EFL , FFP

[handworth52]

the whole system is corrupt ,while you have this disgusting amount of money in the premier league and then given for 3 years when relegated you create a huge financial disparity between the premier league and football league ,then only other hand you need to stop clubs going bust through spending totally out of there depths , why not allow clubs to spend what they want if they can prove that they can afford and pay for it if not then the owners should face a lifetime ban from owning a club and a fixed points deduction should be in place once rules are broken. at min the system aint fit for purpose. its the owners what are chasing the premier league money I think more than the supporters what want it . 20 years ago id be desperate to be in top league not so much now, having a forestieri type in the premier league earning 100k a week for doing what forestieri has done for last 2 years would make me sick plus that var I hate it totally ruining the game. 

[Burnsie]

1 hour ago, S36 OWL said:

 

Its quite simple. 

 

The relegated clubs are NOT allowed to include the failure payments as income in their accounts . That way the relegated clubs have to abide by the same £39 losses over three years like the rest of the championship clubs. This would stop those with failure payments from spending vast amounts on transfer fees and stupid wages in an effort to get promoted back to the prem at the first attempt. 

 

The failure payments should be forced to go into separate accounts and can only be used to pay up players contracts they cant afford to keep in the championship. 

 

It would be very simple to impose , but the EFL havnt got the balls to do it. 

Sod off you with all you logic and reason. What a nob!

[dumboldowl]

5 hours 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.

 

That's when the brown envelopes would appear in the boots again.  Solving nothing.

[akbuk]

4 minutes ago, dumboldowl said:

 

That's when the brown envelopes would appear in the boots again.  Solving nothing.

Barring for teams going out of business

[dumboldowl]

3 minutes ago, akbuk said:

Barring for teams going out of business

 

So if the wage capping resulted in the illegal payments, and the illegal payments resulted in teams going out of business, then how can the wage cap be seen as the way forward?

[The only way is S6]

7 hours ago, Burnsie said:

But isn't the parachute payments from the EPL? How'd you get around that?

You let the rest of the league spend as much as they can, who’ve just come down. 

[sherlyegg]

5 hours ago, DeeJayOne said:

The clubs, including Wednesday create and approve the rules.

I don't recall any meeting where all clubs approved the rules...maybe 20 yrs ago?

What was the outcome of any rule changes..who abstained who voted for and who voted against etc...

Serious Q not a dig.

Just can't see villa, us, leeds, wolves etc etc...voting for a rule that would hinder any ambition.

[bigthinrob]

7 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.

What did they “sign up to” exactly??

 

Does anyone know or is it just assumption.

 

When did they “Sign up for it”?

 

If or when they “signed up for it”, did they expect the EFL to adapt to changing circumstances or just rigidly apply their rules regardless. Even to the detriment of two thirds of its members (in the championship).

 

Did they “sign up” to not allowing common sense to prevail when TV money in the Prem is increased, so as we are hog tied to an outdated non index linked noose around our necks, the Prem clubs (already in real terms exempt from any FFP penalties) are allowed to revel in the ever increasing chasm in wealth & spending. 
 

‘Agreements’ are usually signed initially & then gradually amended to take account of ever changing circumstances including inflation & events surrounding them (Premiership), not to mention the increasing unrest among clubs as to the growing disparity in how we are treated compared to the Prem.

 

Most bodies would have taken this into account & made the ‘rules’ fair & fit for purpose.

 

Not the EFL. 
 

They are not listening, they are uncaring (Bury), they are unfit for purpose and the sooner they are replaced by a ‘fit for purpose’ governing body ( in the mould of the Prem) the better.

 

 

[BrumBlue]

4 hours ago, Kameron said:

I don't get excited seeing us beat Brighton's reserves, Brum are being charged because they failed to carryout what was agreed with the EFL.  Just because they were deducted 9 points last season didn't mean that was the end of the matter, they're under constant scrutiny and have failed again to implement what they said they would do, the EFL cannot force Brum or anyone else to sell players they can only prevent them from signing players.

We are not being charged on what we bought in the summer. The charge relates to january. The EFL wanted us to sell players/bring in money and we did not. We did not sell players below what we thought we could get. 

 

If we get a points deduction for that then theres clearly a villa fan in charge of the EFL & this ffp poo . 

 

We sold adams & vassell for 20 million. And got rid of alot of high wages. We are still badly in trouble like, as our accounts show we need 50 million by december to keep going ( ). 

But this charge has 0 to do with buying people in the summer. The EFL obviously believe a club can turn finances around drastically in 12 months & should sell every player for cheap. 

[DeeJayOne]

7 minutes ago, sherlyegg said:

I don't recall any meeting where all clubs approved the rules...maybe 20 yrs ago?

What was the outcome of any rule changes..who abstained who voted for and who voted against etc...

Serious Q not a dig.

Just can't see villa, us, leeds, wolves etc etc...voting for a rule that would hinder any ambition.

 

The meetings regularly happen and rule changes are proposed regularly.

 

Any major changes are then taken to a huge conference/AGM each year (bizarrely held in places like Malta and Portugal) where the club's Owners/Chairmen or their representatives have a vote on changing the articles/rules.

 

75% of the membership (clubs) are required to pass a change in the main EFL Articles, whilst 50% plus one of all Clubs and 50% plus one of Championship Clubs is needed to effect a change in EFL rules/regulations.

 

i.e. https://www.efl.com/news/2018/june/efl-summer-conference-2018--agm-round-up/ 

[DeeJayOne]

8 minutes ago, bigthinrob said:

What did they “sign up to” exactly??

 

Does anyone know or is it just assumption.

 

When did they “Sign up for it”?

 

If or when they “signed up for it”, did they expect the EFL to adapt to changing circumstances or just rigidly apply their rules regardless. Even to the detriment of two thirds of its members (in the championship).

 

Did they “sign up” to not allowing common sense to prevail when TV money in the Prem is increased, so as we are hog tied to an outdated non index linked noose around our necks, the Prem clubs (already in real terms exempt from any FFP penalties) are allowed to revel in the ever increasing chasm in wealth & spending. 
 

‘Agreements’ are usually signed initially & then gradually amended to take account of ever changing circumstances including inflation & events surrounding them (Premiership), not to mention the increasing unrest among clubs as to the growing disparity in how we are treated compared to the Prem.

 

Most bodies would have taken this into account & made the ‘rules’ fair & fit for purpose.

 

Not the EFL. 
 

They are not listening, they are uncaring (Bury), they are unfit for purpose and the sooner they are replaced by a ‘fit for purpose’ governing body ( in the mould of the Prem) the better.

 

 

 

See here:

 

6 hours ago, DeeJayOne said:

 

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).

 

 

 

 

1 minute ago, DeeJayOne said:

 

The meetings regularly happen and rule changes are proposed regularly.

 

Any major changes are then taken to a huge conference/AGM each year (bizarrely held in places like Malta and Portugal) where the club's Owners/Chairmen or their representatives have a vote on changing the articles/rules.

 

75% of the membership (clubs) are required to pass a change in the main EFL Articles, whilst 50% plus one of all Clubs and 50% plus one of Championship Clubs is needed to effect a change in EFL rules/regulations.

 

i.e. https://www.efl.com/news/2018/june/efl-summer-conference-2018--agm-round-up/ 

 

[sherlyegg]

3 minutes ago, DeeJayOne said:

75% of the membership (clubs) are required to pass a change in the main EFL Articles, whilst 50% plus one of all Clubs and 50% plus one of Championship Clubs is needed to effect a change in EFL rules/regulations.

Mm, 75% / 50% not all clubs then...which explains a lot. ie, 'we' voted for rules could be absolute bulllshyte...is there any ref. to who voted for what?

Who voted for parachute payments to be allowed in 'our league'

Given that the so called 'smaller clubs' are in the majority it seems to me they are making the rules...

 

[akbuk]

48 minutes ago, dumboldowl said:

 

So if the wage capping resulted in the illegal payments, and the illegal payments resulted in teams going out of business, then how can the wage cap be seen as the way forward?

Illegal is illegal they would soon be found out by the journalist.

Illegal payments couldn't be revealed in the accounts so either the accounts balance and are a true picture of they don't just like it is now.

 

[HarrowbyOwl]

33 minutes ago, sherlyegg said:

I don't recall any meeting where all clubs approved the rules...maybe 20 yrs ago?

What was the outcome of any rule changes..who abstained who voted for and who voted against etc...

Serious Q not a dig.

Just can't see villa, us, leeds, wolves etc etc...voting for a rule that would hinder any ambition.

P&S rules were agrred by Championship clubs at an EGM at Derby County in November 2014. The gareed changes came into effect from the beginning of the 2016/17 season

[g-owls]

Professional football has steadily become an overhyped, greedy and political business. 

 

In the grand scheme of things it's just a game, played by those good enough for the pleasure of those wanting to be entertained. 

 

The horse bolted too long ago for any changes to be made that will be for the greater good, and much like society in general no one really cares about their neighbour,  as after all why would any clubs fighting relegation from the Championship in the current season be bothered about Birmingham losing points, even if the reason being they refused to sell players on the cheap to balance the books? 

 

We've got millions of pounds in the trough and everyone wants a piece and will quite gladly stab others in the back for that short term gain. 

 

All this on the same day that Liverpool reveal a new multi year kit deal with Nike following their legal challenge with New Balance. Football was at once played solely on the pitch, now its the lawyers who often play just as an important role. 

 

The games gone... 

 

 

 

 

[torryowl]

4 hours ago, danblakemore said:

 

Just one example is that Leeds United's TV revenue is worth as much as many Premier teams abroad.

 

EPL is a money making organisation - at present do you think that teams such as Bournemouth, Burnley, Watford can generate the same income as Leeds United, Sheffield Wednesday, Sunderland etc. ? The EPL would welcome these teams with open arms...

 

It will happen, the 'bigger' clubs wont stand for the EFL much longer.

Yeah but would they welcome and be happy to share there tv revenue  with barnsley,Luton,Wigan,brentford etc etc .   Why on earth would the prem clubs want clubs like those take  a share of there money 

[Ever the pessimist]

Put this in the Birmingham thread in other section...

Accrington chairman seemingly implying the EFL tend not to have watertight cases.

 

[DeeJayOne]

1 hour ago, sherlyegg said:

Mm, 75% / 50% not all clubs then...which explains a lot. ie, 'we' voted for rules could be absolute bulllshyte...is there any ref. to who voted for what?

Who voted for parachute payments to be allowed in 'our league'

Given that the so called 'smaller clubs' are in the majority it seems to me they are making the rules...

 

 

The majority of votes are passed unanimously in my experience.

 

Regarding the initial FFP implementation, only three clubs voted against - Leicester, Reading and Southampton.

[sheffsteel]

7 hours ago, danblakemore said:

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.

Years ago Bolton’s chairman suggested a PL2.

He could see the financial gap getting bigger between the PL and EFL.

There were concerns regards if a PL club was relegated then they would still be legally obliged to pay huge player contracts...meaning that club go into financial meltdown. At the tIme any PL club who thought they could possibly be relegated was interested in forming a PL2.

 

However a new solution was found...that solution was parachute payments.

This was democratically voted through because it offers several advantages to the PL and all the PL clubs.

The competition is better with a higher standard towards the bottom. Newly promoted clubs...even small clubs are encouraged to spend and be competitive because even if they are immediately relegated they still receive funds to afford those contracts. Any relegated club isn’t forced to sell off all their best players so have a better chance to regain promotion at the first attempt.

 

If clubs want a PL2....they would need to be able to persuade the other PL clubs why it would be such a positive for them.

They would also need to come up with a business model regards who those PL clubs would receive more money if they are expected to share the PL millions with other clubs in  PL2. Its seems impossible to expect any PL to vote through a PL2....when parachute payments achieves so much of what a PL2 would do.

 

Championship clubs can’t just set up a PL2..only the PL can set up a PL2.

Agree with some of the other comments....every club is self serving....it’s all about chasing money and to hell with football as a whole.

 

 

 

Edited January 7, 2020 by sheffsteel

[danblakemore]

1 hour ago, torryowl said:

Yeah but would they welcome and be happy to share there tv revenue  with barnsley,Luton,Wigan,brentford etc etc .   Why on earth would the prem clubs want clubs like those take  a share of there money 

 

Ah there’s the thing. A PL2 would be a closed shop.

 

You won’t see those clubs getting ‘invited’.

 

8 minutes ago, sheffsteel said:

Years ago Bolton’s chairman suggested a PL2.

He could see the financial gap getting bigger between the PL and EFL.

There were concerns regards if a PL club was relegated then they would still be legally obliged to pay huge player contracts...meaning that club go into financial meltdown. At the tIme any PL club who thought they could possibly be relegated was interested in forming a PL2.

 

However a new solution was found...that solution was parachute payments.

This was democratically voted through because it offers several advantages to the PL and all the PL clubs.

The competition is better with a higher standard towards the bottom. Newly promoted clubs...even small clubs are encouraged to spend and be competitive because even if they are immediately relegated they still receive funds to afford those contracts. Any relegated club isn’t forced to sell off all their best players so have a better chance to regain promotion at the first attempt.

 

If clubs want a PL2....they would need to be able to persuade the other PL clubs why it would be such a positive for them.

They would also need to come up with a business model regards who those PL clubs would receive more money if they are expected to share the PL millions with other clubs in  PL2. Its seems impossible to expect any PL to vote through a PL2....when parachute payments achieves so much of what a PL2 would do.

 

Championship clubs can’t just set up a PL2..only the PL can set up a PL2.

 

 

 

100% can see it happening. A closed shop of two divisions will be wonderful for clubs who are sh*t scared of relegation.

 

i would be very surprised if conversations aren’t currently ongoing. All it would need is for those clubs working with the EPL to revoke their EFL membership and jobs a good un ...

Edited January 7, 2020 by danblakemore