EFL Statement

[billyblack]

1 hour ago, toppOwl said:

 

Why should the EFL's rules allow some clubs to spend loads of money and limit others?

They all have the same rules dont they?

[bigthinrob]

He’ll of a lot of talk about ‘regulation’.

 

Have I overslept & missed magic grandpa Corbyn nationalising football?

 

Aren't football clubs private companies albeit operating within an anti democratic, anti business straightjacket called the EFL.

 

To my mind the EFL already ‘over regulates’ football & seems to penalise owners who have genuinely got spending power & seemingly ignore the chancers who pretend they have.

 

The EFL seems an exercise in wielding power at the expense of its ‘members’ & deliberately holding back clubs with genuine ambition & the wherewithal to attain it.

 

Also, how often in any walk of life are limits not index linked???

 

The arbitrary 39k over 3 years that the idiots at the EFL stabbed at years ago has not been revised to take account of even the smallest compound inflation figure.

 

It’s not more ‘regulation’ we need it’s less, with a new approach to due diligence in respect of dodgy chancer owners.

 

Let the ones who want to invest in their clubs & clearly can afford to, do so unhindered.

[SiJ]

1 minute ago, billyblack said:

They all have the same rules dont they?

Seriously? 

 

Yes, it is the same rules, but when you are receiving an extra 90 million in income those rules don't carry quite same weight/consequences. 

 

 

[billyblack]

Just now, SiJ said:

Seriously? 

 

Yes, it is the same rules, but when you are receiving an extra 90 million in income those rules don't carry quite same weight/consequences. 

 

 

And.... whats your point? 

 

They have extra income but higher outgoings, they still have a set amount they can lose over 3 years. 

[Guest Kameron]

9 minutes ago, toppOwl said:

This is a football forum regarding a local team yet the longest recent threads have been about financial rules, this club should be setting its sites on the Premier League the EFL will more than likely send us into L1 oblivion by their actions, this helps football how?

 

Chansiri will be the one who sends us into L1 oblivion, he knew the rules and chose to find ways to manipulate them.  Yes the EFL are not fit for purpose but that's a different argument all together.  We knew the rules, we took the p*ss and now have to accept the punishment.   That will be no consolation for supporters who purchased multi year season tickets or club 1867, I didn't see L1 on the menu but that's the chance you take I suppose. 

[alanharper]

1 hour ago, sweetsheri said:

They are all owed to spend the same. It's just the relegated clubs coffers are fuller to the tune of £16+ million a year

So, over 3 years a relegated club can afford to spend £48m more and remain within the rules.

 

They're allowed to lose the same, which means they can spend at least £90m more over 3 years. How can financial "fair play" therefore even exist when some clubs have such an advantage?

 

In Villa's case, despite the parachute payments they still lost £14.5m in their first season after relegation and £36.1m the following season, with no doubt another huge loss to add for last season which will take them way over the permitted £39m 3 year loss and dwarf what we lost in the same period. Instead of their intended purpose they just spent the parachute payments on new players (think it was £45m on strikers alone in their first season down) and their wage bill actually went up by £11.6m whilst they were in the Championship. But because they managed to rally late on and sneak through the playoffs they get away scot free and now they're on the PL gravy train, still merrily spending away. Fair play, my arse.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47468115

[Box_Man]

3 minutes ago, billyblack said:

And.... whats your point? 

 

They have extra income but higher outgoings, they still have a set amount they can lose over 3 years. 

 

Why should one team be allowed to lose more than another? In the same league, competing for the same thing.

 

Make the allowed loss over a 3yr period the same as the relegated clubs, if owners want to supplement their own cash in response to parachute payments let them. All the EFL need to govern is that it’s equity injections not 3rd party loans.

 

 

[billyblack]

6 minutes ago, Kameron said:

 

Chansiri will be the one who sends us into L1 oblivion, he knew the rules and chose to find ways to manipulate them.  Yes the EFL are not fit for purpose but that's a different argument all together.  We knew the rules, we took the p*ss and now have to accept the punishment.   That will be no consolation for supporters who purchased multi year season tickets or club 1867, I didn't see L1 on the menu but that's the chance you take I suppose. 

Correct. You dont go to Vegas, lose your money then moan the odds were rubbish

[billyblack]

9 minutes ago, Box_Man said:

 

Why should one team be allowed to lose more than another? In the same league, competing for the same thing.

 

Make the allowed loss over a 3yr period the same as the relegated clubs, if owners want to supplement their own cash in response to parachute payments let them. All the EFL need to govern is that it’s equity injections not 3rd party loans.

 

 

Lets cap it then. No club allowed to lose any money over a season. Would that be fair?

[SiJ]

20 minutes ago, billyblack said:

And.... whats your point? 

 

They have extra income but higher outgoings, they still have a set amount they can lose over 3 years. 

It's not a level playing field when you have losses to turnover capped. 

 

I appreciate you don't like Chansiri. 

 

I get that you (like all of us) are pi55ed off at the stituation. 

 

But fipping heck you come across (at times) as seemingly revelling in this situation. 

[billyblack]

Just now, SiJ said:

It's not a level playing field when you have losses to turnover capped. 

 

I appreciate you don't like Chansiri. 

 

I get that you (like all of us) are pi55ed off at the stituation. 

 

But fipping heck you come across (at times) as seemingly revelling in this situation. 

Im not revelling in it. The whole things a farce. What i wont do though is moan about fairness, we knew the rules, we gambled, we lost, then tried a bodge job to fix it which may well bite us some more.

 

All things in our control and could have been avoided.

 

I have nothing against Chansiri as a person, i just question his decisions and would still love to know why Katrien left.

[Buxtongent]

2 minutes ago, billyblack said:

Correct. You dont go to Vegas, lose your money then moan the odds were rubbish

 

True, but I don't think there is any signs of Chansiri moaning about the odds. Quite the opposite. He seems willing to plough more in. The Authorities are preventing this.

One thing however. I have no love for the EFL, but remember, the FFP or whatever it is called now, is simply EFL carrying out the work of their governors the EUFA.

[Box_Man]

1 minute ago, billyblack said:

Lets cap it then. No club allowed to lose any money over a season. Would that be fair?

 

No because that’s completely unrealistic. Utopia but never going to happen. You could count on one hand the profitable clubs across all 92 members of the EFL.

 

We are competing in a division where multiple clubs that are receiving parachute payments are operating under a different set of rules. How that is FFP I have no idea.  

 

 

[billyblack]

2 minutes ago, Buxtongent said:

 

True, but I don't think there is any signs of Chansiri moaning about the odds. Quite the opposite. He seems willing to plough more in. The Authorities are preventing this.

One thing however. I have no love for the EFL, but remember, the FFP or whatever it is called now, is simply EFL carrying out the work of their governors the EUFA.

Im talking about the fans. Not DC.

[billyblack]

2 minutes ago, Box_Man said:

 

No because that’s completely unrealistic. Utopia but never going to happen. You could count on one hand the profitable clubs across all 92 members of the EFL.

 

We are competing in a division where multiple clubs that are receiving parachute payments are operating under a different set of rules. How that is FFP I have no idea.  

 

 

How would you deal with the FFP issue and parachute payments?

[SiJ]

Anyway...

 

The rules are crap and what not...

 

But that doesn't excuse potentially breaching them, which is what we have been charged with.l 

 

It is one thing to struggle to comply - it is another to try and find a loophole around said rules and mess it up that bad you end up getting charged. 

 

Hopefully, we are cleared, but it doesn't make great reading. 

[bigthinrob]

21 minutes ago, alanharper said:

 

They're allowed to lose the same, which means they can spend at least £90m more over 3 years. How can financial "fair play" therefore even exist when some clubs have such an advantage?

 

In Villa's case, despite the parachute payments they still lost £14.5m in their first season after relegation and £36.1m the following season, with no doubt another huge loss to add for last season which will take them way over the permitted £39m 3 year loss and dwarf what we lost in the same period. Instead of their intended purpose they just spent the parachute payments on new players (think it was £45m on strikers alone in their first season down) and their wage bill actually went up by £11.6m whilst they were in the Championship. But because they managed to rally late on and sneak through the playoffs they get away scot free and now they're on the PL gravy train, still merrily spending away. Fair play, my arse.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/47468115

Totally.

 

As did Wolves.

[billyblack]

Just now, bigthinrob said:

Totally.

 

As did Wolves.

Agreed. They gambled and won. We gambled and lost. Thats its.

[matthefish2002]

I can see the argument that parachute payments have made it unfair on clubs like Wednesday with out them.
But can't you make an argument Wednesday have an unfair advantage over clubs without a super rich owner if these were not in place.

[SiJ]

1 minute ago, billyblack said:

Agreed. They gambled and won. We gambled and lost. Thats its.

Isn't that part of the folly? 

 

The Premier League is like some sort of tax haven where those pesky EFL authorities can't get at you with their annoying rules. Or, if they do, you have to pay a measly 4.7 million like Bournemouth did. 

 

Unfortunately, we missed the boat and now have to pay for how long?