Jump to content

No embargo this summer


Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, fpowl said:

I heard the interview and took it differently 

 

bruce was asked if we was under a soft embargo and said no and then said he doesn’t even known when the transfer window opens 

 

im sure when the EFL look into the accounts they will make the decision then 

 

let’s hope it takes  them ages and we’ve made our signings already 

No we were under embargo from April last year. We have to send provisional accounts in to them early March. Therefore if we were going to be under embargo we would be under one now. 

 

A lot of the hype about embargo was just that. We were under embargo last summer and we got out of it the nature of sustainability is once you fall foul of rules you have to have to have plan to get back within guidelines. if you follow plan you will be ok. Our expenditure has been restrained and probably will continue to be as we have to stick to plan we agreed with EFL Sacking of JL and appointment of SB only great deviation from plan I would think. 

 

We have been told we will not be spending big and evidence suggested we would not. I suspect Bruce will try and offload some players who are not in plans going forward. 

 

Think DCs comments about embargo were as much about straightjacket we are operating in which is a restraint on what we could do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Quist said:

No we were under embargo from April last year. We have to send provisional accounts in to them early March. Therefore if we were going to be under embargo we would be under one now. 

 

A lot of the hype about embargo was just that. We were under embargo last summer and we got out of it the nature of sustainability is once you fall foul of rules you have to have to have plan to get back within guidelines. if you follow plan you will be ok. Our expenditure has been restrained and probably will continue to be as we have to stick to plan we agreed with EFL Sacking of JL and appointment of SB only great deviation from plan I would think. 

 

We have been told we will not be spending big and evidence suggested we would not. I suspect Bruce will try and offload some players who are not in plans going forward. 

 

Think DCs comments about embargo were as much about straightjacket we are operating in which is a restraint on what we could do.

I really don’t know how this works I can understand the football league being satisfied we are tacking steps to get our finances in order however with the wage bill what it was this season we have surely breached the maximum losses again over the three year period so how can that go unpunished

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, fpowl said:

I heard the interview and took it differently 

 

bruce was asked if we was under a soft embargo and said no and then said he doesn’t even known when the transfer window opens 

 

im sure when the EFL look into the accounts they will make the decision then 

 

let’s hope it takes  them ages and we’ve made our signings already 

Doesnt know when transfer window opens.... yes right. Just about every fan knows this, let alone managers

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, billyblack said:

Doesnt know when transfer window opens.... yes right. Just about every fan knows this, let alone managers

That’s what the man said after the qpr game 

 

he asked if the transfer window was open now because he’s unsure 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, fpowl said:

I really don’t know how this works I can understand the football league being satisfied we are tacking steps to get our finances in order however with the wage bill what it was this season we have surely breached the maximum losses again over the three year period so how can that go unpunished

Seems to be lots of grey areas around FFP to me. Keep hearing talk of teams operating under an 'EFL business plan.' Does that mean all transfer activity has to be sanctioned by the EFL I wonder?

 

What does an EFL business plan look like? Are you given a few windows to show you're bringing your spending back in line with the permitted losses as an example?  If so, we've been operating pretty sensibly for the last 4 windows with a view to decreasing our losses.

 

We've shown by releasing high earners such as Hooper, Abdi, Jones and Boyd that we're bringing down the wage bill significantly. If it truly is a 'business plan' that the EFL are looking for then there has to be some agreement on remaining competitive whilst balancing the books - otherwise it's just a fire sale which is no sort of plan at all 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, fpowl said:

I really don’t know how this works I can understand the football league being satisfied we are tacking steps to get our finances in order however with the wage bill what it was this season we have surely breached the maximum losses again over the three year period so how can that go unpunished

 

I can only presume the projected plan we agreed with the EFL last summer allowed for the fact we would overspend this season in the knowledge that the players wage bill would be greatly reduced from this summer onwards.  As long as we are seen to be minimising our expenditure & complying with the plan the EFL will be ok with us. Either that or DC has generated other income that we're not yet aware of. EG stadium sale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sergeant Tibbs said:

Selling Bannan should be the last option.

 

If we ever thought we are going to sell him we might as well have played him yesterday if he missed game because a booking would have seen him suspended for first 3 games next season.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, bradowl said:

 

If we ever thought we are going to sell him we might as well have played him yesterday if he missed game because a booking would have seen him suspended for first 3 games next season.

I don't think anyone at the game yesterday would want to see us sell Bannon, 4-2-3-1 and created very little

 

Unless Bruce has an ace up his sleeve

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well it is a 3 year rolling period so our first play off season is now not affecting FFP and it been two years of minimal spending, but high wage costs, so we should have some money to spend. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would be surprised if we end up in an embargo. Those six players released will save us approx. £7M p/a. Then the loan players are off the wage bill as well. 

 

We have some saleable assets; Bannan, Reach,  Forestieri, Joao and to a lesser extent Rhodes. 

 

Keeping Bannan is vital. The others, not so much if the right money comes in. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, fpowl said:

I really don’t know how this works I can understand the football league being satisfied we are tacking steps to get our finances in order however with the wage bill what it was this season we have surely breached the maximum losses again over the three year period so how can that go unpunished

It is not black and white. It is called Profit and Sustainability. Sustainability means keeping clubs in business. The fools who posted a diatribe on here which unfortunately was believed by many including Owlstalk poster who gave them oxygen does not understand this bit. The idea is to get a club under the £13 million a season loss eventually. So if you lost £25 million last year, its £19 million this year and it shows it is going to be less next year they are happy because you are heading towards threshold. They will tell you not to buy players until you have got under certain markers and will advise you should not exceed certain expenditure. Birmingham were punished because they did not follow guidance given or I should say referred to disciplinary commission who looked at rules and punished them. If we had not followed guidance I am certain we would have been referred and punished. 

It would be a nightmare of a system if you are put under embargo agree a plan out of it and then have to do this on a yearly basis. I assume we agreed a plan last summer and we are following it. This means our expenditure is limited as we have to stay within a framework, which is annoying if you want to spend more.

It is not in EFL interests to wee wee owners off. Bolton were fine according to EFL and look at mess they are in. This illustrates how poor the rules are they bought players and had no intention of paying for them which shafted a non league team. Its unlikely they will throw every thing they could at them as it would probably put club out of business. Its about a balance.

The punishment system is flawed as Birmingham are now ok now they have paid penalty. It would be nigh on impossible to impose two penalties in a ow without breaking common law. hence they have to be careful in what they do.

The bull poo pod cast on finances gave no thought to sustainable aspect of clubs or how the system was to be administered. 

Just accept we have to administer restraint until losses are back under £39 million.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Quist said:

It is not black and white. It is called Profit and Sustainability. Sustainability means keeping clubs in business. The fools who posted a diatribe on here which unfortunately was believed by many including Owlstalk poster who gave them oxygen does not understand this bit. The idea is to get a club under the £13 million a season loss eventually. So if you lost £25 million last year, its £19 million this year and it shows it is going to be less next year they are happy because you are heading towards threshold. They will tell you not to buy players until you have got under certain markers and will advise you should not exceed certain expenditure. Birmingham were punished because they did not follow guidance given or I should say referred to disciplinary commission who looked at rules and punished them. If we had not followed guidance I am certain we would have been referred and punished. 

It would be a nightmare of a system if you are put under embargo agree a plan out of it and then have to do this on a yearly basis. I assume we agreed a plan last summer and we are following it. This means our expenditure is limited as we have to stay within a framework, which is annoying if you want to spend more.

It is not in EFL interests to wee wee owners off. Bolton were fine according to EFL and look at mess they are in. This illustrates how poor the rules are they bought players and had no intention of paying for them which shafted a non league team. Its unlikely they will throw every thing they could at them as it would probably put club out of business. Its about a balance.

The punishment system is flawed as Birmingham are now ok now they have paid penalty. It would be nigh on impossible to impose two penalties in a ow without breaking common law. hence they have to be careful in what they do.

The bull poo pod cast on finances gave no thought to sustainable aspect of clubs or how the system was to be administered. 

Just accept we have to administer restraint until losses are back under £39 million.

Feel like I’ve just been told off 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...