Jump to content

EFL- Sheff Wednesday - Derby


Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Not only that but in both cases they gave approval BEFORE the transactions were completed.  

 

You really couldn't make it up, in Derby's case they even asked for the sales price changing to what actually went through.

 

 


surely us and Derby can’t be found quality by the panel then? 

Edited by WalthamOwl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, BARMYARMY2010 said:

The inception of the "premier league" had 22 teams,that was reduced to 20 in 1995,it aint going back,if the bigger than the rest boys have their way it'll be down to 18 teams.

Exactly. Most top leagues have 18. The big clubs in the PL would love it to be reduced to 18 but iirc they need 2/3rds to vote for it - and obviously any team outside the usual top 8 won’t. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m going to set up a website. 

 

I’ll shortly be selling “Feck the EFL” t-shirts and mugs. Let me know if you’re interested.

 

All have been given the go ahead by independent valuers.

 

The t-shirts are £35.99 each and the mugs £17.99.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, prowl said:

Personally I agree with the idea of FFP but it's practical application has been a disaster. (Parachute payments apart)

 

It did seem to have some merit when there were possible sanctions but the main focus was in helping the clubs abide by the financial plans with points deductions if they breached the agreed plan. That was what happened with Birmingham, they breached the regulations, agreed a plan to get on side and then proceeded to buy a player and breached the agreed budget. They got what they deserved. They wouldn't have been penalised if they stuck to the budget. Even then the independent panel castigated the EFL because the rules weren't clear and the points deduction was reduced.

 

The problem then became ground sales, apparently the EFL never intended to allow that to happen but the rules as written allowed it. Clubs took the opportunity to raise money and the whole thing became a shambles. No good Parry coming in and trying to retrospectively change the rules and penalise us and Derby. That is not allowed in English law. If we had agreement to our actions in writing and EFL are trying to find a loophole to bring us to heel they are on very shakey ground.

 

I did have my doubts if the clubs case was as sound as we were led to believe but now Derby have raised the same questions about the EFL's actions it looks like we might be on solid ground. I hope we are.

It’s been poorly put together and governed previous chairmen were racking huge debts up against clubs and then leaving them in financial turmoil by either pulling out or not having the finances to pull the clubs out of it 

 

for these reasons I completely agree with the idea of it however wealthy chairman that are wanting to invest their own money should be able to if they can guarantee the clubs will be sustainable if they were to leave 

 

so if chansiri wanted to gift the club money and take dividends back up on the promotion to the premier league then it should be allowed if he wanted to increase the wage bill he should be able to gift the club the working capital over the a set period or act as a the guarantor for that period that way if he pulls out the club are still safe untill they can reduce the operating costs back to the original or sustainable level

 

the EFLs rules means chairman have to find creative ways to inject cash in to the club to enable them to invest 

 

selling grounds sponsoring shirts and stands making up new bull revenue streams it’s all nonsense 

 

if wealthy chairmen can provide financial funding and act as guarantors they should be able to its their money 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HarrowbyOwl said:

Imagine we’ll be first. On 27 Dec the club said they were appointing arbitrators, so the procedure has already started, whereas the charges against Derby are recent

 Need to get reading, on board and go for a class action against em :biggrin:

Fans as well, untold damage to wellbeing, lack of sleep and deciding if to buy a 50 yr season ticket.

Gorra be worth a few mil each

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, theowlsman said:

I’m going to set up a website. 

 

I’ll shortly be selling “Feck the EFL” t-shirts and mugs. Let me know if you’re interested.

 

All have been given the go ahead by independent valuers.

 

The t-shirts are £35.99 each and the mugs £17.99.

 

You should be able to shift few on here.  I'll give you a couple of suckers customers @OWLERTON GHOST and @Costello 77 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Ash76 said:

 

According to Kieran Maguire they're actually looking to reduce the number of teams, or rather the elite clubs are

 

Maguire has no credibility - he is a self proclaimed "expert" no more than that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, fpowl said:

It’s been poorly put together and governed previous chairmen were racking huge debts up against clubs and then leaving them in financial turmoil by either pulling out or not having the finances to pull the clubs out of it 

 

for these reasons I completely agree with the idea of it however wealthy chairman that are wanting to invest their own money should be able to if they can guarantee the clubs will be sustainable if they were to leave 

 

so if chansiri wanted to gift the club money and take dividends back up on the promotion to the premier league then it should be allowed if he wanted to increase the wage bill he should be able to gift the club the working capital over the a set period or act as a the guarantor for that period that way if he pulls out the club are still safe untill they can reduce the operating costs back to the original or sustainable level

 

the EFLs rules means chairman have to find creative ways to inject cash in to the club to enable them to invest 

 

selling grounds sponsoring shirts and stands making up new bull revenue streams it’s all nonsense 

 

if wealthy chairmen can provide financial funding and act as guarantors they should be able to its their money 

Pretty much sums up my thoughts on this matter. I would add to this suggesting that  the funds to cover player wages are put in escrow to 100% guarantee speculative spending can be fully honoured. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, prowl said:

Personally I agree with the idea of FFP but it's practical application has been a disaster. (Parachute payments apart)

 

It did seem to have some merit when there were possible sanctions but the main focus was in helping the clubs abide by the financial plans with points deductions if they breached the agreed plan. That was what happened with Birmingham, they breached the regulations, agreed a plan to get on side and then proceeded to buy a player and breached the agreed budget. They got what they deserved. They wouldn't have been penalised if they stuck to the budget. Even then the independent panel castigated the EFL because the rules weren't clear and the points deduction was reduced.

 

The problem then became ground sales, apparently the EFL never intended to allow that to happen but the rules as written allowed it. Clubs took the opportunity to raise money and the whole thing became a shambles. No good Parry coming in and trying to retrospectively change the rules and penalise us and Derby. That is not allowed in English law. If we had agreement to our actions in writing and EFL are trying to find a loophole to bring us to heel they are on very shakey ground.

 

I did have my doubts if the clubs case was as sound as we were led to believe but now Derby have raised the same questions about the EFL's actions it looks like we might be on solid ground. I hope we are.

Not sure if I've had too many  beers but, (in comparison).. How did FF get stung outside the juristiction of English Law, having already been penalised the year before? (fine x match ban twice?), despite this being dismissed.   IMO, I would also  pursue this legal argument retrospectively in principle! 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, fpowl said:

It’s been poorly put together and governed previous chairmen were racking huge debts up against clubs and then leaving them in financial turmoil by either pulling out or not having the finances to pull the clubs out of it 

 

for these reasons I completely agree with the idea of it however wealthy chairman that are wanting to invest their own money should be able to if they can guarantee the clubs will be sustainable if they were to leave 

 

so if chansiri wanted to gift the club money and take dividends back up on the promotion to the premier league then it should be allowed if he wanted to increase the wage bill he should be able to gift the club the working capital over the a set period or act as a the guarantor for that period that way if he pulls out the club are still safe untill they can reduce the operating costs back to the original or sustainable level

 

the EFLs rules means chairman have to find creative ways to inject cash in to the club to enable them to invest 

 

selling grounds sponsoring shirts and stands making up new bull revenue streams it’s all nonsense 

 

if wealthy chairmen can provide financial funding and act as guarantors they should be able to its their money 

How would you secure such a guarantee and if breached how would you pursue it against an owner based in say Thailand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obviously we don’t know the intricacies but if events have happened based upon written consent, then you could easily argue it was done in good faith

 

Therefore I can only see three possible permutations where clubs could get into hot water:

 

1. providing incorrect or misleading evidence  / documentation leading to the approval

 

2. executing upon something different to which consent was given

 

3. failure to provide written evidence of consent

Link to comment
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...