EFL Statement

[bigthinrob]

1 minute ago, billyblack said:

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

Leave parachute payments.

 

Abandon so called ‘FFP’ or whatever the current name for it is & do proper due diligence on the assets or otherwise of potential owners.

 

Re ‘FFP’ They Change it’s name more than the ‘global warming / climate change wan***s).

[billyblack]

1 minute ago, SiJ said:

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? 

 

 

I dont know, could be a season, could be three or four. 

 

I dont like the premier league, for me the money should be stepped through all 4 divisions incrementally. Premier league is no different from any other billionaires. Just used to avoid tax and to launder money. I hope it implodes spectacularly at some point.

 

Whilever the carrot is there people will gamble to reach it.

[Buxtongent]

5 minutes ago, billyblack said:

Im talking about the fans. Not DC.

 

Quite  true. But the point is that Wednesday, like many other clubs, is operating at a loss! There are only three ways out of this  1. Cut the operating costs (Sell players and pay lower salaries) 2. Invest more money (the FFP is preventing this) or 3. Raise prices.

Simple ( I don't think)

[billyblack]

5 minutes ago, bigthinrob said:

Leave parachute payments.

 

Abandon so called ‘FFP’ or whatever the current name for it is & do proper due diligence on the assets or otherwise of potential owners.

 

Re ‘FFP’ They Change it’s name more than the ‘global warming / climate change wan***s).

Well i suggested putting relegation clauses in players contracts, if you did that you wouldnt need the payments anyway. As someone said though, owners would run roughshod over it. I prefer having players on 12 month contracts and thats it. Each summer clubs vy to sign players again, cloth can be cut accordingly each season.

 

Would love to see 'proper' vetting of owners. However, when FA and UEFA and FIFA is corrupt how can you have corrupt people vetting other people?

[billyblack]

2 minutes ago, Buxtongent said:

 

Quite  true. But the point is that Wednesday, like many other clubs, is operating at a loss! There are only three ways out of this  1. Cut the operating costs (Sell players and pay lower salaries) 2. Invest more money (the FFP is preventing this) or 3. Raise prices.

Simple ( I don't think)

Well option 1 sounds viable to me.

[Dick_Turpin]

11 minutes ago, bigthinrob said:

Leave parachute payments.

 

Abandon so called ‘FFP’ or whatever the current name for it is & do proper due diligence on the assets or otherwise of potential owners.

 

Re ‘FFP’ They Change it’s name more than the ‘global warming / climate change wan***s).

 

There's merit in this but sadly Chansiri and Wednesday live in today's football world with all the regulations and rules that currently exist.

 

If he's tried to con his way round them via actions which amount to deliberate misconduct I'd say he's not a fit and proper person to be running Wednesday. If he hasn't then I guess we'll stumble along as we have been. 

[Ray Von shabba]

10 minutes ago, billyblack said:

Well option 1 sounds viable to me.

The only option TBF

[Burnsie]

14 minutes ago, billyblack said:

Well i suggested putting relegation clauses in players contracts, if you did that you wouldnt need the payments anyway. As someone said though, owners would run roughshod over it. I prefer having players on 12 month contracts and thats it. Each summer clubs vy to sign players again, cloth can be cut accordingly each season.

 

Would love to see 'proper' vetting of owners. However, when FA and UEFA and FIFA is corrupt how can you have corrupt people vetting other people?

Which pro would sign that!

[billyblack]

Just now, Burnsie said:

Which pro would sign that!

If all the clubs did it they wouldnt have a choice

[matthefish2002]

1 minute ago, billyblack said:

If all the clubs did it they wouldnt have a choice

 

All clubs wouldn't do it though.

All clubs try to find ways to find a bit of an extra edge on other clubs.

[room0035]

When any organisation sets the rules based on Profits, then it is only going to go one way the team that generates bigger turnovers is genuinely 95% of the time going to be at the top end of the table.

 

These rules were brought in not to level the playing field but to keep the top teams at the top.

 

Even in our league we have teams in London and teams in Yorkshire compare the standard of living, we offer £30,000 a week to a player or Fulham offer the same, Fulham being in London get more for their sponsorship, commercial or corporate deals than we do because its a higher standard of living. then add to that clubs are potentially starting the season £20-40m+ a season increased turnover what do you expect.

 

There have been instances of big teams not going back up but by enlarge the same 3 teams that come down go back up with the period of their additional payments. 

 

The only way you level the playing field is give every team the same budget, not based on losses but base on you have x figure and every team has the same.

 

But what needs to happen is the Championship chairman need to force these changes through but unfortunately for football fans the greed of these same people will always win through.

 

A good example of this is Spurs sacking the best manager they have had in 50 years and replacing him with a mercenary lets hope they get what they deserve and they start to go backwards.

[TheEnchanter]

28 minutes ago, bigthinrob said:

Leave parachute payments.

 

Abandon so called ‘FFP’ or whatever the current name for it is & do proper due diligence on the assets or otherwise of potential owners.

 

Re ‘FFP’ They Change it’s name more than the ‘global warming / climate change wan***s).

 

Doesn't matter how much you hate the rules when it comes down to the crunch we will be in a negative position short term (several seasons) due to us breaking them. We have to live up to that. I trust Chansiri understood in full terms the rules and regulations before he conducted his spending. 

 

Complaining about the unfair rules is of no use to us in this situation. 

[billyblack]

20 minutes ago, matthefish2002 said:

 

All clubs wouldn't do it though.

All clubs try to find ways to find a bit of an extra edge on other clubs.

Thats the point, the discussion is about how to amend the regulations etc. The EFL and Premier League etc could make it mandatory.

[room0035]

34 minutes ago, matthefish2002 said:

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.

Our problem is not competing with other in the league our problem is being very badly managed.

 

Over the hill players given 3-4 deals on silly money to then sit in the stands not playing.

 

Abdi £3m + 3 years of £25,000 a week

Dave Jones £1m fee + 3 years of £20,000+ a week

Jordan Rhodes £10m fee + £40,000a week for 4 years

Sam Winnall £500k fee + £20,000 a week for 3 years

Marco Matias £3m fee + 20,000 a week for 3 years

Urby Emanuel £20,000 a week for less than 90 minutes of football#

Daniel Pudil £2m + £20,000 a week for 3 years 

Stephen Fletcher £40,000 a week for 4 years 

George Boyd £20,000 a week for 2 years

JVA £3m + £20,000 a week for 

Moudou Sougo  £20,000 a week for just 9 appearances

Jacob Butterfield £20,000 a week for a season.

Will Buckley a season loan just 11 appearances

McManaman reported £40,000 a week half season loan just 11 appearances

Onamah, Aaron, Lazar all loaned in all barely played at all last season

Bate this season not played a single minute of league football

 

The list goes on it is very clearly to see where the money has been wasted, none of the above players other than Fletcher have improved the team and £40,000 a week is just too much for a player who just about gets into double figures for us in a full season - compare him to a Gayle, Mitrovic, Abrahams, Rodriguez all loan signing on similar money all helping to get their teams either promoted or into the top 6.

[Minton]

52 minutes ago, billyblack said:

I dont know, could be a season, could be three or four. 

 

I dont like the premier league, for me the money should be stepped through all 4 divisions incrementally. Premier league is no different from any other billionaires. Just used to avoid tax and to launder money. I hope it implodes spectacularly at some point.

 

Whilever the carrot is there people will gamble to reach it.

 

It *is* stepped through the divisions already. The Premier League give £106m per season to the EFL. Championship clubs get £4.65m per season from the Premier League, L1 clubs get £700k and L2 clubs get £470k (those were the 2018/19 figures) so just over £106m to the EFL

[matthefish2002]

13 minutes ago, room0035 said:

Our problem is not competing with other in the league our problem is being very badly managed.

 

Over the hill players given 3-4 deals on silly money to then sit in the stands not playing.

 

Abdi £3m + 3 years of £25,000 a week

Dave Jones £1m fee + 3 years of £20,000+ a week

Jordan Rhodes £10m fee + £40,000a week for 4 years

Sam Winnall £500k fee + £20,000 a week for 3 years

Marco Matias £3m fee + 20,000 a week for 3 years

Urby Emanuel £20,000 a week for less than 90 minutes of football#

Daniel Pudil £2m + £20,000 a week for 3 years 

Stephen Fletcher £40,000 a week for 4 years 

George Boyd £20,000 a week for 2 years

JVA £3m + £20,000 a week for 

Moudou Sougo  £20,000 a week for just 9 appearances

Jacob Butterfield £20,000 a week for a season.

Will Buckley a season loan just 11 appearances

McManaman reported £40,000 a week half season loan just 11 appearances

Onamah, Aaron, Lazar all loaned in all barely played at all last season

Bate this season not played a single minute of league football

 

The list goes on it is very clearly to see where the money has been wasted, none of the above players other than Fletcher have improved the team and £40,000 a week is just too much for a player who just about gets into double figures for us in a full season - compare him to a Gayle, Mitrovic, Abrahams, Rodriguez all loan signing on similar money all helping to get their teams either promoted or into the top 6.

 

That list is frightening.
All clubs make mistakes on player recruitment but that list should be about half as long at most if homework on players was done properly.
 

[BowOwl]

43 minutes ago, room0035 said:

When any organisation sets the rules based on Profits, then it is only going to go one way the team that generates bigger turnovers is genuinely 95% of the time going to be at the top end of the table.

 

These rules were brought in not to level the playing field but to keep the top teams at the top.

 

Even in our league we have teams in London and teams in Yorkshire compare the standard of living, we offer £30,000 a week to a player or Fulham offer the same, Fulham being in London get more for their sponsorship, commercial or corporate deals than we do because its a higher standard of living. then add to that clubs are potentially starting the season £20-40m+ a season increased turnover what do you expect.

 

There have been instances of big teams not going back up but by enlarge the same 3 teams that come down go back up with the period of their additional payments. 

 

The only way you level the playing field is give every team the same budget, not based on losses but base on you have x figure and every team has the same.

 

But what needs to happen is the Championship chairman need to force these changes through but unfortunately for football fans the greed of these same people will always win through.

 

A good example of this is Spurs sacking the best manager they have had in 50 years and replacing him with a mercenary lets hope they get what they deserve and they start to go backwards.

Sadly it's well out of the clubs hands in terms of attraction to Sheffield over London.
But to re-enforce your point, the yo-yo clubs are mainly all south or London based.
- The clubs that have dropped down and struggled are Northern. Sunderland, Hudds, Stoke, Us, Forest, Leeds, Boro, etc.
Everton would probably be the next to follow this trend if they are not careful, where as Watford or West Ham will likely be able to draw in good championship players.

- Villa, Wolves & West Brom are both Birmingham based, decent location there.

(And I'm a southerner).

[room0035]

1 minute ago, BowOwl said:

Sadly it's well out of the clubs hands in terms of attraction to Sheffield over London.
But to re-enforce your point, the yo-yo clubs are mainly all south or London based.
- The clubs that have dropped down and struggled are Northern. Sunderland, Hudds, Stoke, Us, Forest, Leeds, Boro, etc.
Everton would probably be the next to follow this trend if they are not careful, where as Watford or West Ham will likely be able to draw in good championship players.

- Villa, Wolves & West Brom are both Birmingham based, decent location there.

(And I'm a southerner).

Don't worry we cannot all be Northerners  

[Minton]

20 minutes ago, room0035 said:

Our problem is not competing with other in the league our problem is being very badly managed.

 

Over the hill players given 3-4 deals on silly money to then sit in the stands not playing.

 

Abdi £3m + 3 years of £25,000 a week

Dave Jones £1m fee + 3 years of £20,000+ a week

Jordan Rhodes £10m fee + £40,000a week for 4 years

Sam Winnall £500k fee + £20,000 a week for 3 years

Marco Matias £3m fee + 20,000 a week for 3 years

Urby Emanuel £20,000 a week for less than 90 minutes of football#

Daniel Pudil £2m + £20,000 a week for 3 years 

Stephen Fletcher £40,000 a week for 4 years 

George Boyd £20,000 a week for 2 years

JVA £3m + £20,000 a week for 

Moudou Sougo  £20,000 a week for just 9 appearances

Jacob Butterfield £20,000 a week for a season.

Will Buckley a season loan just 11 appearances

McManaman reported £40,000 a week half season loan just 11 appearances

Onamah, Aaron, Lazar all loaned in all barely played at all last season

Bate this season not played a single minute of league football

 

The list goes on it is very clearly to see where the money has been wasted, none of the above players other than Fletcher have improved the team and £40,000 a week is just too much for a player who just about gets into double figures for us in a full season - compare him to a Gayle, Mitrovic, Abrahams, Rodriguez all loan signing on similar money all helping to get their teams either promoted or into the top 6.

 

Well Mitrovic and Rodruigez are both on base salaries of £60k. 

 

And the average salary bill for Championship clubs is £34m. So we are pretty much bang average there. When you realise Stoke had 9 players on £50,000pw or more in 2018, I don't think we have gone totally bonkers tbh.

[toppOwl]

51 minutes ago, room0035 said:

Our problem is not competing with other in the league our problem is being very badly managed.

 

Over the hill players given 3-4 deals on silly money to then sit in the stands not playing.

 

Abdi £3m + 3 years of £25,000 a week

Dave Jones £1m fee + 3 years of £20,000+ a week

Jordan Rhodes £10m fee + £40,000a week for 4 years

Sam Winnall £500k fee + £20,000 a week for 3 years

Marco Matias £3m fee + 20,000 a week for 3 years

Urby Emanuel £20,000 a week for less than 90 minutes of football#

Daniel Pudil £2m + £20,000 a week for 3 years 

Stephen Fletcher £40,000 a week for 4 years 

George Boyd £20,000 a week for 2 years

JVA £3m + £20,000 a week for 

Moudou Sougo  £20,000 a week for just 9 appearances

Jacob Butterfield £20,000 a week for a season.

Will Buckley a season loan just 11 appearances

McManaman reported £40,000 a week half season loan just 11 appearances

Onamah, Aaron, Lazar all loaned in all barely played at all last season

Bate this season not played a single minute of league football

 

The list goes on it is very clearly to see where the money has been wasted, none of the above players other than Fletcher have improved the team and £40,000 a week is just too much for a player who just about gets into double figures for us in a full season - compare him to a Gayle, Mitrovic, Abrahams, Rodriguez all loan signing on similar money all helping to get their teams either promoted or into the top 6.

 

You've made some decent points on this thread but can I ask how you've arrived at these figures, DC said no player was more than £35k a week.