EFL statement

[FlyBritishMidland]

1 hour ago, curb said:

What’s Trevor Birch’s e-mail address?

I want to put forward a plan to finance us to the end of the season which involves sueing Liverpool for keeping us out of Europe in 87

Waste of time, he doesn’t reply.  I’ve just forwarded to Rick Parry.

[jono]

I wonder what would happen if say 10 or 12 championship clubs started proceedings against the EFL for the unfair financial advantage given to parachute clubs. I know it won’t happen but it’s worth saying and puts the so called cheating claims in to perspective. 

[Tamworthram]

3 hours ago, jono said:

I wonder what would happen if say 10 or 12 championship clubs started proceedings against the EFL for the unfair financial advantage given to parachute clubs. I know it won’t happen but it’s worth saying and puts the so called cheating claims in to perspective. 

Isn't it the Premier League that award the parachute payments?

[jono]

1 minute ago, Tamworthram said:

Isn't it the Premier League that award the parachute payments?

Aye but they render FFP P+S meaningless. The EFL allow teams with parachute money to play in their league and then hobble everyone else. In essence FFP is a deliberate handicap enforced on member clubs

[Tamworthram]

Just now, jono said:

Aye but they render FFP P+S meaningless. The EFL allow teams with parachute money to play in their league and then hobble everyone else. In essence FFP is a deliberate handicap enforced on member clubs

So what are you suggesting? The EFL should ban clubs that are in receipt of parachute payments?

[jono]

6 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

So what are you suggesting? The EFL should ban clubs that are in receipt of parachute payments?

No but FFP should be applied additionally weighted to cancel out the advantage that parachute gives. 

[Tamworthram]

2 minutes ago, jono said:

No but FFP should be applied additionally weighted to cancel out the advantage that parachute gives. 

A different maximum loss threshold? Nice idea but I can't ever see it happening.

I understand what should be the purpose of parachute payments - to stop relegated clubs getting into a financial mess because they are still paying Premier League wages so, in the absence of relegation clauses in players contracts, perhaps your solution would be the best.

[jono]

40 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

A different maximum loss threshold? Nice idea but I can't ever see it happening.

I understand what should be the purpose of parachute payments - to stop relegated clubs getting into a financial mess because they are still paying Premier League wages so, in the absence of relegation clauses in players contracts, perhaps your solution would be the best.

Yes, something like that, but really, I can’t for the life of me understand why relegation clauses are not obligatory 

[Tamworthram]

9 minutes ago, jono said:

Yes, something like that, but really, I can’t for the life of me understand why relegation clauses are not obligatory 

Power of the agents?

[Indy]

Am I right in thinking that the parachute payments and solidarity payments are an agreement between the Premier Leagueband the EFL (rather than solely the Prem’s decision)?  I though Mel very publicly calling out the EFL’s incompetence in negotiating the last TV deal and payments for the benefit of all members was one of the foundations stones of the EFL targeting him/us.  As I recall, Leeds were one of the few clubs to have the balls to back him up. 
 

If the aim is to mitigate club’s financial exposure from competing in the premier there’s loads of better things they could do like:

- mandatory relegation clauses (and salary increase in promotion). Relegation percentage could be linked to each players wage difference from the average of the division they go down to (so those already on a low wage don’t have to take as big a hit).

- increase solidarity payments (so the overall gap between the two divisions isn’t as great).

- taper the parachute payments year on year so that clubs aren’t tempted to hang on to big earners without negotiation for three years and continue to gamble in going up and then fall off a cliff after that period. 

[jono]

20 minutes ago, Tamworthram said:

Power of the agents?

Of course you are right but it wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to say if paid holiday is a legal requirement then pay related to league you are in could easily be. 

[I know nuffin]

2 hours ago, jono said:

No but FFP should be applied additionally weighted to cancel out the advantage that parachute gives. 

As they get 40 or 50 million each they could ban then from making a loss

[jono]

6 minutes ago, I know nuffin said:

As they get 40 or 50 million each they could ban then from making a loss

You know what, it could be just as simple as that ???

[PistoldPete]

9 hours ago, Ellafella said:

So of course is Parry.

OK so Parry is the one with permed hair and a moustache, and Birch is the one with permed hair and a moustache, so who is the other guy with permed hair and a moustache?  

[Jimbo Ram]

1 minute ago, PistoldPete said:

OK so Parry is the one with permed hair and a moustache, and Birch is the one with permed hair and a moustache, so who is the other guy with permed hair and a moustache?  

Looks a bit like Leo Sayer but I might be wrong ?

[hintonsboots]

3 minutes ago, Jimbo Ram said:

Looks a bit like Leo Sayer but I might be wrong ?

Yosser Hughes ?

[Ramism]

So when a club gets relegated from the prem they come down with parachute payments, so they can cope with loss of revenue(is that correct).

why then when they sell a high earner for big bucks and for a big fee then sign someone for lower fee and wages. Do they have to give any of that “profit” back?

Edited January 22, 2022 by super58

[FlyBritishMidland]

On 18/01/2022 at 10:21, FlyBritishMidland said:

I emailed Trevor Birch last night and specifically referenced this paragraph.  Plus the fact the statement said MFC’s claim was over 12 months ago, this case was 15 months ago and yet we weren’t found guilty of breaching FFP until after our accounts were submitted in August last year.  How and on what basis we’re they claiming in the intervening period if we hadn’t actually been found guilty of anything?

I even included the link to the MFC case from October 2021, just in case he had trouble finding it.

I never had response from Trevor Birch so I forwarded it to Rick Parry.  We’ve exchanged a few emails today, so much so that we’re now on first name terms ?.  Regarding MFC, he said the original ruling said they had no reason to interfere with the EFL appeal and this is brought on different grounds.  Regardless I think we still have a strong case.

I did add a few points about WWFC and pointed out RC’s interview on RD this week where he said we’d submitted accounts late but the deadline was actually into this season.  He’s highlighted the timeline of the EFL appeal to the final decision, which we pretty much know.  He say that he thinks (put this in capitals saying he did it know the details) WWFC’s point is if we’d submitted revised accounts prior to the June hearing points may have been deducted last season.  I’ve said I hope all parties do get together this week and that RC should be made aware of the Brum & Sheff Wed decisions.  In both cases they basically said that points shouldn’t be deducted near the end of the season as the club can do little to claw them back.  They also say it creates uncertainty for all the clubs.

Now I need a beer!!

[PistoldPete]

12 minutes ago, FlyBritishMidland said:

I never had response from Trevor Birch so I forwarded it to Rick Parry.  We’ve exchanged a few emails today, so much so that we’re now on first name terms ?.  Regarding MFC, he said the original ruling said they had no reason to interfere with the EFL appeal and this is brought on different grounds.  Regardless I think we still have a strong case.

I did add a few points about WWFC and pointed out RC’s interview on RD this week where he said we’d submitted accounts late but the deadline was actually into this season.  He’s highlighted the timeline of the EFL appeal to the final decision, which we pretty much know.  He say that he thinks (put this in capitals saying he did it know the details) WWFC’s point is if we’d submitted revised accounts prior to the June hearing points may have been deducted last season.  I’ve said I hope all parties do get together this week and that RC should be made aware of the Brum & Sheff Wed decisions.  In both cases they basically said that points shouldn’t be deducted near the end of the season as the club can do little to claw them back.  They also say it creates uncertainty for all the clubs.

Now I need a beer!!

Also points cannot just be irretrievably deducted like that.. it has to go through an IDC and possibly LAP process.   We were not even charged with a breach of FFP for losses. We only accepted the points deduction in November 2021 to get EFL off our backs. If it had gone through the  full process we might not have got any points deductions in 2021/22 leave alone 2020/21.

Anyway the Boro claim against EFL (whatever happened to that?  ) and the Wycombe claims are incompatible.   Boro claimed EFL failed to act quickly enough. So if there is any tardiness, Wycombe can claim against EFL. 

The May ruling only said what basis for amortisation we couldn't use.. there is still no mandatory basis for amortisation The idea of redoing our accounts before June is just ridiculous. .as is the whole Wycombe claim.  

[Tamworthram]

29 minutes ago, FlyBritishMidland said:

I never had response from Trevor Birch so I forwarded it to Rick Parry.  We’ve exchanged a few emails today, so much so that we’re now on first name terms ?.  Regarding MFC, he said the original ruling said they had no reason to interfere with the EFL appeal and this is brought on different grounds.  Regardless I think we still have a strong case.

I did add a few points about WWFC and pointed out RC’s interview on RD this week where he said we’d submitted accounts late but the deadline was actually into this season.  He’s highlighted the timeline of the EFL appeal to the final decision, which we pretty much know.  He say that he thinks (put this in capitals saying he did it know the details) WWFC’s point is if we’d submitted revised accounts prior to the June hearing points may have been deducted last season.  I’ve said I hope all parties do get together this week and that RC should be made aware of the Brum & Sheff Wed decisions.  In both cases they basically said that points shouldn’t be deducted near the end of the season as the club can do little to claw them back.  They also say it creates uncertainty for all the clubs.

Now I need a beer!!

He may well be right but, provided our submission was within timescales set by the EFL then I don't understand their case. WW may not like the fact that we delayed submission but if we were allowed to then I don't see how there can be a case to answer.

They got promoted in accordance with EFL rules (PPG) which, unlike some I don't have a problem with, but it seems to me we avoided a points deduction last season by complying with EFL timelines. That's how I remember it anyway.

Edited January 22, 2022 by Tamworthram