Reading - Points Deduction

[Orlando_Trustful]

3 hours ago, Bark1062 said:

While ever the parachute payments exist the premier league clubs know they have that cushion , which in turn allows them to give bigger contracts.

 

They need to have a clause in all players contracts that if relegated wages fall to sustainable levels without parachute payments.

 

It is a totally unfair system, clubs should be able to spend what they like if it’s the owners money that is a gift to the club so long as it does not become a club debt cannot see the issue.

Absolutely. It’s a failed system. 
 

Us and many others get done over, yet teams like Villa can come down, p!ss away £50M or so and go back up.

[soldierboyblue]

19 hours ago, Tewkesbury said:

Why don't they make parachute payments cover wages of players still under contract who's contract started 12 months or more prior.

 

The reason for parachute payments was that players wouldnt sign for clubs under threat of relegation so the payments were needed to cover wages if they go down. 

 

Why cant the payments actually cover that?

Parachute payments have never been designed to supplement the playing staff or pay the playing staff wages

 

 

[soldierboyblue]

39 minutes ago, Orlando_Trustful said:

Absolutely. It’s a failed system. 
 

Us and many others get done over, yet teams like Villa can come down, p!ss away £50M or so and go back up.

The EFL are waiting for Villa to come back down as they broke FFP and will be punished should they be relegated

[Nero]

 

38 minutes ago, Orlando_Trustful said:

Absolutely. It’s a failed system. 
 

Us and many others get done over, yet teams like Villa can come down, p!ss away £50M or so and go back up.

 

Its not a failed system. Its a deliberately designed system to protect the Premier League which does that very well. Remember that the P&S rules for the Championship (FFP), have to be approved by the Premier League so that the 'Solidarity Payments' from the Premier League continue to be made. As the EFL governance review admitted;

 

 And in any event the Premier League has made solidarity payments conditional upon the EFL adopting and applying the Profit & Sustainability Rules for the Championship. Therefore in reality it is the Premier League that decides the Championship FFP rules

[ChapSmurf]

2 hours ago, Nero said:

 

 

Its not a failed system. Its a deliberately designed system to protect the Premier League which does that very well. Remember that the P&S rules for the Championship (FFP), have to be approved by the Premier League so that the 'Solidarity Payments' from the Premier League continue to be made. As the EFL governance review admitted;

 

 And in any event the Premier League has made solidarity payments conditional upon the EFL adopting and applying the Profit & Sustainability Rules for the Championship. Therefore in reality it is the Premier League that decides the Championship FFP rules

 

Arrrggghhh!!!! This isn't a pop at you but FFS! When are people, especially the media, going to start using the correct terms for this. It isn't Profit but Profitability.

 

Profit means just that; what profit has been made. Barely any football club returns a profit so every football club would fall foul. Profitability is "the degree to which a business or activity yields profit or financial gain.". Sorry, it's just a major irritation for me when people get this wrong. Profit (or loss) is something that is declared in the annual account. Profitability is something that can be challenged and questioned at any given time.

 

Profit

Rick: "Errrrr Mr Chairman, what profit have you made this year laaa?"

Club Chairman: "None"

Rick: " Underling, please add this club to the list. How many do we have now?"

Underling: "erm, that makes......71 now Mr. Parry sir, in the EFL. Obviously Middlesborough won't make the list Sir Parry of the EFL."

Rick: "Excellent!" (rubs hands)

 

Profitability

Rick: "Mr Chairman, if you sign Julio Geordio, a record Columbian signing, how will that affect your end of year profit laaaaaaa?"

Club Chairman: "We'll be absolutely f**ked"

Rick: "So I suggest you don't sign him then or you'll break Profit & Sustainability"

Club Chairman: "It's Profitability & Sustainability"

Rick: "I know. I just wanna p!ss off ChapSmurf"

Together: "Excellent!" (both rub hands)

[Nero]

3 minutes ago, ChapSmurf said:

 

Arrrggghhh!!!! This isn't a pop at you but FFS! When are people, especially the media, going to start using the correct terms for this. It isn't Profit but Profitability.

 

Profit means just that; what profit has been made. Barely any football club returns a profit so every football club would fall foul. Profitability is "the degree to which a business or activity yields profit or financial gain.". Sorry, it's just a major irritation for me when people get this wrong. Profit (or loss) is something that is declared in the annual account. Profitability is something that can be challenged and questioned at any given time.

 

Profit

Rick: "Errrrr Mr Chairman, what profit have you made this year laaa?"

Club Chairman: "None"

Rick: " Underling, please add this club to the list. How many do we have now?"

Underling: "erm, that makes......71 now Mr. Parry sir, in the EFL. Obviously Middlesborough won't make the list Sir Parry of the EFL."

Rick: "Excellent!" (rubs hands)

 

Profitability

Rick: "Mr Chairman, if you sign Julio Geordio, a record Columbian signing, how will that affect your end of year profit laaaaaaa?"

Club Chairman: "We'll be absolutely f**ked"

Rick: "So I suggest you don't sign him then or you'll break Profit & Sustainability"

Club Chairman: "It's Profitability & Sustainability"

Rick: "I know. I just wanna p!ss off ChapSmurf"

Together: "Excellent!" (both rub hands)

 

Maybe so but that is a direct quote from the EFL's own governance report. Ring em up and tell them they dont know their own rules.

[Nero]

6 minutes ago, ChapSmurf said:

 

Arrrggghhh!!!! This isn't a pop at you but FFS! When are people, especially the media, going to start using the correct terms for this. It isn't Profit but Profitability.

 

Profit means just that; what profit has been made. Barely any football club returns a profit so every football club would fall foul. Profitability is "the degree to which a business or activity yields profit or financial gain.". Sorry, it's just a major irritation for me when people get this wrong. Profit (or loss) is something that is declared in the annual account. Profitability is something that can be challenged and questioned at any given time.

 

Profit

Rick: "Errrrr Mr Chairman, what profit have you made this year laaa?"

Club Chairman: "None"

Rick: " Underling, please add this club to the list. How many do we have now?"

Underling: "erm, that makes......71 now Mr. Parry sir, in the EFL. Obviously Middlesborough won't make the list Sir Parry of the EFL."

Rick: "Excellent!" (rubs hands)

 

Profitability

Rick: "Mr Chairman, if you sign Julio Geordio, a record Columbian signing, how will that affect your end of year profit laaaaaaa?"

Club Chairman: "We'll be absolutely f**ked"

Rick: "So I suggest you don't sign him then or you'll break Profit & Sustainability"

Club Chairman: "It's Profitability & Sustainability"

Rick: "I know. I just wanna p!ss off ChapSmurf"

Together: "Excellent!" (both rub hands)

 

[ChapSmurf]

21 minutes ago, Nero said:

 

Maybe so but that is a direct quote from the EFL's own governance report. Ring em up and tell them they dont know their own rules.

 

And that is partly my point. If the EFL don't even know the difference, or what their own rules are........

 

LIke I said, not a pop at you as it was obvious you were quoting due to the italics.

 

I agree with your point though. It's a system designed to protect the PL and it does that to the detriment of the vast majority of clubs and their supporters.

[Nero]

28 minutes ago, ChapSmurf said:

I agree with your point though. It's a system designed to protect the PL and it does that to the detriment of the vast majority of clubs and their supporters.

Agree 100% - Us, Derby, Reading, Sunderland, Ipswich, Bolton, Wigan, Forest and others. It's not personal - its just the relentless nature of a corporate big business beast like the Premier League protecting itself. I never thought I would feel sorry for Derby fans!

Too many clubs are blocked out of the Prem by landfill clubs like Burnley Brighton and Watford and who's purpose is simply to not do a Stoke. And yoyo's have now emerged like West Brom and Norwich who exist in a league of their own getting promoted and relegated, making hundreds of millions but never investing enough to break in to another level.  Not blaming them - we would be the same if we got there.

There is insufficient churn in the teams in the top league but owners like ours are after the commercial rewards and are prepared to gamble 'our' clubs and their history on an increasingly long shot at the big time. Credit to Leeds Huddersfield and United who did it 'clean' but only Leeds have stabilised and will they really establish themselves post Bielsa?

Personally, horrible as it is I thought the European Super League was the best shot we have in English football of redressing the balance in favour of a sustainable levelish playing field for the rest. It would get rid of owners crippling club trying to do a Leicester and after a period of adjustment, we would be back to more of a meritocracy, less owners money in the game - lower wages and a better, more exciting product for real fans rather than the Instagrammers. I dont watch the Champions league anyway. I really don't care who is in it.

 

[ChapSmurf]

14 minutes ago, Nero said:

Agree 100% - Us, Derby, Reading, Sunderland, Ipswich, Bolton, Wigan, Forest and others. It's not personal - its just the relentless nature of a corporate big business beast like the Premier League protecting itself. I never thought I would feel sorry for Derby fans!

Too many clubs are blocked out of the Prem by landfill clubs like Burnley Brighton and Watford and who's purpose is simply to not do a Stoke. And yoyo's have now emerged like West Brom and Norwich who exist in a league of their own getting promoted and relegated, making hundreds of millions but never investing enough to break in to another level.  Not blaming them - we would be the same if we got there.

There is insufficient churn in the teams in the top league but owners like ours are after the commercial rewards and are prepared to gamble 'our' clubs and their history on an increasingly long shot at the big time. Credit to Leeds Huddersfield and United who did it 'clean' but only Leeds have stabilised and will they really establish themselves post Bielsa?

Personally, horrible as it is I thought the European Super League was the best shot we have in English football of redressing the balance in favour of a sustainable levelish playing field for the rest. It would get rid of owners crippling club trying to do a Leicester and after a period of adjustment, we would be back to more of a meritocracy, less owners money in the game - lower wages and a better, more exciting product for real fans rather than the Instagrammers. I dont watch the Champions league anyway. I really don't care who is in it.

 

 

You mentioned Stoke, and I can see them being another club who are likely to be facing a points deduction soon.

 

I personally don't know what the solution is at present, although it hinges I feel on Parachute Payments. But the game has gone for me - years ago. I doubt we will ever get it back again until the money, at the top, runs out.

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

32 minutes ago, Nero said:

Agree 100% - Us, Derby, Reading, Sunderland, Ipswich, Bolton, Wigan, Forest and others. It's not personal - its just the relentless nature of a corporate big business beast like the Premier League protecting itself. I never thought I would feel sorry for Derby fans!

Too many clubs are blocked out of the Prem by landfill clubs like Burnley Brighton and Watford and who's purpose is simply to not do a Stoke. And yoyo's have now emerged like West Brom and Norwich who exist in a league of their own getting promoted and relegated, making hundreds of millions but never investing enough to break in to another level.  Not blaming them - we would be the same if we got there.

There is insufficient churn in the teams in the top league but owners like ours are after the commercial rewards and are prepared to gamble 'our' clubs and their history on an increasingly long shot at the big time. Credit to Leeds Huddersfield and United who did it 'clean' but only Leeds have stabilised and will they really establish themselves post Bielsa?

Personally, horrible as it is I thought the European Super League was the best shot we have in English football of redressing the balance in favour of a sustainable levelish playing field for the rest. It would get rid of owners crippling club trying to do a Leicester and after a period of adjustment, we would be back to more of a meritocracy, less owners money in the game - lower wages and a better, more exciting product for real fans rather than the Instagrammers. I dont watch the Champions league anyway. I really don't care who is in it.

 

Leeds did it clean?

 

In the 3 year period to promotion they posted  losses of £87million.

 

If they had missed out in 2020 they would have faced a 12 point deduction

[Guest Jack the Hat]

On 21/09/2021 at 15:36, @owlstalk said:

I need this one explaining to me

I don't understand what you mean
Are you saying spending restrictions force clubs to be spending more?

No i'm saying Wednesday got penalised for breaking spending restrictions despite having the money to spend at the time.

The amount of money clubs are allowed to spend is based on revenue. Failure payments form parts of revenue so they are allowed to spend more because it is part of revenue. So a club stuck in the champs may only be allowed to send 15mill per year despite getting 30K crowds whereas a club with failure payments may be allowed to spend 30 mill per year despite only getting 15k crowds because of the magnitude of failure payments, thus giving an unfair advantage to teams coming down. If the owners are prepared to reinvest it's like a cartel. Norwich are making a career out of it.

[shezzas left peg]

I've a feeling a financial reckoning is coming not just the championship or English football, but the entirety of Europe too. The big clubs new this and hence why they tried creating that silly European league a few months back. 

 

Saw a bit yesterday on sky sports, Barcelona are in a bit of financial trouble, not doing well in the league by all accounts keoman said they  couldn't Afford to compete in the transfer market ie sign big players . When massive clubs worldwide like them start to have problems we'll, it says something. 

[sheffsteel]

On 21/09/2021 at 14:52, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

It's not right so though is it?

 

Just the inevitable consequence of a broken system that was only adopted in the first place because the EPL strong armed the EFL to adopt the rules that skew massively in protecting the status quo.

FFP is very similiar to setting credit card limits.

So you opinion is there should be no credit card limits….let members of the public go on luxury spending sprees to run up 100’s of £1000’s of debt.

 

FFP was set up to protect the game and protect fans from a dozen clubs going into admin each year, with a few going bust.

Aldo the FFL were decided by the EFL, they were decided and agreed by the clubs, the EFL’s job is to enforce it.

 

If any clubs don’t like the rules…they should lobby other clubs to change them at the next meeting.

I understand Steve Gibson suggested an independent EFL accounts which would check every club accounts at the start of each season.

‘This is the model they use in Germany to control overspending Chairman….but it was rejected by the Chairman.

 

An obvious solution is that Chairman can gamble/ invest whatever sums they want but the debt isn’t attached to the club

however Chairmen wouldn’t vote for it because they don’t want to gamble risking losing some of their personal fortune.

[sheffsteel]

On 23/09/2021 at 10:08, Jack the Hat said:

No i'm saying Wednesday got penalised for breaking spending restrictions despite having the money to spend at the time.

The amount of money clubs are allowed to spend is based on revenue. Failure payments form parts of revenue so they are allowed to spend more because it is part of revenue. So a club stuck in the champs may only be allowed to send 15mill per year despite getting 30K crowds whereas a club with failure payments may be allowed to spend 30 mill per year despite only getting 15k crowds because of the magnitude of failure payments, thus giving an unfair advantage to teams coming down. If the owners are prepared to reinvest it's like a cartel. Norwich are making a career out of it.

You don’t appear to understand why FFP exists, it’s nothing to do with fairness.

In fact there’s never been a level playing field in football, the bigger clubs historically always tend to have more success, this is unfair if you support the likes of Rochdale or Oldham.

 

The whole purpose of FFP is to prevent a Portsmouth or Bolton.

If you check the list of clubs that have gone into admin it used to be a common occurrence, it was said sooner or later clubs would go bust.

So FFP was decided…spending based on income. 

However the EFL don’t have the power to enforce it, these new rules has to be agreed by the EFL chairman.

The clubs voted in these rules…if any owners don’t like the rules then they need to lobby other clubs to change them.

[edwinowl]

On 22/09/2021 at 16:23, Nero said:

Agree 100% - Us, Derby, Reading, Sunderland, Ipswich, Bolton, Wigan, Forest and others. It's not personal - its just the relentless nature of a corporate big business beast like the Premier League protecting itself. I never thought I would feel sorry for Derby fans!

Too many clubs are blocked out of the Prem by landfill clubs like Burnley Brighton and Watford and who's purpose is simply to not do a Stoke. And yoyo's have now emerged like West Brom and Norwich who exist in a league of their own getting promoted and relegated, making hundreds of millions but never investing enough to break in to another level.  Not blaming them - we would be the same if we got there.

There is insufficient churn in the teams in the top league but owners like ours are after the commercial rewards and are prepared to gamble 'our' clubs and their history on an increasingly long shot at the big time. Credit to Leeds Huddersfield and United who did it 'clean' but only Leeds have stabilised and will they really establish themselves post Bielsa?

Personally, horrible as it is I thought the European Super League was the best shot we have in English football of redressing the balance in favour of a sustainable levelish playing field for the rest. It would get rid of owners crippling club trying to do a Leicester and after a period of adjustment, we would be back to more of a meritocracy, less owners money in the game - lower wages and a better, more exciting product for real fans rather than the Instagrammers. I dont watch the Champions league anyway. I really don't care who is in it.

 

Fantastic post my friend. 

[McRightSide]

On 22/09/2021 at 17:56, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Leeds did it clean?

 

In the 3 year period to promotion they posted  losses of £87million.

 

If they had missed out in 2020 they would have faced a 12 point deduction

Dig deeper

 

How much of that was promotion related bonuses?

[toooldforthis]

The systems seems to suggest that there are on 20 people in the world who can sustain a successful football team and these 20 people should only invest in the Premier League. Three of these 20 will automatically fail regardless of how much money they have. So we are left with 17 owners who are 'successful'.

 

Add to the mix 3 owners that get promoted from the Championship despite starting with such an enormous disadvantage of FFP rules that, if challenged through the courts (see Bosman), would probably be found too restrictive a covenant on trade, unsupportable in law under the Companies Act 2006.

 

There are 171 billionaires in the UK alone, many of whom are put off by the limits placed upon them by FFP and the stranglehold of the Premier League.

 

The FA must remove all restrictions on ownership as company Directors must ensure fitness to own and best interest of shareholders when a new owner comes along. If they fail they can be, in the worst case scenario, be jailed for negligence.

 

So the bottom line is...just use the laws of the land and allow the markets to rule decision making.

 

The clubs that get into trouble are just businesses that are badly managed. The clubs that are successful are, in general, really well managed.

 

The Premier League and the EFL are both cartels that price fix and restrict new entrants...it must change.

 

 

[toooldforthis]

I TRIED TO EDIT THE TYPOS ABOVE BUT ADMIN DON'T ALLOW LONG ENOUGH TO EDIIT - SERIOUSLY???

 

The systems seems to suggest that there are only 20 people in the world who can sustain a successful football team and these 20 people should only invest in the Premier League. Three of these 20 will automatically fail regardless of how much money they have. So we are left with 17 owners who are 'successful'.

 

Add to the mix 3 owners that get promoted from the Championship despite starting with such an enormous disadvantage of FFP rules that, if challenged through the courts (see Bosman), would probably be found too restrictive a covenant on trade, unsupportable in law under the Companies Act 2006.

 

There are 171 billionaires in the UK alone, many of whom are put off football ownership by the limits placed upon them by FFP and the stranglehold of the Premier League.

 

The FA must remove all restrictions on ownership as company Directors must be held to account to ensure fitness to own and best interest of shareholders when a new owner comes along. If they fail they can be, in the worst case scenario, jailed for negligence.

 

So the bottom line is...just use the laws of the land and allow the markets to rule decision making.

 

The clubs that get into trouble are just businesses that are badly managed. The clubs that are successful are, in general, really well managed.

 

The Premier League and the EFL are both cartels that price fix and restrict new entrants...it must change.

[Dandrewchaz]

I don't have a problem with FFP. You have to live within your means and clubs should try to do that. Football is full of discussion about clubs going bust, etc.

 

The problem is the ludicrous wage rises at the top of the chain 400/500K per week. This has a knock on effect as it works down the quality of player/lower teams. You end up with average players demanding crazy wages as  that becomes the average wage for players. It needs a reset but that won't happen until the big boys say enough (if Barca go bust it might happen). Whilst you've still got PSG/Man City paying large sums things will never change. 

 

Perhaps if they had a partial fan ownership and a cap on the ticket cost per league (but think this has some wider legality questions associated with).

 

In summary, I just want to talk about football and not business.