BREAKING - Sheffield Wednesday under ANOTHER transfer embargo

[helmut_rooster]

5 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

The mad thing is that the EFL are refusing to confirm or comment as it never comments on which clubs it puts under embargo (which is a total nonsense), and the clubs involved are refusing to comment too

So you have 10 clubs under a secret embargo and nobody is saying anything

 

 

Crackers

 

If it's TRUE at all

[Maddogbob]

21 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Exactly!

Those are the kind of rules that shouldn't be put to a vote for clubs to decide upon. Not telling fans that your club is under an embargo so you can sell a picture that is never a reality. 

 

 

For me that rule needs changing, it's needs taking out of the clubs (efl's) hands. I've no issue with being punished if we haven't adhered to the rules. The club presumably had input and voted for them.

 

The clubs could argue it restricts/harms trade in the form of generation of funds via season tickets.

 

However it's not fair on those stumping up cash upfront. Everyone deserves the right to make an informed choice.

 

Edited April 6, 2021 by Maddogbob

[Guest Grandad]

6 minutes ago, bobowl said:

With half the championship under an embargo, does that mean some of our players are finding it difficult so find new clubs? perhaps thats the motivation that was needed to get them playing.

Only 9 are under embargo.

 

Thats  not even half the Prem.

 

It means 15 clubs DID submit their accounts for the EFL inspection by the required date

[Maddogbob]

2 minutes ago, nbupperthongowl said:

Ok..the EFL board then as they seem to alienate a number of clubs

The efl board that's voted for and appointed by its member clubs.

[Big Jack]

5 minutes ago, helmut_rooster said:

 

If it's TRUE at all

Must be Daily Fail never wrong

[Inspector Lestrade]

 

[nbupperthongowl]

5 minutes ago, Maddogbob said:

The efl board that's voted for and appointed by its member clubs.

Ok....how they operate is the issue...do they always do the best for their members....Wigan, bury, Macclesfield etc.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Grandad said:

Only 9 are under embargo.

 

Thats  not even half the Prem.

 

It means 15 clubs DID submit their accounts for the EFL inspection by the required date

 

Not necessarily. Some of the other 15 may have different accounting dates and their deadline hasn't come around yet. 

 

As you say, Stoke will likely face more trouble in the summer when their 3-year P&S comes into play, doubt they will be the only ones. 

[Maddogbob]

10 minutes ago, nbupperthongowl said:

Ok....how they operate is the issue...do they always do the best for their members....Wigan, bury, Macclesfield etc.

They follow the rules agreed and voted for by there member clubs. The operate, is governed by the clubs, of which swfc are part of and have agreed to.

 

All clubs agree to those rules, if they break them or in our case distroy them, they get punished.

 

It's not about what's best for there members, it's about sticking to the agreed rules. Which the clubs create and agree to.

 

You can't go blaming the EFL, when your club, which is part of the EFL (so in effect the EFL) breaks the rules. It's the club itself who is at fault.

Edited April 6, 2021 by Maddogbob

[Guest Grandad]

7 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Not necessarily. Some of the other 15 may have different accounting dates and their deadline hasn't come around yet. 

 

As you say, Stoke will likely face more trouble in the summer when their 3-year P&S comes into play, doubt they will be the only ones. 

 

No

 

ALL clubs have to submit their accounts for inspection in March with a forecasted profit/loss for FFP purposes

[flo]

Just another obstacle on our way to the Premier League, where we belong

[Guest Grandad]

I do agree with Biggs on this

 

With Covid impacting on 1/3 of the season in question - FFP should have been set aside for the whole of 2019/20 & 2020/21

 

Its ridiculous that potentially ALL clubs will have sufficent losses to put them ALL in an embargo NEXT summer.

[Guest]

Just now, Grandad said:

 

No

 

ALL clubs have to submit their accounts for inspection in March with a forecasted profit/loss for FFP purposes

 

Fair enough. 

I agree with the point you were making in the context that it is unlikely to have been anything to do with our players performing and putting themselves in a shop window that is small due to embargos.

 

10 clubs out of 24 failing EFL rules to the extent that they are put under embargos at the same/similar time makes a bit of a mockery of what they are trying to achieve though.

 

Allowing clubs to be able to not divulge such information until such time as it is inevitably leaked in the media is ridiculous really. 

[Guest Grandad]

1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

Allowing clubs to be able to not divulge such information until such time as it is inevitably leaked in the media is ridiculous really. 

 

Agreed.

 

It just demonstrates the contempt the clubs and the governing body have for those who largely fund them (whatever they tell us)

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Grandad said:

I do agree with Biggs on this

 

With Covid impacting on 1/3 of the season in question - FFP should have been set aside for the whole of 2019/20 & 2020/21

 

Its ridiculous that potentially ALL clubs will have sufficent losses to put them ALL in an embargo NEXT summer.

 

There were 9 league games left when COVID struck so it was more like 1/5 of the season but the point still stands. Especially with the amount of time it took to resolve and the issues over extending contracts to cover the remainder of the season. 

[room0035]

And the muppet we call a chairman does it again all of the positives from the Cardiff game taken away in one act of DC once again showing he could not run a bath let alone a football team.

 

Welll Done DC - so come the summer and 14 players leave - leaving not enough players for a starting 11 or a match day squad - Darren Moore will not be able to bring players in because the chairman is unable to file accounts on time.

 

For me companies who are repeat offenders with this should have their director/owner prevented from being a company director, as 9 months from the end of the period is too long to file accounts and if you cannot file then on time you should not be allowed to run a business.

[nbupperthongowl]

13 minutes ago, Maddogbob said:

They follow the rules agreed and voted for by there member clubs. The operate, is governed by the clubs, of which swfc are part of and have agreed to.

 

All clubs agree to those rules, if they break them or in our case distroy them, they get punished.

 

It's not about what's best for there members, it's about sticking to the agreed rules. Which the clubs create and agree to.

 

You can't go blaming the EFL, when your club, which is part of the EFL (so in effect the EFL) breaks the rules. It's the club itself who is at fault.

I have no problem with clubs breaking the rules being punished accordingly, especially when it is us

 

In this case the veil of secrecy that hangs over this type of issue is  detrimental....as I say it's the way they operate, which in this case goes against government legislation has no transparency what so ever 

[andrew1974]

Just read somewhere that the embargo is because the EFL dont recognise the 3 month extension granted by Companies House as they didnt (or chose not to) update their rules to match. So when the accounts are submitted then the embargo will be lifted. Or they could just follow the advice of Companies House but that'd make them look stupid wouldnt it..

 

Storm in a teacup  

[Inspector Lestrade]

4 minutes ago, room0035 said:

And the muppet we call a chairman does it again all of the positives from the Cardiff game taken away in one act of DC once again showing he could not run a bath let alone a football team.

 

Welll Done DC - so come the summer and 14 players leave - leaving not enough players for a starting 11 or a match day squad - Darren Moore will not be able to bring players in because the chairman is unable to file accounts on time.

 

For me companies who are repeat offenders with this should have their director/owner prevented from being a company director, as 9 months from the end of the period is too long to file accounts and if you cannot file then on time you should not be allowed to run a business.

 

Try looking at the local jurnos Twitter accounts it may stop you from having a full mental breakdown

[room0035]

Just now, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

Try looking at the local jurnos Twitter accounts it may stop you from having a full mental breakdown

Not on Twitter never will be seem to be full of.........

 

We haven't filed our account for 2019/20 season Aka the 31 July 2020 its pretty straight forward really file the account get the embargo lifted. We only file the 31 July 2019 account a few weeks ago.

 

But if DC cannot be bother to adhere to any rules, then for me he should be prevented from being a company director.