Guest mkowl Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 hours ago, kobayashi said: As an accountant I would say that we can only assume that the evidences regarding the ground sale that isn't in the public domain explains why it was booked in 17/18 because the information that is known would seem to point the other way. True but if there was a bona fide signed contract in place 31st July 2018 then who knows. Not one I would try at home as they say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWLERTON GHOST Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 6 hours ago, bradowl said: 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 5 minutes ago, BRUCE LEE said: 2 years or so after initiating the rules and regulations, they now decide to put the infrastructure in place and appoint someone full time to manage the process The EFL make it up as they go along Frightening I have to say that job vacancy coming up as sort of opened my eyes as to what they do at the EFL at the moment and calibre of staff they have in house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Farrell Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 6 hours 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. This. Got carried away with no real plan. This was the period we needed a Bruce or a Monk instead of clueless. Not hindsight either. Basic common sense. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 2 hours ago, BRUCE LEE said: 2 years or so after initiating the rules and regulations, they now decide to put the infrastructure in place and appoint someone full time to manage the process The EFL make it up as they go along Frightening It’s not even close to been acceptable is it really, people slating the chairman left right and centre and whilst I fully accept everyone has there opinion I think they need to be a bit careful to not ignore what a joke of an outfit the EFL are Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and white Posted November 20, 2019 Share Posted November 20, 2019 39 minutes ago, Royal_D said: It’s not even close to been acceptable is it really, people slating the chairman left right and centre and whilst I fully accept everyone has there opinion I think they need to be a bit careful to not ignore what a joke of an outfit the EFL are Joke or not, rules are rules and Chansiri is 100% responsible for the mess we are in not the EFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
new zealand owl Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 1 hour ago, Blue and white said: Joke or not, rules are rules and Chansiri is 100% responsible for the mess we are in not the EFL. Yeah you have to go down this path really. it's like working for a global company where some of the governing rules are ridiculous to say the least and directly impede sales and process in certain countries, however..............the rules are the rules and in no circumstances should they be broken. Yes the championship is not an even playing field but logic goes out of the window and compliance always comes first. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat blondeau Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 2 hours ago, Royal_D said: It’s not even close to been acceptable is it really, people slating the chairman left right and centre and whilst I fully accept everyone has there opinion I think they need to be a bit careful to not ignore what a joke of an outfit the EFL are The EFL would argue that FFP has worked in that very few clubs have gone into administration since it was introduced compared to the years before. Bury and Bolton this year were the first for quite a while. And it wasn’t the EFL who signed Rhodes, Abdi, van Aken, Jones, Boyd, Urby etc and still kept the likes of McGugan picking up a wage without offloading any players. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morepork Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 (edited) If only one of us had worked out that the short, medium and long term plans that DC frequently mentioned were all actually the short term plan........and that really it wasn't so much a plan in the traditional sense, but more of a dice roll....!! Edited November 21, 2019 by Morepork 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 4 hours ago, Morepork said: If only one of us had worked out that the short, medium and long term plans that DC frequently mentioned were all actually the short term plan........and that really it wasn't so much a plan in the traditional sense, but more of a dice roll....!! That is my overriding issue. I was hopeful, certainly from the initial interviews, that there was a long term plan on and off the pitch. That there would be a solid base put in place to stop the boom / bust issues of the past. The success of that first full season I have always thought skewed the thinking. The Premier League prize could just be got by throwing money at it. So unfortunately the boom / bust mistakes of the past have simply been repeated. And a points deduction would be the culmination of it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Minton Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 If we can present a cogent case for why the accounts have been done the way they have, I can't see how we can end up with a punishment. My feeling is (and I may be wrong!) that we are guilty of breaching the 'spirit' of the rules, rather than breaching the actual rules. The EFL may have to change their rules to stop other clubs from doing things the same way in the future and need a test case to justify it, but you can't punish retrospectively. I think the big *if* is how well the accounts have been done in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobayashi Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 10 hours ago, Mr Farrell said: This. Got carried away with no real plan. This was the period we needed a Bruce or a Monk instead of clueless. Not hindsight either. Basic common sense. But it is hindsight...in the summer after the playoff final the manager was "Carlos and his dream" not "Clueless". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_B_SWFC Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 Imagine if we’d actually turned up at Wembley against Hull. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookieisdown Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 10 minutes ago, kobayashi said: But it is hindsight...in the summer after the playoff final the manager was "Carlos and his dream" not "Clueless". But who the manager was is a side issue. I suspect in the 16-17 season another manager might have done better in the play offs themselves; might have done worse over the season as a whole. Doesn't matter. You can think we can had either the right manager, or completely the wrong manager. On any scenario, we were most likely not to get promotion. Or put another way, it would have absurd to make us odds on for promotion at the start of the season. We wouldn't have been odds on even to win the play offs. It is daft to go all in even for something with decent probability. To go all in on something most likely not to work out was irresponsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 41 minutes ago, Minton said: If we can present a cogent case for why the accounts have been done the way they have, I can't see how we can end up with a punishment. My feeling is (and I may be wrong!) that we are guilty of breaching the 'spirit' of the rules, rather than breaching the actual rules. The EFL may have to change their rules to stop other clubs from doing things the same way in the future and need a test case to justify it, but you can't punish retrospectively. I think the big *if* is how well the accounts have been done in the first place. Yep can't argue with that. In terms of the latter point I know what should be in place. Transactions being recorded in the "correct" year is always a topic, most of the failures you hear about are due to forward booking of revenue or not recognizing the matching costs, to paint a rosier picture, but an asset sale is usually it happened in that year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
handworth52 Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 12 hours ago, Royal_D said: Worst thing about all of this will be the time it takes the EFL to actually deal with it, Just get it dealt with totally agree the uncertainty of this can easily effect the players and results. if we could get away with a 10 point deduction now id take it . but if its a lot higher 20points then our entire future is at stake ,if we got hit with that in late april then we could be down, and financial impact with that would be huge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieB Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 9 hours ago, Blue and white said: Joke or not, rules are rules and Chansiri is 100% responsible for the mess we are in not the EFL. 100% The EFL didn't force DC to recklessly put the wage bill up from £19m in 2016 to £42.4m in 2018 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the monk Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 (edited) 17 minutes ago, handworth52 said: totally agree the uncertainty of this can easily effect the players and results. if we could get away with a 10 point deduction now id take it . but if its a lot higher 20points then our entire future is at stake ,if we got hit with that in late april then we could be down, and financial impact with that would be huge. Not sure what the punishment should be but I find it confusing that you get put in deep sh 1t for the crime of dicing with deep sh 1t ! Edited November 21, 2019 by the monk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellbeaten-the-owl Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 (edited) 20 minutes ago, RichieB said: 100% The EFL didn't force DC to recklessly put the wage bill up from £19m in 2016 to £42.4m in 2018 Still not great but if you are looking for a like for like comparison is more like £19m to £36m Edited November 21, 2019 by wellbeaten-the-owl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichieB Posted November 21, 2019 Share Posted November 21, 2019 1 minute ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said: Still not great but if you are looking for a like for like comparison is more like £19m to £36m It's £42.4m, go and check the accounts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now