Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Mcguigan said:

Yep, didn’t L***s’ DoF sell £35m of players, and some of their best players, the summer before they went up because  they knew they very close to P&S limits. He then tapped into the loan market and replaced them at a fraction of the cost.

 

DC didn’t, he refuse to sell, bust the limits, get an embargo. Refuse to sell agin, risk of another embargo, shat himself, sell the stadium, put that in the wrong set of accounts, get a points deduction, drag our good name through the courts and be worse off than we were before he took over.

 

He posts a lot of ill informed nonsense, regarding FFP, does this one.

I didn't realise we'd been dragged through the courts. I thought it was an independent disciplinary tribunal set up under EFL rules.

 

Maybe it's hyperbole on your part.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, daveyboy66 said:

No but I don't think that DC is not playing the players at a whim because he can...everyone has cash flow problems atm 

But our Chairman is supposed to have "unlimited funds"

 

He said so himself

  • Like 3

"The best poster on Owlstalk by far" - Kaven Walker

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, daveyboy66 said:

No it's because there is no revenue coming into the clubs because of covid not allowing fans into the ground...the idea that DC is deliberately not paying the players because he can is stupid and disingenuous 

Not wanting to ******** on your plate of angry chips Davey, but you're the one who has floated the idea of him not paying players wages deliberately.

Edited by SiJ
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Grandad said:

But our Chairman is supposed to have "unlimited funds"

 

He said so himself

Didn't he also say that there have been issues transferring money into the UK 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, daveyboy66 said:

Didn't he also say that there have been issues transferring money into the UK 

 

 

 

Transfer it in a month before you have to pay your players then


Sorted

 

  • Like 3

 


Owlstalk Shop

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

P&S fair play will have to be suspended this season without a doubt as with loss of revenue from gate receipts clubs will either have to go into debt or rely on greater funding from owners.

 

We are in strange position re P&S. When a punishment is imposed the nature of way regulations are drafted means the club restarts 3 ear cycle. However our penalty should have been imposed season before last. Therefore not sure if this is second tear in new cycle or third year but we should not be hit by any penalty's this season if precedent is anything to go by regardless if rules are suspended or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another classic thread from the poster who brought us ‘Chansiri is a victim of circumstances’ and ‘John Terry for manager?’  
I’m assuming Tollertonowl is just a troll. Posts something ridiculous and then isn’t seen for dust, until the next bananas post!

Anyway, in the spirit of ‘post not poster’ this OP is just daft. Sure the rules constrain owners. That’s what they are designed to do! They were here before DC. We are not a ‘victim’ of them. We just don’t follow them and therefore get punished. If we followed the rules we wouldn’t be punished. The rules are publicly available and are not a mystery! FFS 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quist said:

P&S fair play will have to be suspended this season without a doubt as with loss of revenue from gate receipts clubs will either have to go into debt or rely on greater funding from owners.

 

We are in strange position re P&S. When a punishment is imposed the nature of way regulations are drafted means the club restarts 3 ear cycle. However our penalty should have been imposed season before last. Therefore not sure if this is second tear in new cycle or third year but we should not be hit by any penalty's this season if precedent is anything to go by regardless if rules are suspended or not.

A punishment doesn’t mean the 3 team cycle restarts, resets or whatever. 
 

You get punished and get told to get sh£t together, there is not reset of the three year accounting period.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, prowl said:

I didn't realise we'd been dragged through the courts. I thought it was an independent disciplinary tribunal set up under EFL rules.

 

Maybe it's hyperbole on your part.

I say telescopic dampeners, I mean rigid stays.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Mcguigan said:

A punishment doesn’t mean the 3 team cycle restarts, resets or whatever. 
 

You get punished and get told to get sh£t together, there is not reset of the three year accounting period.

It does mean start of 3 ear cycle as you are punished on 3 years of accounts so another 3 are required. I accept they areadvised to follow guidelines and put stuff in place but no punishment possible during this period. This is documented with Birmingham case but any body who has some legal training will tell you the way regulations are drafted mean 3 year cycle has to recommence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The OP didn't mention us or any club in particular, just that Parachute payments for relegated clubs, skew the financial 'level playing field' that FFP & P&S were intended to create. Which they undoubtedly do.

 

IIRC the original intention of Parachute payments was to help relegated clubs keep paying staff on prem salaries when they only had Championship income. The clubs have since introduced relegation clauses in their contracts so have no need for the Parachute payments to stay afloat, instead they use the money to strengthen and increase their chances of promotion.

 

This could be solved relatively simply, by having Parachute payments paid into an escrow account administered by the EFL and only released to the relevant clubs on receipt of evidence of payment of existing prem contracts.

 

Our inability to adapt financially unlike many others who have been promoted whilst not receiving Parachute payments, rests solely with ourselves and not the rules.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Quist said:

It does mean start of 3 ear cycle as you are punished on 3 years of accounts so another 3 are required. I accept they areadvised to follow guidelines and put stuff in place but no punishment possible during this period. This is documented with Birmingham case but any body who has some legal training will tell you the way regulations are drafted mean 3 year cycle has to recommence.

That’s not right mate.

 

The EFL tried to punish Birmingham for a second breach the year after their points deduction. It was dismissed by a tribunal but not for the want the EFL trying.

 

Why would they try to punish them a season later if the 3 year cycle was reset? They posted losses of £8m that season not over £39M.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, daveyboy66 said:

No it's because there is no revenue coming into the clubs because of covid not allowing fans into the ground...the idea that DC is deliberately not paying the players because he can is stupid and disingenuous 

 

The signs have been there since well before the pandemic that spending was severely curtailed at the club. Now there are a number of potential explanations for that, including our ongoing issues with the financial regulations. But even in areas where we could invest without penalty, there has been little activity.  Covid-19 may have provided some cover for problems that were already pervading every area regardless. If we ever publish another set of accounts or get some kind of clarity about the wider situation, maybe some of my suspicions might be allayed. But I'm yet to see anything to persuade me that Chansiri has funding available that does anything other than cover the immediate expenses, social distancing rules or not.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Mcguigan said:

That’s not right mate.

 

The EFL tried to punish Birmingham for a second breach the year after their points deduction. It was dismissed by a tribunal but not for the want the EFL trying.

 

Why would they try to punish them a season later if the 3 year cycle was reset? They posted losses of £8m that season not over £39M.

The punishment is based on a 3 year period. Once a punishment has been delivered on those three sets of accounts you need another 3 sets of accounts before a further punishment can be inflicted. The first three sets have been ruled upon you can not use them again. To put it simply you can not be punished twice for same offence. It is a basic law premise. If EFL did try it shows what idiots the are and any legal tribunal or court would throw it out.  When teams relegated it states have to have3 years of accounts in division.

 

What you are saying makes no sense and you will see in due course.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Tollertonowl said:

For Example selling players like Bannan, Reach etc... Hasn't been an option (and still isn't now) as previously we couldn't replace them (due to FFP embargo) and subsequently their values decreased (nearing contract ends/ free transfers) so now we need them to stay up and they will most likely leave for free in the summer - worsening our FFP position...

 

Also our owner has spent circa £60MM buying the ground to limit the impact of the rules rather invest more into the the playing team to try avoid/ limit the impact of FFP... This is the same approach taken by Derby and also why Steve Gibson is p1ssed off at Middlesbrough who is happy to bank role, but can't due to turnover and rules. 

Yet Brentford, Swansea, Bristol City, Preston and every other team do it without breaking FFP.

 

Financial Fair play is just an excuse for clubs that cannot manage their finance correctly.

 

Our problem was the £10m in wages sat in the stands every season, Rhodes, Hooper, Foresteri, Abdi, Matias, Hutchinson, Westwood the list goes on with players not playing week in week out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quist said:

The punishment is based on a 3 year period. Once a punishment has been delivered on those three sets of accounts you need another 3 sets of accounts before a further punishment can be inflicted. The first three sets have been ruled upon you can not use them again. To put it simply you can not be punished twice for same offence. It is a basic law premise. If EFL did try it shows what idiots the are and any legal tribunal or court would throw it out.  When teams relegated it states have to have3 years of accounts in division.

 

What you are saying makes no sense and you will see in due course.

Indeed the punishment is for the 15/16, 16/17 and 17/18 season account.

 

Then the season after the punishment is based on 16/17 , 17/18 and ,18/19 it's a 3 year rolling. 2 season ago, 1 season ago and the current season.

 

Thems the rules.😁😁😁

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, room0035 said:

Indeed the punishment is for the 15/16, 16/17 and 17/18 season account.

 

Then the season after the punishment is based on 16/17 , 17/18 and ,18/19 it's a 3 year rolling. 2 season ago, 1 season ago and the current season.

 

Thems the rules.😁😁😁

Not sure what part doesn’t make sense to him.

 

1 hour ago, Quist said:

The punishment is based on a 3 year period. Once a punishment has been delivered on those three sets of accounts you need another 3 sets of accounts before a further punishment can be inflicted. The first three sets have been ruled upon you can not use them again. To put it simply you can not be punished twice for same offence. It is a basic law premise. If EFL did try it shows what idiots the are and any legal tribunal or court would throw it out.  When teams relegated it states have to have3 years of accounts in division.

 

What you are saying makes no sense and you will see in due course.

That’s not true at all. It’s a rolling period. You don’t wait for a new 3 year period of accounts if there’s been a breach in one of three years before.

 

Like wise, you can’t threaten legal proceedings against the EFL as its their competition and their rules, voted and agreed on by their members, ie Sheffield Wednesday.

 

We can’t then take them to court because we’ve broken the rules that voted for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Manwë said:

£350m and we are second from bottom.  Yes, it's the rules that are the problem.   

 

The £60m Hillsborough sale goes to the club to allow SWFC an additional £60m spend on the football (already spent in previous years), not the other way round.  It hasn't meant Wednesday have spent £60m less, it's allowed us to spend £60m more than we would have.

 

Blaming the rules on our failure to sell anyone is bizarre.  It's our failure to sell anyone why we are falling foul of the rules.   Our transfer balance sheet is severely in the red.  Our income in no way is a match for the contracts we were dishing out.  

 

We've failed because we haven't invested in the club, we've gone for a get rich quick scheme and gone for broke, and unsurprisingly, we are now broke.

 

What were the parachute payments of Leeds, Brighton, United, Huddersfield?  All have gone up in recent years.

 

The rules complained about were in place when Chansiri bought us, if he didn't like them or feel he could work within them then he could have said no and bought himself a cricket club or Polo club instead.

Chansiri did invest in the club but with a short term plan that failed. 
And I agree we are in the mire as a result of our transfers and spending.

What amazes me though is I genuinely don’t recall anyone on Owlstalk raising their concerns when the chairman was bringing in player after player. Even when we fell short at Wembley nobody questioned the gamble.

Did all our fans think we were paying small fees and low wages to established, quality championship players? 
FF, Abdi, Fletcher, Pudil, Rhodes.

Nobody piped up until they realised the plan had failed. 
Nobody came on here and screamed for the chairman to spend on the money on an academy or scouting network, which wouldn’t  guarantee success either:


 

  • Like 2
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...