Jump to content
markg

EFL Statement

Recommended Posts

On 14/11/2019 at 19:30, SallyCinnamon said:


They’re not corrupt though. FFP is a ridiculous rule, but it’s a rule. Like Asteener said, if you drive over the limit you can’t then complain and say ‘yeah but it’s the laws fault’.

 

They gave us previous warnings with embargo’s. They gave us time to get our finances in order. But instead we kept handing out improved contracts, refusing to sell assets and plodding a long with our heads in the same 

 

The law doesn't let drivers of a different type of car break the limit though, therein lies the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, toppOwl said:

 

The law doesn't let drivers of a different type of car break the limit though, therein lies the problem.

Why should it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, billyblack said:

There you go then. Its alright trying to blame the EFL then or premier league for parachute paynents. Basically the blame lies with chairman taking too much risk. Reap what you sow. If it works great. If not you are in the mire. Accept it.

 

You can blame chairmen who stretch their finances to breaking point and the EFL for overseeing a set of P&S rules which aren't fit for purpose and penalise ambitious clubs who try to redress the imbalance caused by ludicrous parachute payments.

 

No aspect of modern football is blameless, I'm afraid.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, billyblack said:

Why should it?

 

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, toppOwl said:

 

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

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes 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.

 

First year after relegation teams get £40 million, second year they get £35 million, third year they get £15 million.

 

£90 million additional revenue over 3 years...hardly an even playing field for FFP

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Box_Man said:

 

First year after relegation teams get £40 million, second year they get £35 million, third year they get £15 million.

 

£90 million additional revenue over 3 years...hardly an even playing field for FFP

Blimey, £16m for 4 years was what i read. Must have been years ago! 

So a relegated club can lose £129m over 3 years and stay within the rules...

 

Yep that's fair....

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sweetsheri said:

Blimey, £16m for 4 years was what i read. Must have been years ago! 

So a relegated club can lose £129m over 3 years and stay within the rules...

 

Yep that's fair....

 

I thought your £16m was wide of the mark, I'm sure Villa got something like £48m first season after relegation, its a nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 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?

 

Think the rules were set up to try and stop clubs over spending and getting into financial trouble like Coventry and Portsmouth over recent years.

I have read rules were brought in by EFL at the behest of HMRC after some clubs (Leeds) went into administration and cost the tax payer millions.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

 

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
 
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...