HarrowbyOwl Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 27 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said: Looking forward to reading the report. Nixon saying it’s all very strange. Nixon: “It’s a fascinating read if it comes out” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 5 minutes ago, Animis said: The saving grace will be we post a profit in 18/19 accounts, to be published shortly. However, our cumulative 3-yr loses will be £18m (2017), £32m (2018) so £50m already. With the sale netting £38m we are on -£12m so can't afford to post loses of more than £28m which we should do surely? It's the 2017/18 season (£32m) loses that are the albatross around the club's neck for the next two years. Once this falls away in 2022, we can hopefully be more competitive. That's what I thought but it was reported that you get a reset from the year after you breach. For example, we breached in 2017-18, therefore we start again as of 2018-19 - £13M losses per season for 3 seasons with points deductions coming into play as of season 3 if the total is above £39M. I wasn't convinced that's how it works but the info came from a supposed solid source in football finance issues who should know about these matters. Seems to have a basis as well, otherwise Birmingham, who also breached in 2017-18 and were deducted points, have already submitted their 2018-19 accounts and would have breached £39M again on a 3-year rolling basis and so would have been subject to another deduction last season, which wasn't the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myHero Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 12 hours ago, cowl said: Who the f*ck do the EFL think they are? There are three clubs that get monstrous amounts of money for having the honour of being amongst the three sh*test clubs in the Prem - and incredibly, not only do they get that money, but they get it a proportion of it for another two seasons after that. So in any one season a Championship club like ourselves is up against potentially 9 of the other 23 teams in the division that have this cash injection few other teams at this level could ever hope to replicate in any way. So, make arbitrary rules that essentially forbids competing with such teams and then come down like a ton of brick when these other teams deign to have the ambition to spend similarly to them. The parachute money is killing the game. And yet the parachute money is essential to ensure the gap between the money in the Prem and the money in the Championship is bridgeable. This is where the problem is. Nowhere else. Either the sport imposes an enforced (and huge) reduction in the value of contracts of players getting relegated with Prem teams (if it legally can) (and thus rendering parachute payments unnecessary), or it dies. It can't go on like this. In fact, I don't want it to even if it could somehow financially sustain it (which, in any case, seems unlikely). It's grubby, and I'm just sick of it. I want nothing more than to get back to the football on the pitch. God knows I can cope with our failures on the pitch, but this constant background noise of financial rules being breached is sapping the life and force from the essence of the sport. I think they clearly think they ARE Steve Gibson. I expect the EFL match referees to continue to punish us next season Three cheers to Nick De Marco. Player of the Season 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick_Turpin Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 1 hour ago, S36 OWL said: The EFL are allowing these failure payments in the championship. The buck stops with them. The EFL as a whole gets extra payments from the PL doesn’t it? The power and money lies with the PL - it’s wishful thinking to believe the EFL can just fizz about with the PL rules. Want to go back to 2 up 2 down? I’m sure the PL would love that for example. I’m not saying the parachute payments aren’t a problem. But they’re a problem to the EFL caused as a knock on effect of solving a PL problem. The incidence of teams going straight back up hasn’t increased from before parachute payments according to the review done by Examiner. But that’s at the expense of crippling EFL finances and I don’t know if the stats would be as straightforward if the survey was expanded to take into account that PPs last more than one year. But to say the EFL can simply abolish them or penalise relegated clubs for having them I think is a gross over-simplification. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
myHero Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 11 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said: That's what I thought but it was reported that you get a reset from the year after you breach. For example, we breached in 2017-18, therefore we start again as of 2018-19 - £13M losses per season for 3 seasons with points deductions coming into play as of season 3 if the total is above £39M. I wasn't convinced that's how it works but the info came from a supposed solid source in football finance issues who should know about these matters. Seems to have a basis as well, otherwise Birmingham, who also breached in 2017-18 and were deducted points, have already submitted their 2018-19 accounts and would have breached £39M again on a 3-year rolling basis and so would have been subject to another deduction last season, which wasn't the case. I posted a link to the EFL reset rules in the SWFC accounts thread. It's clear you start with £13m losses per season once found guilty of FFP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animis Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 21 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said: That's what I thought but it was reported that you get a reset from the year after you breach. For example, we breached in 2017-18, therefore we start again as of 2018-19 - £13M losses per season for 3 seasons with points deductions coming into play as of season 3 if the total is above £39M. I wasn't convinced that's how it works but the info came from a supposed solid source in football finance issues who should know about these matters. Seems to have a basis as well, otherwise Birmingham, who also breached in 2017-18 and were deducted points, have already submitted their 2018-19 accounts and would have breached £39M again on a 3-year rolling basis and so would have been subject to another deduction last season, which wasn't the case. Interesting that BCFC also sold their property freehold land and buildings in 2018/19 to a wholly-owned subsidiary of Birmingham Sports Holding Limited (essentially the owner's company) for £22.8m. The lease agreement is over 25 years, with an annual rent of £1.25m. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animis Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 12 minutes ago, Ozymandias Owl said: I posted a link to the EFL reset rules in the SWFC accounts thread. It's clear you start with £13m losses per season once found guilty of FFP. Which actually means we should be competitive, at least in the transfer market, over the next three years. Say we made loses of £20m in 18/19, we are already at £18m profit for the first of the 3-yr FFP period. DC needs to insulate the club to ensure we say in the Championship this coming season, without blowing the cash on rubbish as we did in 17/18. Hopefully, he's learnt the lessons. Should we do this, season 2021/22 and 22/23 should give us a real chance of promotion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nut Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 1 hour ago, prowl said: I'm old fashioned, I expect players to go out every game and try their utmost to win. On that basis it shouldn't matter when the points deduction is applied. The players couldn't try harder because we had a 12 point deficit to make up. Would the players we had have tried more or less if they had imposed the penalty in say February? I'm not sure. But had we known in January, we could have tried to spend our way out of trouble, maybe getting better players on loan with payments deferred until the end of the season depending on where we finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Sunburn Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 Shrewd man that wily ol' DC to maneuver the stadium sale and foil EFL's diobolical scheme to send us down. UTO! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrysgame Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 12 hours ago, snaykz said: Certainly seems to give some credibility to the idea that the EFL has an agenda against our club. Disgusting from the EFL. They didn’t just want us to get the standard punishment at the time we should have received it. Instead, they delayed the hearing and actively tried to relegate us. I can’t think of any other club who’s breached FFP that they’ve treated this way. Absolutely fuming. If this is true, think we have grounds to appeal as a minimum. If it is the case how can the EFL board continue talk about bringing the game into disrepute, would think all clubs would back the disbanding of the current EFL. Why can't the Champ clubs just form their own league just like the PL did? Sure the PL would rather clubs came up from our league than league 1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nut Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 53 minutes ago, Animis said: The saving grace will be we post a profit in 18/19 accounts, to be published shortly. However, our cumulative 3-yr loses will be £18m (2017), £32m (2018) so £50m already. With the sale netting £38m we are on -£12m so can't afford to post loses of more than £28m which we should do surely? It's the 2017/18 season (£32m) loses that are the albatross around the club's neck for the next two years. Once this falls away in 2022, we can hopefully be more competitive. I keep reading that the sale netted us £38m but why is this if the sale price was £60m? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick_Turpin Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 7 minutes ago, Nut said: I keep reading that the sale netted us £38m but why is this if the sale price was £60m? Profit not total price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowl Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 10 minutes ago, Nut said: I keep reading that the sale netted us £38m but why is this if the sale price was £60m? It was an asset valued at £22M in the accounts. When we 'sold it' we gained £60M but lost an asset worth £22M. The difference is £38M 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plonk Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 Rhetorical question I know but if the report is public on Monday how do the press know what’s in it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellbeaten-the-owl Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 1 minute ago, Plonk said: Rhetorical question I know but if the report is public on Monday how do the press know what’s in it? When these report are issued first they go to EFL and club in question, then the EFL member clubs each get a copy, and then they are made public. Am sure s few journalists have sources at other clubs who let them see their copy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elyowl1 Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 4 minutes ago, Plonk said: Rhetorical question I know but if the report is public on Monday how do the press know what’s in it? Somebody couldn't keep quiet and talked to a journalist. Could be deliberate to embarrass EFL before official report comes out Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheff74 Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Nero said: We are judging on snipets so far yes but it sounds like the tribunal are inferring that the points deduction should have hit in 18 19 as per Birmingham. The question is, in terms of the EFL who should be looking after all clubs equally, why were they pushing for a higher penalty ie relegation? Trying to make an example of a club that has never received parachute payments and at worst has breached on a technicality seems to be at best unfair or open to allegations of corruption. No chance they can appeal the season applying. Not enough time. CAS would crucify them. The problem with that being (as far as I am aware) both parties involved have to agree to CAS intervention. Were the EFL to appeal the panel's decision and win, they are unlikely to agree to further arbitration. Of course the same would be the case if we were to win an appeal too. Edited August 16, 2020 by Sheff74 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nut Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 10 minutes ago, prowl said: It was an asset valued at £22M in the accounts. When we 'sold it' we gained £60M but lost an asset worth £22M. The difference is £38M Ok thanks. I thought it would be something like that. Presumably we've had the benefit of that £22m at some point in the past within the accounts then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gizowl Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 24 minutes ago, Plonk said: Rhetorical question I know but if the report is public on Monday how do the press know what’s in it? Because one of the squeaky clean EFL committee will have picked up a brown envelope in return for dropping a few ******** bits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fatzooma Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 (edited) If only we’d sold FF to Derby for 8m and not bothered with JR, Abdi. JVA etc etc... Edited August 16, 2020 by fatzooma Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now