EFL , FFP

[room0035]

Just now, hugeowl said:

On Owlstalk anything is possible 

Definitely when some people have nothing better to do than slag others off - in the same time offering nothing positive - Classic Owlstalk trolls

[TrickyTrev]

With us and Birmingham there's a very real chance that you could have 2 clubs in the Championship this season facing large points deductions in the same season.

 

It leave other clubs not knowing whether they will or won't be fighting for anything heading into the transfer window and therefore not being certain on amounts of investment needed. If for example you're a club just say 4/5 points above the bottom 3 you might think a few loans will just about see you over the line this season.

 

If however we get a 20 point deduction and Birmingham get a 10 point deduction, it puts us both 4/5 points away from safety and effectively that side who are 4/5 points clear might suddenly think they don't need to bring as many players in as they see it as only one relegation spot they might fall into. In my opinion handing out points deductions throughout the season starts to affect the integrity of the competition and as a consequence the fans enjoyment.

 

Looking at the stance taken with us, Birmingham, Bury and Bolton this season, plus the ongoing investigations into Villa, Derby and Reading, I honestly think the situation may come to a head sooner rather than later and calls for a Premier League 2 may grow with owners not wanting to be told what they can and can't spend and have business plans forced upon them by the league. In fairness that'd probably be a good move for the Championship clubs who formed the league but bad news for everyone else further down the football league ladder.

 

All the above is just my own opinion of course but it's something I could see happening.

[We'llNeverBeMastered]

3 minutes ago, TrickyTrev said:

With us and Birmingham there's a very real chance that you could have 2 clubs in the Championship this season facing large points deductions in the same season.

 

It leave other clubs not knowing whether they will or won't be fighting for anything heading into the transfer window and therefore not being certain on amounts of investment needed. If for example you're a club just say 4/5 points above the bottom 3 you might think a few loans will just about see you over the line this season.

 

If however we get a 20 point deduction and Birmingham get a 10 point deduction, it puts us both 4/5 points away from safety and effectively that side who are 4/5 points clear might suddenly think they don't need to bring as many players in as they see it as only one relegation spot they might fall into. In my opinion handing out points deductions throughout the season starts to affect the integrity of the competition and as a consequence the fans enjoyment.

 

Looking at the stance taken with us, Birmingham, Bury and Bolton this season, plus the ongoing investigations into Villa, Derby and Reading, I honestly think the situation may come to a head sooner rather than later and calls for a Premier League 2 may grow with owners not wanting to be told what they can and can't spend and have business plans forced upon them by the league. In fairness that'd probably be a good move for the Championship clubs who formed the league but bad news for everyone else further down the football league ladder.

 

All the above is just my own opinion of course but it's something I could see happening.

Bolton have been let off, EFL released a statement earlier.

[SiJ]

The EFL are more concerned with the rules/regulations than the actual well being of clubs. 

 

Imposing the rules is overruling all common sense and logic. 

 

 

[TrickyTrev]

2 minutes ago, We'llNeverBeMastered said:

Bolton have been let off, EFL released a statement earlier.

The EFL set up an independent panel which recommended a suspended points deduction. The EFL then appealed against the independent panel in the first place, presumably wanting an immediate points deduction. It's just getting ridiculous, if they want to hand out an immediate points deduction, why bother with the independent panel in the first place.

[WalthamOwl]

EFL really are a bunch of idiots. Trying to punish Brum because they wanted to bring more money in to the club with the Adams sale. Unbelievable. 

[DeeJayOne]

1 hour ago, Kameron said:

How can they scrap and start again when all clubs agree to what they’re signing up to.  It’s the clubs who need to start adhering to the rules instead of gambling. It’s like speeding we know the limits but many choose to try their luck, not point moaning it’s unfair because it ain’t gunna change.

 

Not only do clubs agree to what they are signing up to - clubs ARE the EFL. The clubs, including Wednesday create and approve the rules.

 

 

I think a lot of people miss this point and don't know what the EFL is, or how it works, so just to go over it:

 

There are 72 shareholders in the EFL. The 72 Football League clubs. Including Wednesday.

 

The EFL is non-profit. Any monies created by the EFL is distributed amongst the clubs as shareholders in accordance with the provisions of the rules created and agreed upon by the clubs.

 

 

The rules of the EFL are created by the clubs, including Wednesday:

 

Of course it is a collective and any decisions regarding the rules and structure of the EFL made are formed from that collective as a whole (Wednesday get just one out of 72 votes, effectively), and the collective is in flux (clubs promoted/relegated in/out of the league means the membership changes year-on-year) but Wednesday were represented at meetings deciding the rules, and as far as I am aware agreed to any implemented rule changes in regard to FFP, Profit and Sustainability and anything else. I'm not aware of Wednesday being against the creation or implementation of those rules at any point.

 

If Wednesday want a change to the rules, they just have to propose it and successfully lobby enough other clubs to vote to implement that change.

 

The clubs collectively sanction the EFL as a central representative of that collective to enforce the rules, to maintain integrity of the competition and the membership.

 

 

That said, the dispute Wednesday have commenced isn't actually about the league's rules:

 

From what I understand the action Wednesday are taking is actually about 'advice' given by the EFL over the sale of the ground rather than around the rules themselves. I suspect that the EFL's argument will be that the rules are the rules, as members create the rules they [EFL] aren't in a position to 'sanction' such sales and can only enforce rules after the fact, and that Wednesday as a part owner of the EFL and part creator of those rules should (and would) have known the rules for themselves... they will probably argue that Wednesday's argument proves we were knowingly trying to circumvent the rules to gain an advantage over the other owner-members of the league against the spirit of the rules, the competition and the integrity of the whole membership structure.

 

Objectively, It is hard to see how Wednesday come out of this well to be honest. A sympathetic judge/arbiter may see correspondence with the EFL as the regulatory body as somehow constituting advice, but will they go as far as to say it constitutes approval to go ahead? IANAL but personally, I doubt it (without seeing that correspondence and the full arguments, of course).

 

 

 

[SiJ]

And before anyone starts, I'm not trying to justfiy what we've done should we be found guilty. 

 

Still - I think there is more going on here than the EFL trying to look after the well being of clubs. 

 

IMHO the rules are ripe for exploitation, not only by way of loopholes to get around, but by certain clubs using them in order to gain an advantage. Before too long, we will have someone either promoted or stopping up because one of their rivals was hit with a points deduction.

 

It is also all very well and good trying to paint the EFL as the moral arbiter of lower league football, whilst they allow Steve Dale to takeover Bury (who no longer exist), Ken Anderson to takeover Bolton (who nearly didn't exist) and allow Derby to use a sponsor to subsidise the signing of Wayne Rooney.  

 

 

[billyblack]

1 hour ago, Kameron said:

The clubs need to stop paying more than they can afford in wages, it's simply not sustainable.  How hard can it be for clubs to spend within their means?  they are blatantly flouting the rules, the EFL should get tougher on all clubs breaking the rules, maybe relegation to the 4th division would concentrate a few minds.  The ELF rules are ok it's the parachute payments to relegated premier league sides that need stopping.  Some big big names will go bust if this is allowed to continue, the EFL needs to clamp down.

100%

[alanharper]

2 minutes ago, room0035 said:

The problem at the moment is the teams with bigger turnover have a disproportionate advantage over the other team in the league the only way to sort this is make everyone budget the same.

 

If Luton don't want to spend £30m in a season that's their choice but similar West Brom should not be allowed to spend £90m because they get £40m parachute payments from the EPL.

 

We have to start somewhere as the current system is a complete joke with every team in the league working to different limits.

 

It's the parachute payments that make a mockery of "financial fair play". So something definitely needs to be done, they won't get scrapped so either the allowed FFP £39m over 3 years loss limit needs to be adjusted for those clubs to take the additional income into account so they can't just take the p*ss like Villa and splash it all out on new strikers, or the limit needs to be increased for those without parachute money.

 

But you can't just say "everybody gets the same budget", this isn't feasible whatsoever. Bigger clubs have bigger incomes, that's just the way it is. And what if a club sells a player for £15m, they have the right to spend that income however they like - it's just the parachute payment that completely skews things. Sure, some clubs manage to achieve promotion to the promised land without parachute payments occasionally, as we well know, but it's a rarity - the vast majority of clubs promoted to the PL since parachute payments came in had benefited from them. Fortunately for Villa and Norwich they managed to get promoted last season in the final year of their parachute payments after being nowhere in the previous 2 years, otherwise they'd have been in huge trouble this season.

 

[Jim]

2 hours ago, Markowski77 said:

 

Its got to change - otherwise before long half the league will be under an embargo / points deduction, the gulf between the prem and football league will become wider 

 

wages & transfer fees have gone up astronomically since these rules were written

 

something has to change

 

It’ll probably change once Middlesbrough start to struggle to comply with P&S? 

[Mike Hunt]

22 minutes ago, room0035 said:

Definitely when some people have nothing better to do than slag others off - in the same time offering nothing positive - Classic Owlstalk trolls

Show me where l have slagged people off ?

 

doing my year end accounts at the moment so anything to break the boredom 

[Mike Hunt]

11 minutes ago, alanharper said:

 

It's the parachute payments that make a mockery of "financial fair play". So something definitely needs to be done, they won't get scrapped so either the allowed FFP £39m over 3 years loss limit needs to be adjusted for those clubs to take the additional income into account so they can't just take the p*ss like Villa and splash it all out on new strikers, or the limit needs to be increased for those without parachute money.

 

But you can't just say "everybody gets the same budget", this isn't feasible whatsoever. Bigger clubs have bigger incomes, that's just the way it is. And what if a club sells a player for £15m, they have the right to spend that income however they like - it's just the parachute payment that completely skews things. Sure, some clubs manage to achieve promotion to the promised land without parachute payments occasionally, as we well know, but it's a rarity - the vast majority of clubs promoted to the PL since parachute payments came in had benefited from them. Fortunately for Villa and Norwich they managed to get promoted last season in the final year of their parachute payments after being nowhere in the previous 2 years, otherwise they'd have been in huge trouble this season.

 

Also the costs of running massive clubs in terms of match day staff and just the actual upkeep of the ground etc

[S36 OWL]

48 minutes ago, akbuk said:

Wage cap is the only way forward and that would apply to relegated teams as well.

Parachute payments for redundancy money only.

 

Where as at the mi ute the failure payments are included as income, so the clubs armed with them can spend it on inflated transfer fees and wages. 

[We'llNeverBeMastered]

3 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

 

Where as at the mi ute the failure payments are included as income, so the clubs armed with them can spend it on inflated transfer fees and wages. 

Yep, I think you're allowed to make a £90m loss over 3 years if you've been relegated, compared to the £39m loss were allowed. I read some stats that stoke are losing £1m a week, they're absolutely screwed once they drop inside the £39m bracket.

[SiJ]

"Why did you sell Adams in the summer when you had bids in January?"

 

"Because we would make more money by selling him in January, plus by keeping him, we had more chance of being successful in the division"

 

"Yeah, but why did you not sell Adams in January?"

 

"Because we would make more money by selling him in the summer..."

 

"Yeah, but the busines plan. Why did you not sell him in January?"

 

"Erm..."

 

"You know, we are looking to ensure the financial viability of clubs, right?" 

 

[room0035]

30 minutes ago, alanharper said:

 

It's the parachute payments that make a mockery of "financial fair play". So something definitely needs to be done, they won't get scrapped so either the allowed FFP £39m over 3 years loss limit needs to be adjusted for those clubs to take the additional income into account so they can't just take the p*ss like Villa and splash it all out on new strikers, or the limit needs to be increased for those without parachute money.

 

But you can't just say "everybody gets the same budget", this isn't feasible whatsoever. Bigger clubs have bigger incomes, that's just the way it is. And what if a club sells a player for £15m, they have the right to spend that income however they like - it's just the parachute payment that completely skews things. Sure, some clubs manage to achieve promotion to the promised land without parachute payments occasionally, as we well know, but it's a rarity - the vast majority of clubs promoted to the PL since parachute payments came in had benefited from them. Fortunately for Villa and Norwich they managed to get promoted last season in the final year of their parachute payments after being nowhere in the previous 2 years, otherwise they'd have been in huge trouble this season.

 

The whole point of the rules is to prevent clubs going bust. Bury are the first team to fail in over 15 years, so the rule are kind of working.

 

The problem is what is classed as income - if the parachute payment (PP) were used for what they were meant for so be it, but they are used to allow teams to spend beyond their means in the hope they get promoted back to the EPL.

 

Allow team to lose more money each season will not lead to better competition only to more teams going bust. They rules need a complete rethink but because of the disparity of income re PP. This is the reason I say give everyone the same budget to iron out the playing field, yes it won't be easy but other sports manage it so why can football not do it. Simple really because then the well run teams would rise to the top and the team losing £96m in one season (Chelsea FC) would not be at the top of the EPL table. 

[danblakemore]

It'll all change when the clubs in the EFL decide they've had enough and apply to join the EPL as a second division.

 

Which is something I can see very soon.

[The Dukeries Owl]

2 hours ago, Kameron said:

How can they scrap and start again when all clubs agree to what they’re signing up to.  It’s the clubs who need to start adhering to the rules instead of gambling. It’s like speeding we know the limits but many choose to try their luck, not point moaning it’s unfair because it ain’t gunna change.

 

 

If you don't agree with the rules do you have the option to go and sign up with a League whose rules you do agree with? Therefore it's not really a fair question is it?

[Minton]

I went into a fair amount of detail about this last season when Birmingham were initially getting their points deduction, not selling Che Adams in January hasn't got anything to do with what is happening now. They needed to post profits of about £20m to avoid failing the P&S rules and they've signed 13 players and paid out £10m in transfer fees, whilst only selling or releasing 7 for £19m. So they will be failing P&S again.

 

Basically, they knew they would fail the P&S so they agreed a spending plan with the EFL to avoid being charged again. Which they have (for the second time) just ignored. I'm not surprised the EFL are going after them. The owners logic at Birmingham boggles the mind.