Jump to content
markg

EFL Statement

Recommended Posts

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.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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. 

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.
 

Totally.

 

As did Wolves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, bigthinrob said:

Totally.

 

As did Wolves.

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

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Agree 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


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

Well option 1 sounds viable to me.

The only option TBF

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Burnsie said:

Which pro would sign that!

If all the clubs did it they wouldnt have a choice

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

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...