No embargo this summer

[Bluesteel]

19 hours ago, Road Runner said:

Was just about to post this....

 

 

 

Looking like we may have some what Derby did with the growing?

 

Probably what got the Boro chairman’s back up. 

 

We must have 

[Bukta]

2 hours 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.

Great post, it’s all starting to make much more sense now.

[Quist]

1 hour ago, fpowl said:

Feel like I’ve just been told off 

Sorry I have tried to make this point in numerous posts to numerous individuals and to be honest getting fed up with trying to explain concept.

[Utah Owl]

21 hours ago, S36 OWL said:

D - Taxis must have had a profitable year .

That's because they now run on rocket fuel Elev8!

[fpowl]

16 minutes ago, Quist said:

Sorry I have tried to make this point in numerous posts to numerous individuals and to be honest getting fed up with trying to explain concept.

Can I ask why not just post where you know this from or is this just your take on it 

[Whitecap Owl]

At some point we must surely be back on side with the rules...  What really gets me is the fact that when the Blades get relegated next season they will have a big parachute payment that (I'm assuming) alleviates the FFP concerns....

The goal of any team would then be to get themselves promoted - have a miserable season in the Premiership and have a big payday coming back down (i.e. rewarded for being a failure)..  Unless I'm missing something..

Also, I think the club needs to keep as many core players to build around next season...  Westwood - Bannan - Reach - Fessi are my "must keep" players..  We should only let these guys leave if we can replace them with an equal or better player...

[Quist]

2 minutes ago, fpowl said:

Can I ask why not just post where you know this from or is this just your take on it 

It is not in one place. Several different sources. I have worked on recovery of major projects and when you have over expenditure and need to reduce its standard practice to bring it back in line in sensible controlled way. it would be insane to try and get debt down in one year as you would have to have fire sale which is incompatible with sustainability, Therefore a controlled plan to recovery is my take on it but it fits in with everything I have read about it on EFL web site, articles in news papers etc. 

 

It is impossible to keep a club in business and owners interested if you do it any other way as relegation is likely and income would fall off from the club which would exacerbate the situation. 

 

I have read lots of doom and gloom on here and what is said makes no sense from the EFL point of view which is they want game to prosper and keep good money coming into the game. Does the EFL want clubs to go out of business, do they want to discourage individuals from investing in clubs? Some of their actions are poor but well meaning just not properly thought through. Think P&S has been to try and keep Premier League happy and why its a mess.

[S36 OWL]

1 hour ago, Utah Owl said:

That's because they now run on rocket fuel Elev8!

 

[bradowl]

1 hour ago, Whitecap Owl said:

At some point we must surely be back on side with the rules...  What really gets me is the fact that when the Blades get relegated next season they will have a big parachute payment that (I'm assuming) alleviates the FFP concerns....

The goal of any team would then be to get themselves promoted - have a miserable season in the Premiership and have a big payday coming back down (i.e. rewarded for being a failure)..  Unless I'm missing something..

Also, I think the club needs to keep as many core players to build around next season...  Westwood - Bannan - Reach - Fessi are my "must keep" players..  We should only let these guys leave if we can replace them with an equal or better player...

 

Plus the money from who's fault it is, ie Tevez. 

[S36 OWL]

54 minutes ago, Quist said:

. 

 

I have read lots of doom and gloom on here and what is said makes no sense from the EFL point of view which is they want game to prosper and keep good money coming into the game. Does the EFL want clubs to go out of business, do they want to discourage individuals from investing in clubs? Some of their actions are poor but well meaning just not properly thought through. Think P&S has been to try and keep Premier League happy and why its a mess.

 

If thats the case, they need to grow a pair of balls  and sort out the unfair advantage gained by the relegated clubs and their premier league Failure payments. Its these payments which has created the problem of other clubs spending beyond their means to try and compete with the relegated clubs. The whole system is a joke. Its the relegated clubs who have falsely inflated the transfer market and wages in the championship. The clubs " overspending " have had to do so to try and compete on a very uneven playing field.  

 

Its all well and good good money coming into the game from Owners , but when they are restricted by what they can  spend  when seeing other clubs allowed to spend a vast amount more makes a mockery out of whole set up. 

[Utah Owl]

1 hour ago, Quist said:

It is not in one place. Several different sources. I have worked on recovery of major projects and when you have over expenditure and need to reduce its standard practice to bring it back in line in sensible controlled way. it would be insane to try and get debt down in one year as you would have to have fire sale which is incompatible with sustainability, Therefore a controlled plan to recovery is my take on it but it fits in with everything I have read about it on EFL web site, articles in news papers etc. 

 

It is impossible to keep a club in business and owners interested if you do it any other way as relegation is likely and income would fall off from the club which would exacerbate the situation. 

 

I have read lots of doom and gloom on here and what is said makes no sense from the EFL point of view which is they want game to prosper and keep good money coming into the game. Does the EFL want clubs to go out of business, do they want to discourage individuals from investing in clubs? Some of their actions are poor but well meaning just not properly thought through. Think P&S has been to try and keep Premier League happy and why its a mess.

This more than anything because it gives any relegated EPL clubs a huge financial advantage.

 

Until such time as parachute payments are dispensed with there will never be a level playing field in the game.

[Quist]

26 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

 

If thats the case, they need to grow a pair of balls  and sort out the unfair advantage gained by the relegated clubs and their premier league Failure payments. Its these payments which has created the problem of other clubs spending beyond their means to try and compete with the relegated clubs. The whole system is a joke. Its the relegated clubs who have falsely inflated the transfer market and wages in the championship. The clubs " overspending " have had to do so to try and compete on a very uneven playing field.  

 

Its all well and good good money coming into the game from Owners , but when they are restricted by what they can  spend  when seeing other clubs allowed to spend a vast amount more makes a mockery out of whole set up. 

Yes that's the problem. in my last sentence I indicated rules adapted to keep Premier League happy. Rules designed to keep PL exclusive club. Riches are such attracted lots of rich owners to Championship clubs.

Do you think EFL do not want clubs to survive?

[S36 OWL]

1 hour ago, Quist said:

Yes that's the problem. in my last sentence I indicated rules adapted to keep Premier League happy. Rules designed to keep PL exclusive club. Riches are such attracted lots of rich owners to Championship clubs.

Do you think EFL do not want clubs to survive?

 

They can help clubs survive by making the competition a level playing field ,so clubs dont feel the need to saddle themselves with massive debts to try and compete . 

[latemodelchild]

Last season the Leeds owner was making noises about it being unfair in this league. Gone quiet this season with them being in and around the top 2 until they bottled it. I expect he will be complaining again soon if they don't go up via the playoffs. 

 

I'm sure there are a lot of clubs that want to spend more and can sustain it. The 39 million quid over 3 seasons figure is ridiculous when you see that a relegated club gets that amount or so in the first season, just given to them for failure. Add in the fact that player values and wages have skyrocketed and that figure looks pathetic. 

 

There has to be a better system than this. 

[Inspector Lestrade]

 

 

 

 

3

On 05/05/2019 at 21:36, room0035 said:

Let's wait and see need to get a few off the wage bill first and get rid of the never plays such as winnall, JVA, Rhodes.

 

If we can get a decent fee in for Joao, Reach or Bannan that may give us the room to sign a few improvements.

 

Keeping Westwood for me is massively important if we want to challenge top 6 next season.

 

 

A decent fee for Joao, Reach or Bannan wouldn't cover the transfer for signing players of the same ability.  

[Sonny]

So much speculation dressed up as fact.

[Guest Kameron]

The accounts are now showing overdue.

 

 

[FreshOwl]

26 minutes ago, Kameron said:

The accounts are now showing overdue.

 

 

Running a week late ffs, sack the board 

[shandypants]

14 hours ago, Quist said:

It is not in one place. Several different sources. I have worked on recovery of major projects and when you have over expenditure and need to reduce its standard practice to bring it back in line in sensible controlled way. it would be insane to try and get debt down in one year as you would have to have fire sale which is incompatible with sustainability, Therefore a controlled plan to recovery is my take on it but it fits in with everything I have read about it on EFL web site, articles in news papers etc. 

 

It is impossible to keep a club in business and owners interested if you do it any other way as relegation is likely and income would fall off from the club which would exacerbate the situation. 

 

I have read lots of doom and gloom on here and what is said makes no sense from the EFL point of view which is they want game to prosper and keep good money coming into the game. Does the EFL want clubs to go out of business, do they want to discourage individuals from investing in clubs? Some of their actions are poor but well meaning just not properly thought through. Think P&S has been to try and keep Premier League happy and why its a mess.

Although I am not as well read on the FFP/P&S topic as you, I have been trying to make similar points stating that you agree to a plan and work to it. I think it’s hard for others to accept this because of the scare stories going around about FFP/P&S plus Mr C’s dramatic statement st the fans forum which could have been lost in translation. 

[Quist]

1 minute ago, shandypants said:

Although I am not as well read on the FFP/P&S topic as you, I have been trying to make similar points stating that you agree to a plan and work to it. I think it’s hard for others to accept this because of the scare stories going around about FFP/P&S plus Mr C’s dramatic statement st the fans forum which could have been lost in translation. 

 

I think Mr C's comment is a reason but he is right in it will constrain our activities. Like you say we have agreed to follow some sort of plan. It is very difficult to explain when some are set in ways from Allen's days and assume everything is not as it seems.

Certain tripe has been trumpeted on here as well with everybody encouraged to listen to what amounted to total tosh. You also get those who like to spread doom and gloom and moan about everything who are quick to jump on bandwagon. 

 

Birmingham did get punished but in some ways are in good position going forward, they will probably have to follow guidance as year on year loss very high. I am not sure what our loss would be this year but if less than £13 million we would have benefited from having points deduction as would have been free from constraint. The nature of penalties for p&S makes it very difficult to be punished two years in a row if not impossible. Because the penalise you points for amount o debt which effectively wipes all debt over £13 million threshold for previous 3 years.