching to give it to us you know. It's the Wednesday way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asteener1867 Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 The EFL have to take some blame...Cos here we are..not knowing the punishment for doing what we are apparently doing ... "Any club breaking FFP may get a 10 point sanction"? Thats how i read it...It should categorically state "WILL get a 10 point sanction" shouldn't it? Its like yer mam sayin' "Now stop it off"...She doesn't really sound angry so you carry on..Then yer Dad comes out... Lets hope our Dad doesn't come out eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owls_wawaw Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 But haven't we followed the guidelines of the embargo Birmingham haven't by signing that Denmark player and the efl said they were disappointed with them for their actions also I have seen if they received officiall offers for Che Adams and didn't sell him that's Birmingham again going against efl wishes which will bring another sanction and points deduction???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roscoe P. Coltrane Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 2 hours ago, Southie_Owl said: The whole system seems flawed. Even the 3 year loss limit is dodgy, as when a team like Wolves spends absolute millions in one season - how does that make it a fair competition for everyone else in that season? If they wanted it to be fair it should be a season spending limit and if you breach it you get deducted points, whatever league you end up in. That would make all clubs think twice about they spend. Plus the parachute payments need to be scraped, but that’s always been true Wolves did what we should have done Really go for it instead of playing at it Oh and they didn't break FFP either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asteener1867 Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 4 minutes ago, owls_wawaw said: But haven't we followed the guidelines of the embargo Birmingham haven't by signing that Denmark player and the efl said they were disappointed with them for their actions also I have seen if they received officiall offers for Che Adams and didn't sell him that's Birmingham again going against efl wishes which will bring another sanction and points deduction???? Its a bit laughable though "THe EFL is "Disappointed".... Its like your Dad catchin' you smoking and saying... "I'm really disappointed in you" "Yea sorry Dad...you got a light tho?" I mean..its bloody lukewarm isn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asteener1867 Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 6 minutes ago, owls_wawaw said: But haven't we followed the guidelines of the embargo Birmingham haven't by signing that Denmark player and the efl said they were disappointed with them for their actions also I have seen if they received officiall offers for Che Adams and didn't sell him that's Birmingham again going against efl wishes which will bring another sanction and points deduction???? What if Che Adams says he doesn't want to move? How can the EFL override that? Seriously?..Its not the bloody slave trade.. Che Adams says "No thanks me families settled in Birmingham and I think it would be detrimental to their well being should I move" What can the EFL do in that situation? Bring the bailiffs in? Theres stacks of ways around it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Tibbs Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 2 hours ago, Costello 77 said: Hoarding players is totally wrong. Buying players to stop your opposition having them is pathetic. The greedy players and their agents get what they deserve. Scott Parker is a prime example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asteener1867 Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Sergeant Tibbs said: Buying players to stop your opposition having them is pathetic. The greedy players and their agents get what they deserve. Scott Parker is a prime example. Chelsea are shocking at that mate....I agree its abhorrent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owls_wawaw Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 19 minutes ago, asteener1867 said: What if Che Adams says he doesn't want to move? How can the EFL override that? Seriously?..Its not the bloody slave trade.. Che Adams says "No thanks me families settled in Birmingham and I think it would be detrimental to their well being should I move" What can the EFL do in that situation? Bring the bailiffs in? Theres stacks of ways around it From what I read mate they rejected all approaches and offers for him so you could say he had absolutely no say or input about going. If they are proven to have rejected deals with the situation they are In they will receive extra punishment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asteener1867 Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 1 minute ago, owls_wawaw said: From what I read mate they rejected all approaches and offers for him so you could say he had absolutely no say or input about going. If they are proven to have rejected deals with the situation they are In they will receive extra punishment Yea but birminham only have to offer Che a bung and say they did..... Surely the EFL can't forcibly move a player? all these loopholes will be covered by the clubs unless they are totally f.ookin' clueless... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quist Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 The rules need revising. You can not allow one team to have greater losses than others especially when they have potentially had greater income in previous years. We had more than 10 years of no investment and quite a bit of DC investment went into getting us up to the standard of average Championship team. many things had been neglected at club and we suffered from trying to bridge gap quickly. The suggestion to reduce squad size I can see would have some impact but when you consider influence of Agents who have ripped off many a novice owner you could be left with a set of players who are not fit for league they were bought. The implementation of the rules is nigh on impossible and is likely to have the opposite effect of sustainability on a club. For example we could not sign players, this leads to dissatisfaction of fans and as a result loss of income to club so you start spiral of decline of income. The article does not mention Bolton who satisfied rules but took players from other clubs did not pay for them which left players and other clubs in mire. How is this right when you stop a club signing a player who can afford to pay for them. I am certain current rules do not work and although I accept some rules need to be in place they have got it wrong with current rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Musn't Grumble Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 6 hours ago, Weshallovercome said: Great article, funnily enough it brought up something I was moaning about yesterday. I think it's scandalous relegated prem clubs are allowed to lose nearly 3 times more over 3 seasons than established champ clubs. We should all have to adhere to the same rules or it makes a mockery of the whole thing, although I think parachute payments do that anyway, to me it's always been unfair to 'reward teams' for relegation, they should have to cut their cloth accordingly, this could be done simply by giving payers contracts that cover for relegation. Parachute payments are unfair for a myriad of reasons, but mainly it inflates transfer fees and wages of champ players, which pushes the rest to have to overspend to compete, which in turn creates the mess most champ clubs are in, it needs scrapping to safeguard the whole EFL from overspending. Or the EFL could simply take the parachute payments out of the calculation altogether. If relegated PL clubs had to be sustainable without the parachute payments in their new circumstances, that would level the playing field. Besides, aren't parachute payments designed to help the club fulfil their contractual arrangements with players and staff so that they get paid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asteener1867 Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 2 minutes ago, Musn't Grumble said: Or the EFL could simply take the parachute payments out of the calculation altogether. If relegated PL clubs had to be sustainable without the parachute payments in their new circumstances, that would level the playing field. Besides, aren't parachute payments designed to help the club fulfil their contractual arrangements with players and staff so that they get paid? How about they get the payments as they go up? Like errr..."Rocket payments" Owt they don't spend is taken offa them should they be relegated .... I mean it might need some work, but at least its reward for success rather than failure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Tibbs Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 55 minutes ago, asteener1867 said: Chelsea are shocking at that mate....I agree its abhorrent Offering 80k a week to an 18y old year old who isn't a first team regular is obscene. Whwn there house of cards finally falls down, I'll have a good chuckle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sham67 Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 43 minutes ago, asteener1867 said: Yea but birminham only have to offer Che a bung and say they did..... Surely the EFL can't forcibly move a player? all these loopholes will be covered by the clubs unless they are totally f.ookin' clueless... Are they going to 'bung' the clubs who haven't been allowed to speak to him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asteener1867 Posted February 3, 2019 Share Posted February 3, 2019 1 minute ago, Sham67 said: Are they going to 'bung' the clubs who haven't been allowed to speak to him? If they said...Adams is happy here and he doesn't want to talk to anyone..Why would they have to? 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