Jump to content

EFL appeal


Sith Happens

Recommended Posts

Always felt like FFP or P&S do nothing to tackle the problem they were set out to achieve.  They were implemented to stop teams overspending, gambling on success but failing and crumbling.  It hasn’t prevented this, it’s just made it more of a gamble. In the Championship, overspend and pull it off and you get promoted and face no punishment, but fail and you’re left in a worse position than you would have been without FFP. Before you’d be in a financial state, now you’re in a financial state, face a fine, transfer embargo and points deduction.  I’m sure these are intended to act as a deterrent so that people stick within the rules, however, they won’t and they’ll constantly try and find loopholes due to the lack of a level playing field. 
 

a fairer way to level things out would be to set a transfer budget that all clubs have to stay within. You can spend more than say £20m on players in a year and every club has an overall wage limit to stick to. That way, even those with parachute payments get no unfair advantage as they have the same wage and transfer budget. That said, they’ll need to ensure contracts given in the prem at suitably structured to include a wage reduction should they get relegated. 
 

I am no expert so feel free to rip the idea to shreds if it’s actually nonsense. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, BaaLocks said:

It's one tweet from one account but it does seem to suggest trouble is afoot. We need to sort this all out, and quickly. I know easier said than done but still. 

image.png.f3e2efb627a8be81224ade22884c9582.png

That's a new level of ineptness from the clueless chump - I genuinely have no idea why people continue to give him any credence. He clearly has an alert for any companies associated with Mel Morris, sees it pop up while he's chomping on his cornflakes and Malibu, pops it in a tweet. No matter that he doesn't understand this company has nothing to do with the football club. 'Presumably due to non submission of accounts' nope, that wouldn't happen. It doesn't take that much knowledge to understand that, as others have pointed out, that this is likely a voluntary process. The bloke has been discredited so often, I've no idea why people take any notice of him. Bitter little man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, WilkoRam said:

Always felt like FFP or P&S do nothing to tackle the problem they were set out to achieve.  They were implemented to stop teams overspending, gambling on success but failing and crumbling.  It hasn’t prevented this, it’s just made it more of a gamble. In the Championship, overspend and pull it off and you get promoted and face no punishment, but fail and you’re left in a worse position than you would have been without FFP. Before you’d be in a financial state, now you’re in a financial state, face a fine, transfer embargo and points deduction.  I’m sure these are intended to act as a deterrent so that people stick within the rules, however, they won’t and they’ll constantly try and find loopholes due to the lack of a level playing field. 
 

a fairer way to level things out would be to set a transfer budget that all clubs have to stay within. You can spend more than say £20m on players in a year and every club has an overall wage limit to stick to. That way, even those with parachute payments get no unfair advantage as they have the same wage and transfer budget. That said, they’ll need to ensure contracts given in the prem at suitably structured to include a wage reduction should they get relegated. 
 

I am no expert so feel free to rip the idea to shreds if it’s actually nonsense. 

The problem with FFP is it's trying to solve 2 problems at once - stopping clubs overspending and risking financial ruin, and stopping clubs buying success because they are richer than other clubs.  If you lean towards solving the first problem (which is what the current FFP regs do), you just end up entrenching the financial advantage that some clubs have.  If you lean towards the second problem (as your fixed budgets idea above does), then you have the problem of solving where to put those thresholds.  You either set them low in which case it just entrenches the gap between the EFL and Prem (no matter how you structure the contracts, it's going to be harder to sign players if they know their wages might absolutely plummet in a years time, which makes it significantly harder for newly promoted clubs to stay up).  Or you set it quite high, in which case it solves nothing (the richer clubs can spend their riches, the poorer clubs can either risk overspending, or just not be able to compete).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, duncanjwitham said:

The problem with FFP is it's trying to solve 2 problems at once - stopping clubs overspending and risking financial ruin, and stopping clubs buying success because they are richer than other clubs.  If you lean towards solving the first problem (which is what the current FFP regs do), you just end up entrenching the financial advantage that some clubs have.  If you lean towards the second problem (as your fixed budgets idea above does), then you have the problem of solving where to put those thresholds.  You either set them low in which case it just entrenches the gap between the EFL and Prem (no matter how you structure the contracts, it's going to be harder to sign players if they know their wages might absolutely plummet in a years time, which makes it significantly harder for newly promoted clubs to stay up).  Or you set it quite high, in which case it solves nothing (the richer clubs can spend their riches, the poorer clubs can either risk overspending, or just not be able to compete).

My take would be to limit debt against turnover - not spending. So if a club has low turnover but a rich owner, the owner can spend (and that will be a big loss to the owner, presumably) but the debts can't be allowed to become to big. It wouldn't solve the advantage money brings but would hopefully stop clubs eing in the poo when the money runs out (which was the justification to bring in ffp).

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

My take would be to limit debt against turnover - not spending. So if a club has low turnover but a rich owner, the owner can spend (and that will be a big loss to the owner, presumably) but the debts can't be allowed to become to big. It wouldn't solve the advantage money brings but would hopefully stop clubs eing in the poo when the money runs out (which was the justification to bring in ffp).

I suspect at least one issue there will be to do with things like building new stadiums.  You'd have to exclude that debt from your calculations or basically no club would be able to build a new stadium. And as soon as you start having exclusions, you get into the same tangled mess as FFP.

Honestly, I think the limit on wages/turnover ratio in Leagues 1 and 2 is the best system around at the moment.  It's overspending on wages that kills clubs, not transfer spending, so lets regulate that.  Let the owner pump as much in as he wants to buy players, but the club themselves must be able to fund the wage bill in case the owner pulls the plug.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ShoreRam said:

That's a new level of ineptness from the clueless chump - I genuinely have no idea why people continue to give him any credence. He clearly has an alert for any companies associated with Mel Morris, sees it pop up while he's chomping on his cornflakes and Malibu, pops it in a tweet. No matter that he doesn't understand this company has nothing to do with the football club. 'Presumably due to non submission of accounts' nope, that wouldn't happen. It doesn't take that much knowledge to understand that, as others have pointed out, that this is likely a voluntary process. The bloke has been discredited so often, I've no idea why people take any notice of him. Bitter little man.

My point is that we have been so 'clever' with our accounting and our handling of how we run our assets that we leave ourselves wide open to being shot down - correctly or incorrectly - with stories like this. And these stories are only there because of the situation we have put ourselves in, it's on us that they make news on Twitter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

My take would be to limit debt against turnover - not spending. So if a club has low turnover but a rich owner, the owner can spend (and that will be a big loss to the owner, presumably) but the debts can't be allowed to become to big. It wouldn't solve the advantage money brings but would hopefully stop clubs eing in the poo when the money runs out (which was the justification to bring in ffp).

 

Which is fine except that we broadly have a turnover based system now - richer clubs with rich owners are able to spend more than clubs with less turnover, with an additional leeway on top. It doesn’t work because of two factors: whatever rules anyone writes others will seek to find creative ways around them and secondly because it masks the real problems - that the wealth on offer in the PL is so heavily skewing football as a whole and that failure in the PL is so heavily rewarded (now effectively over 4 years) in comparison to the rewards on offer in the Championship.

Sheffield Utd have just earned 4 years of DCFC turnover in a season, for coming last. On top of that they will also 'earn' 3 years worth of parachute payments the first two of which will more than match DCFC's annual turnover. It has probably already reached the point where even relatively large clubs (like us) in the division simply can't compete unless we get lucky. No wonder owners go for it, no wonder they try to find ways around rules that effectively hold them back

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/06/2021 at 19:38, Tyler Durden said:

Guess education lessons on how to properly run a football club would be more in order.

Just like when you get caught speeding by the filth and you can either take the points and fine or go on a speed awareness course. 

Well you can unless you get caught again within 3 years of the last Speed Awareness Course. And, yes, I did - by one week! Coming back from Leeds on the M1 at 1am just after the "All Lanes Running" road works had been completed. But all the road cones and lane restrictions were still in place, as was the 40mph speed limit, for the entire 25 mile duration, and I drifted up to 50mph at the last set of cameras. It's almost as if the EFL were in charge of restoring the roads to normal in double quick time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Curtains said:

East Midlands Today reporting tonight Derby likely to find out next week our punishment.

How they know is unknown 

Timeline fits with the couple of weeks we heard about a couple of weeks ago, so probably been the hearing this week and expected to have resolution next.

Possibly just someone at the club has off the record said something to the effect of "yes, we had the hearing and will hear next week but don't tell anyone"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Curtains said:

East Midlands Today reporting tonight Derby likely to find out next week our punishment.

How they know is unknown 

48 hours after the retained list I expect.

A few more pictures of the new pitch and throwbacks to the anniversary of the signings of players we all moaned about at the time but wished they were still here (Johnny Russell anyone?) before anything meaningful I should think.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Dean (hick) Saunders said:

3 points peno is what I have heard (bloke at pub, so must be true)..

Hypothetically, that's not too bad really, certainly something that could be overcome. We'd probably appeal it anyway.

If it's suspended pending future conduct then even better.

However, let's wait to find out for sure. Bit less than the-21 points certain tweeters had predicted at the start of all this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

Hypothetically, that's not too bad really, certainly something that could be overcome. We'd probably appeal it anyway.

If it's suspended pending future conduct then even better.

However, let's wait to find out for sure. Bit less than the-21 points certain tweeters had predicted at the start of all this.

I would take a 3 point deduction.

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.

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...