Jump to content

EFL Statement


Recommended Posts

Just reading an article on this. 

 

Couple of interesting things: 

 

Took over 4 years for the charges against QPR to be resolved. In the end, they were fined £42 million. 

Bournemouth had a wage bill which was 236% in excess of their turnover. Ours is 126% of turnover...

 

The difference is Bournemouth managed to get themselves promoted and have stayed up there. I wonder if the EFL would bring charges against them should they ever get relegated or is it all forgotten? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, SiJ said:

Just reading an article on this. 

 

Couple of interesting things: 

 

Took over 4 years for the charges against QPR to be resolved. In the end, they were fined £42 million. 

Bournemouth had a wage bill which was 236% in excess of their turnover. Ours is 126% of turnover...

 

The difference is Bournemouth managed to get themselves promoted and have stayed up there. I wonder if the EFL would bring charges against them should they ever get relegated or is it all forgotten? 

We better hope we get promoted! But knowing our luck they would manage to charge us with something resulting in us missing out on a playoff spot... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, MrTacoSWFC said:

We better hope we get promoted! But knowing our luck they would manage to charge us with something resulting in us missing out on a playoff spot... 

 

Club 1867 is still on sale. Get your 5 year premier league season ticket on the south stand for only £3,200.

 

https://www.swfc.co.uk/news/2019/january/owls-revel-new-strand-of-club-1867/


Does anyone know if we actually sold one of these?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, S36 OWL said:

Stop the failure payments and this overspending in the championship will stop overnight. It's a simple fact the EFL can't seem to grasp. 

 

It won’t, the real problem lies with PL bloated squads. Too many players on PL wages end up on the scrap heap that aren’t prepared to take a wage cut relative to the championship

 

2 things would help, first is limiting squad sizes and 2nd the championship get a fairer share of TV revenue 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is and has been for years the huge disparity in terms of income between the Premier League and the Championship. 

 

The potential implications of getting relegated are disastrous and that is why we have the parachute payments. There is an argument that is a reward for failure, but from what I understand it is something the Premier League absolutely insists upon. 

 

Thing is, even with the parachute payment system, there are numerous examples of teams struggling in the Championship and even getting relegated to League One. 

 

The main folly of it is having a profit and sustainability system in place where a select group of teams have their income boosted by said parachute payments. Doesn't exactly make it a level playing field, does it? 

 

Another folly is that a team can clearly be breaching said rules (Wolves, Bournemouth, Leicester and I believe Brighton were sailing very close to the wind too), but you are able to escape any potential ramifications for this if you can secure promotion to the Premier League. If you don't - then you find yourself in a situation like we have. 

 

I suppose you could say it is the utlimate punishment for blowing a promotion opportunity...or in our case blowing two opportuinities. 

 

Still - something doesn't quite sit right about that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SiJ said:

Just reading an article on this. 

 

Couple of interesting things: 

 

Took over 4 years for the charges against QPR to be resolved. In the end, they were fined £42 million. 

Bournemouth had a wage bill which was 236% in excess of their turnover. Ours is 126% of turnover...

 

The difference is Bournemouth managed to get themselves promoted and have stayed up there. I wonder if the EFL would bring charges against them should they ever get relegated or is it all forgotten? 


Bournemouth fined 4.75m after overspending reduced from 7.6m for some reason. The EFL said they did not deliberately overspend or set out to deceive.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44721788

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, the mighty wednesday said:


Bournemouth fined 4.75m after overspending reduced from 7.6m for some reason. The EFL said they did not deliberately overspend or set out to deceive.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44721788

Ah, fair enough. 

 

How on earth do you not deliberately overspend when your budget is 236 percent in excess of your turnover? 

 

I mean...I've heard of not keeping up to date books, but come on :duntmatter:

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, S36 OWL said:

Stop the failure payments and this overspending in the championship will stop overnight. It's a simple fact the EFL can't seem to grasp. 

 

I take your point that Parachute payments are not fair but if they didn't exist many clubs would still overspend. 
As long as I have been watching football clubs have always overspent. 

Edited by matthefish2002
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, SiJ said:

Ah, fair enough. 

 

How on earth do you not deliberately overspend when your budget is 236 percent in excess of your turnover? 

 

I mean...I've heard of not keeping up to date books, but come on :duntmatter:

 

 

 

Easy!! Just ask the wife!!

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Lawrie’s Left Peg said:


Leeds (embargo) , Forest (embargo) and Bristol (made losses of £47m up to 2018 but we’re permitted to 'invest' an estimated £12m into the club's infrastructure) have all been in breach of P&S rules. So your point is ......

I take your point, not suggesting it’s easy to operate within the rules but these clubs have at least made an effort to offset losses with income from player sales.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, SiJ said:

Ah, fair enough. 

 

How on earth do you not deliberately overspend when your budget is 236 percent in excess of your turnover? 

 

I mean...I've heard of not keeping up to date books, but come on :duntmatter:

 

 


Logic says we will only get a slap on the wrist as we didn't intend deliberately to get charged by the EFL  lol

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, WelshOwl74 said:

Can't wait til we play Middlesbrough live on sky last game of season in a relegation decider

 

Rhodes scores a 96th minute winner. 

DC runs up to Gibson ,snatches his £10k hairpiece off his head and takes a dump then wipes his bum on it 


This would be fantastic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's all down to players wages, and agents who solicit players around europe and beyond, who inevitably get drawn to the EPL like moths, due to the sky money that perpetuates the ridiculous salaries in the first place.

 

The top half; fairly big championship clubs are caught in a dooms-day cycle of trying to compete for even average PL cast offs, at £40k/week to reach the promised land. You only need half dozen or so of these in your squad and the 3-year P&S cap is quickly blown apart.

 

If you step back and look at football finance in this country rationally, you'd say it's a nonsense. It's clearly unsustainable for the clubs in the championship who get caught out, and the EFL have recognized this. However, as has been said, they can't do this in isolation of the EPL, which is precisely why they both need to come up with a plan, which includes parachutes payments, which distorts the level playing field, which the EFL are seemingly powerless to stop.

 

In the end, the only (main) reason why wealthy foreign people buy provincial championship clubs is to get into the PL. Once there, they can either sell for a profit, if the stay in the championship hasn't drained their wealth due to the debt, or cream off the PL (sky) revenue profit annual and use the ownership as a prestige badge.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parachute payments should only go to those clubs that can prove they need it in order to avoid serious financial issues. I.e, shouldn't go to clubs like Newcastle who clearly didn't need it.

 

Presumably parachute payments are included in all of the accounts, therefore helps towards P&S compliance - is that fair?


But something needs to be done about players wages/contracts - how can a club take a hit on revenue just by being relegated, yet players wages stay the same. Authorities should stipulate that contracts must have a clause that gives clubs the power to reduce the wages of players upon relegation.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, bigdan2003 said:

Parachute payments should only go to those clubs that can prove they need it in order to avoid serious financial issues. I.e, shouldn't go to clubs like Newcastle who clearly didn't need it.

 

Presumably parachute payments are included in all of the accounts, therefore helps towards P&S compliance - is that fair?


But something needs to be done about players wages/contracts - how can a club take a hit on revenue just by being relegated, yet players wages stay the same. Authorities should stipulate that contracts must have a clause that gives clubs the power to reduce the wages of players upon relegation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Authorities? Why?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, bigdan2003 said:

Parachute payments should only go to those clubs that can prove they need it in order to avoid serious financial issues. I.e, shouldn't go to clubs like Newcastle who clearly didn't need it.

 

Presumably parachute payments are included in all of the accounts, therefore helps towards P&S compliance - is that fair?


But something needs to be done about players wages/contracts - how can a club take a hit on revenue just by being relegated, yet players wages stay the same. Authorities should stipulate that contracts must have a clause that gives clubs the power to reduce the wages of players upon relegation.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Player salary caps for the EFL would be start, with an agreement for PL player contracts and therefore, salaries only to be valid whilst the club is in the PL. Once relegated a variation clause steps in that reverts the salary to the championship cap. I appreciate this is easier said than done, and the PL clubs would argue the contract length/salary is a required incentive to get the player in the first place. However, it currently allows the PL to simply wash it hands of damaging the championship by throwing parachute payment at relegated clubs. The EFL are currently ignoring the problem even exists and simply falling back on their own P&S cap, which seemingly doesn't recognize relegated PL club's wealth.

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...