EFL Statement

[pussface]

4 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

 

The fact that ANY player in the championship is being paid this amount of money is proof the game is fooooked .

It's become an unsustainable bubble.

[Striggy]

12 minutes ago, room0035 said:

DC said in January 2019 we would breach the FFP rule by an 8 figure sum why would he say this is the account to 31 July 2018 (6 months early) we had sold the stadium to make sure we would be in line with the loss levels.

 

Thinks like this make me not believe everything that comes out of DC mouth.

 

As for you second paragraph as I have said in this thread on numerous occasion if DC himself had bought the club not a third party company he would be fine, but what has happen as far as I am aware and the main problem with the EFL the paperwork say the club where bought by a company that did not exist at the time the contract was signed. in law the courts would look at the substance of the contract over the legal form.

 

in laymans terms if you said something happen in July 2018 but there is no way it could have happened until July 2019 then that is what is applied. There is no rule currently in place to stop clubs selling their grounds but there is rules in place about how the transaction takes place so as long as this third party has transferred fund to pay for the club then the club have a very good defence but if the price of the sale has been used to reduce DC loan to the club then we may have a problem.

 

Not referring to any of that, just that people jump on the ground sale spouting all sorts of things, but ignore the professional posters on here that explain that this can be done in accordance with normal accountancy standards.  Bending rules? Maybe? But no evidence to suggest that he is lying about "selling" the ground, or lying about when the transaction took place.

[Minton]

6 minutes ago, room0035 said:

I know - but good accountants are able to change the terms so people not of the accounting world can understand. 

 

Look believe what you want it law is very clear and as long as we have followed everything we have nothing to worry about - but equally the EFL would not be bringing charges against us if they did not feel there were grey areas to the sale of the ground.

 

I would suggest that their job is to make it so that non accounting people have no idea what is going on. It's why accounting fraud is so difficult to detect for starts.

[steelcityowlsfan]

Which £40,000 a week player was worse value?:

 

Jordan Rhodes or Wim Jonk?

[Striggy]

9 minutes ago, room0035 said:

I know - but good accountants are able to change the terms so people not of the accounting world can understand. 

 

Look believe what you want it law is very clear and as long as we have followed everything we have nothing to worry about - but equally the EFL would not be bringing charges against us if they did not feel there were grey areas to the sale of the ground.

 That is not true is it?  Accountants are like Lawyers and politicians 

[room0035]

Just now, Striggy said:

 

Not referring to any of that, just that people jump on the ground sale spouting all sorts of things, but ignore the professional posters on here that explain that this can be done in accordance with normal accountancy standards.  Bending rules? Maybe? But no evidence to suggest that he is lying about "selling" the ground, or lying about when the transaction took place.

Yes it can be the rule have to be followed such as the filing time scales for documentation, the parties signing the contract, the funds to pay for the contract also have to be paid inside certain time scales. Look we will find out soon but the EFL are not on a fishing expedition they have file charges against us that carry very big penalties. 

 

 

[pussface]

2 hours 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.

 

and yet our best players since DC took over:

Lees

Westwood

Lee

Hutchinson

Bannon

 

Were all free transfers, and already at the club apart from Bannon.

This says it all really.

 

 

[matthefish2002]

5 minutes ago, steelcityowlsfan said:

Which £40,000 a week player was worse value?:

 

Jordan Rhodes or Wim Jonk?

 

Jordan Rhodes.
 

[bradowl]

6 minutes ago, steelcityowlsfan said:

Which £40,000 a week player was worse value?:

 

Jordan Rhodes or Wim Jonk?

 

I don't think Jonk was anywhere near that figure, I doubt Rhodes is too. 

 

I'm sure players like Jonk and Hinchcliffe were on around 20k per week. 

[pussface]

7 minutes ago, steelcityowlsfan said:

Which £40,000 a week player was worse value?:

 

Jordan Rhodes or Wim Jonk?

Even factoring in inflation, that's a toughie.

[room0035]

3 minutes ago, Striggy said:

 That is not true is it?  Accountants are like Lawyers and politicians 

 

6 minutes ago, Minton said:

 

I would suggest that their job is to make it so that non accounting people have no idea what is going on. It's why accounting fraud is so difficult to detect for starts.

 

Sorry guys but that is total Rollocks. Coming from a qualified accountant of many many years if you make people feel small and ignorant as an accountant you very quickly go out of business.

 

 

 

[Minton]

1 minute ago, room0035 said:

 

Sorry guys but that is total Rollocks. Coming from a qualified accountant of many many years if you make people feel small and ignorant as an accountant you very quickly go out of business.

 

 

You're a qualified accountant and speculate on figures like you do? Hmmm....

[room0035]

Just now, Minton said:

 

You're a qualified accountant and speculate on figures like you do? Hmmm....

But where do you get your figures from you have no grounding to say whether I am right or wrong you disagree with what I say so I am wrong.

[sonofbert2]

4 minutes ago, room0035 said:

But where do you get your figures from you have no grounding to say whether I am right or wrong you disagree with what I say so I am wrong.

 

You’re not an accountant.

[jp1981]

1 hour ago, toppOwl said:

 

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.

I agree. Also don't think we paid £10m for Rhodes. I believe this would have been the figure with add-on and sell-on clauses. I think it was closer to £6m.

 

The reported wages paid, I imagine will be with bonuses - at least with the higher earners at the club.

[Guest The Horse]

Chansiri's second season was the one that derailed the train.

Daft money spent buying up players like he was collecting Pokémon.

If anything he should've spent MORE on a few ridiculously too-good-for-this-league players like Wolves did.

I blame Paxo for this.

Think he'll have made a stinking fortune from us.

[toppOwl]

16 minutes ago, jp1981 said:

I agree. Also don't think we paid £10m for Rhodes. I believe this would have been the figure with add-on and sell-on clauses. I think it was closer to £6m.

 

The reported wages paid, I imagine will be with bonuses - at least with the higher earners at the club.

 

I heard from a local journalist that the total was nearer £8m all in so your £6m is probably about right.

[toppOwl]

9 minutes ago, The Horse said:

Chansiri's second season was the one that derailed the train.

Daft money spent buying up players like he was collecting Pokémon.

If anything he should've spent MORE on a few ridiculously too-good-for-this-league players like Wolves did.

I blame Paxo for this.

Think he'll have made a stinking fortune from us.

 

I fully agree, we had a good team that needed 3-4 key signings to go all out for promotion, our purchases in that close season were scattershot at best.

[NeonLeon]

2 minutes ago, toppOwl said:

 

I fully agree, we had a good team that needed 3-4 key signings to go all out for promotion, our purchases in that close season were scattershot at best.

That summers business was summed up perfectly by Pudil’s signing. 
 

Integral part of the team from the season before and we waited until the last minute thinking we’d get someone better.  By the time he arrived he’d had no preseason, and was training in his local park off the back of being at the Euros. No surprise it took 3 months for him to show any sort of form.

[tarn owl]

I understand a lot of the points being made here, but what we did by having a financial roll of the dice to get in the PL has been done many many times over and worked, also not worked in equal measure. Chansiri made it clear when he came he wanted us in the PL ASAP.  So he was always going to go for it. Give Hooper a box here, get Lopez there, Put new pitch down, get new screen, 1st season, close no cigar. Ok go for it spend spend spend, Abdi, Van Aken, Rhodes, etc. It didn't work. Chansiri unfortunately was being advised of the wrong signings. But we came close, twice. So the after effect of this was always going to be a fine, points deduction etc. It has happened to nearly every team in the championship it feels like now.

 

What i am saying is that when the football league has 92 teams, and the top 20 of that own pretty much all the money, then some of the 72 might, when given the opportunity, go for it to try get up. Leicester, Villa, Wolves, Bournemouth did this model and lucky for them made it up to the safety of the PL. If you are left in the championship after your gamble then yes it will be hard. If the stadium sale was too late to be accounted in those years and therefore we get hit by a fine or points deduction then so be it. The real issue in football is that the 72 behind the top 20 are dying. You can't have all the money at the top and expect the 72 to survive. So the answer?? The system will not change because the EFL and PL are doing different strategies, to ensure our future we need to either accept mediocre and follow EFL rules and hope we somehow beat the money teams (unlikely), or go for broke and try get on the PL gravy boat and hope we can stay in the PL, maybe if it doesn't work end up in L1 by being deducted 20 points or something.

 

Until the PL bubble bursts, points deductions, fines and teams going bust will continue. I just hope the TV rights bubble does go and the world watches netflix instead of the PL, then maybe football can get back to being normal again, but i sense it will never happen