| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? 10:47 - Aug 20 with 5408 views | WrightUp5hit___ |
Having successfully managed to wrap the EFL around their finger, in their punishment for aggravated breach of the FFP regulations (whatever they are this week)
While no one signed as yet, looks like they are planning a now annual, supermarket sweep of new players. Being linked left right and center.
Hurtfuly so with Izzy Brown, who is probably very high up our list on the "Ebs has gone what the Fook do we do now" list.
Not saying they should have a transfer ban as well as the points deduction, but does look like a big juicy "Foock You" to the EFL |  | | |  |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 10:52 - Aug 20 with 5380 views | daveB |
Not sure what they are supposed to do though? Do they just give up and accept relegation next season or try and improve the team, if they do it by breaching FFP again then they are idiots but the punishment was 12 point deduction not a transfer ban |  | | |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 10:56 - Aug 20 with 5344 views | LazyFan |
I would say they are looking at Loans as they cannot buy anyone right now.
Also, Chelsea may feel that they can drive a sale through "or we shall loan him to Sheff Wed". So, either we lose him for nothing in 1 year or you pay us a xfer fee.
This helps Chelsea keep prices up for ALL their players in their stock. A nasty way Chelsea takes a hit on one player to keep prices up on all of them.
Are the Scum a football club now or just a warehouse of players? I think we know the answer. |  |
| |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 10:57 - Aug 20 with 5332 views | Hunterhoop |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 10:52 - Aug 20 by daveB |
Not sure what they are supposed to do though? Do they just give up and accept relegation next season or try and improve the team, if they do it by breaching FFP again then they are idiots but the punishment was 12 point deduction not a transfer ban |
Agree. But how are they outbidding clubs without obviously setting themselves up to breach FFP? They’re not bringing in extra revenue or reducing costs elsewhere.
The EFL, if they had any nous, would have added an embargo (unless it’s more out than in), or put in a clause that a subsequent FFP breach would be automatic relegation AND and further points deduction in that league, so they try to get their finances in order...not be offering £20k per week or whatever on Brown. |  | | |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 11:03 - Aug 20 with 5280 views | LongsufferingR |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 10:57 - Aug 20 by Hunterhoop |
Agree. But how are they outbidding clubs without obviously setting themselves up to breach FFP? They’re not bringing in extra revenue or reducing costs elsewhere.
The EFL, if they had any nous, would have added an embargo (unless it’s more out than in), or put in a clause that a subsequent FFP breach would be automatic relegation AND and further points deduction in that league, so they try to get their finances in order...not be offering £20k per week or whatever on Brown. |
...but they have reduced costs haven't they? They let a shedload of players go including their highest earners. Anyway, a team of loans plus 12 point deduction = relegation in my book. |  | | |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 11:26 - Aug 20 with 5198 views | Roller |
They will have to go some to breach FFP in the next couple of seasons.
Their attempt to not breach the spending limit in the 3-years ending 2018 by selling Hillsborough failed on a timing issue. The profit from the sale (£38m) will have been moved into their 2019 submission and I've seen nothing in the report questioning the price they sold their ground for.
As I understand things, they will have to keep their losses down to £13m for 2019, £26 million for the 2 season up to 2020 and then will be back on £39m on a 3-year rolling period. With exception revenue of £38m in 2019 they should comfortably achieve that. It just remains to be seen whether the EFL go after them for selling Hillsborough above the market value to a related party. |  | | |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 11:59 - Aug 20 with 5079 views | Hunterhoop |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 11:26 - Aug 20 by Roller |
They will have to go some to breach FFP in the next couple of seasons.
Their attempt to not breach the spending limit in the 3-years ending 2018 by selling Hillsborough failed on a timing issue. The profit from the sale (£38m) will have been moved into their 2019 submission and I've seen nothing in the report questioning the price they sold their ground for.
As I understand things, they will have to keep their losses down to £13m for 2019, £26 million for the 2 season up to 2020 and then will be back on £39m on a 3-year rolling period. With exception revenue of £38m in 2019 they should comfortably achieve that. It just remains to be seen whether the EFL go after them for selling Hillsborough above the market value to a related party. |
I thought the EFL were not treating the revenue raised from such shady sales of grounds from the holding entity to the owners other companies towards FFP.
If they do, a) it means Wednesday get off with just a 12 point deduction, so potentially one season of being in a relegation scrap but survive that and they’re on easy street with another 3 years of loads of ceiling to overspend, but b) how does that deter every club from doing that? Then you’ll have all these historic football clubs with no assets to protect their future with, and the whole league in the palm of club’s owners...how is that EFL protecting it’s members and English football?! | | | |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 12:53 - Aug 20 with 4925 views | EastR |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 11:59 - Aug 20 by Hunterhoop |
I thought the EFL were not treating the revenue raised from such shady sales of grounds from the holding entity to the owners other companies towards FFP.
If they do, a) it means Wednesday get off with just a 12 point deduction, so potentially one season of being in a relegation scrap but survive that and they’re on easy street with another 3 years of loads of ceiling to overspend, but b) how does that deter every club from doing that? Then you’ll have all these historic football clubs with no assets to protect their future with, and the whole league in the palm of club’s owners...how is that EFL protecting it’s members and English football?! |
Having read the full report on the charges, the decision and punishment (sad, I know but let's call it a professional interest) it's clear that the EFL role in the whole sale was less than that of a passive bystander.
And they still haven't arrived at a decision on the Derby case. |  |
| |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 13:06 - Aug 20 with 4849 views | NewBee |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 10:57 - Aug 20 by Hunterhoop |
Agree. But how are they outbidding clubs without obviously setting themselves up to breach FFP? They’re not bringing in extra revenue or reducing costs elsewhere.
The EFL, if they had any nous, would have added an embargo (unless it’s more out than in), or put in a clause that a subsequent FFP breach would be automatic relegation AND and further points deduction in that league, so they try to get their finances in order...not be offering £20k per week or whatever on Brown. |
While I agree that the EFL has been disgracefully incompetent in the way they've dealt with SWFC, they simply cannot add eg a transfer embargo to the points deduction, when such an embargo isn't in their rulebook. Any club so punished would undoubtedly take them to court and win (and they'd be right to do so imo.)
As for any "subsequent FFP breach", you cannot introduce further ad hoc punishments (eg automatic relegation) for infringements which haven't even been made yet, might never be made and aren't in the rulebook. That too would be entirely unlawful and could never be enforced.
The answer is to extend the range of possible punishments. The EFL has already done so once, by moving beyond mere financial sanctions, to points deductions (as QPR well know, having escaped before the deductions came in). But these are still proving inadequate, so the answer must be to extend the punishments further.
But in order for that to happen, that has to gain the support of a majority of clubs, and I'm not sure club owners would vote for anything which might come back to bite them, by restricting their own room for manoevre further.
EDIT: Meant to add, while it is galling to be able to see SWFC borrow players whom other clubs might want, we still don't know whether they might be able to afford it by eg selling someone else. "Let me fall before you catch me", as my dear old mother used to say. [Post edited 20 Aug 2020 13:12]
| | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 13:22 - Aug 20 with 4784 views | Roller |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 11:59 - Aug 20 by Hunterhoop |
I thought the EFL were not treating the revenue raised from such shady sales of grounds from the holding entity to the owners other companies towards FFP.
If they do, a) it means Wednesday get off with just a 12 point deduction, so potentially one season of being in a relegation scrap but survive that and they’re on easy street with another 3 years of loads of ceiling to overspend, but b) how does that deter every club from doing that? Then you’ll have all these historic football clubs with no assets to protect their future with, and the whole league in the palm of club’s owners...how is that EFL protecting it’s members and English football?! |
Wishful thinking I'm afraid Hunter.
The following is point 12 from the decision document.
The Commission is aware that there is some controversy concerning the appropriateness of the sale of a club's stadium to enable the P&S requirements to be met. This case has nothing to do with that controversy. The EFL accepted, in principle, that this was an acceptable practice and the Club does not, of course, stand alone as a club that has sought to utilise such a mechanism. That it failed to do so effectively is the reason why its breach of the Rules could not be remedied so as to result in effective compliance.
The EFL's case against Derby is purely to do with the price they sold Pride Park for, not that they sold it although there is also a large question mark over the way in which their amortise their player registrations.
Pride Park - £80m
Hillsborough - £60m
Villa Park - £56m
Madejski - £26m
St Andrews - £22m [Post edited 20 Aug 2020 13:22]
| | | |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 22:12 - Aug 20 with 4496 views | Hunterhoop |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 12:53 - Aug 20 by EastR |
Having read the full report on the charges, the decision and punishment (sad, I know but let's call it a professional interest) it's clear that the EFL role in the whole sale was less than that of a passive bystander.
And they still haven't arrived at a decision on the Derby case. |
Sorry, fat fingers. Meant to up vote.
Why does that not surprise me that EFL have played an active part in this ground sale fiasco. | | | |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 07:32 - Aug 21 with 4247 views | distortR |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 12:53 - Aug 20 by EastR |
Having read the full report on the charges, the decision and punishment (sad, I know but let's call it a professional interest) it's clear that the EFL role in the whole sale was less than that of a passive bystander.
And they still haven't arrived at a decision on the Derby case. |
can you let us know a little more?
Ta | | | |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 07:35 - Aug 21 with 4238 views | CamberleyR |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 13:06 - Aug 20 by NewBee |
While I agree that the EFL has been disgracefully incompetent in the way they've dealt with SWFC, they simply cannot add eg a transfer embargo to the points deduction, when such an embargo isn't in their rulebook. Any club so punished would undoubtedly take them to court and win (and they'd be right to do so imo.)
As for any "subsequent FFP breach", you cannot introduce further ad hoc punishments (eg automatic relegation) for infringements which haven't even been made yet, might never be made and aren't in the rulebook. That too would be entirely unlawful and could never be enforced.
The answer is to extend the range of possible punishments. The EFL has already done so once, by moving beyond mere financial sanctions, to points deductions (as QPR well know, having escaped before the deductions came in). But these are still proving inadequate, so the answer must be to extend the punishments further.
But in order for that to happen, that has to gain the support of a majority of clubs, and I'm not sure club owners would vote for anything which might come back to bite them, by restricting their own room for manoevre further.
EDIT: Meant to add, while it is galling to be able to see SWFC borrow players whom other clubs might want, we still don't know whether they might be able to afford it by eg selling someone else. "Let me fall before you catch me", as my dear old mother used to say. [Post edited 20 Aug 2020 13:12]
|
"The answer is to extend the range of possible punishments."
I've said it before on here and will keep saying it, any points deduction has to be a minimum of 20 points to make it any sort of deterrent.
If levied during the season and taking this last one as an example, -20 would have relegated everyone from Preston in 9th downwards. Alternatively if levied the following as in the Wendy's case, a team would have to have a play off season at the minimum to stay up. |  |
| |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 08:14 - Aug 21 with 4160 views | nix |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 07:35 - Aug 21 by CamberleyR |
"The answer is to extend the range of possible punishments."
I've said it before on here and will keep saying it, any points deduction has to be a minimum of 20 points to make it any sort of deterrent.
If levied during the season and taking this last one as an example, -20 would have relegated everyone from Preston in 9th downwards. Alternatively if levied the following as in the Wendy's case, a team would have to have a play off season at the minimum to stay up. |
I guess it's also a deterrent for decent players to go to a team as well though. I can't imagine a really decent championship player wanting to go there even on loan knowing they have zero chance of even reaching the play offs. |  | | |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 08:14 - Aug 21 with 4160 views | Roller |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 07:32 - Aug 21 by distortR |
can you let us know a little more?
Ta |
I need to re-read the report a couple more times to fully get to grips with it properly, but it starts by mentioning an agreement reached in August 2018 where the Wednesday chairman agreed, in principle, to but Hillsborough to ensure that Wednesday don't breach their FFP spending limit for the rolling 3-year period which ended on 31st July 2018. Senior personnel of the EFL were involved in those discussion and were ok with it all despite it being after the event. It only started to fall apart 10 months later when, I think, Wednesday had failed to deliver on some of their promises. The EFL were in contact with Wednesday through out this debacle. For them to claim that Wednesday tried to back date the deal without their knowledge is ridiculous and it was that claim which set back the resolution process by months.
EastR may be in a better position to provide more details. | | | |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 12:34 - Aug 21 with 3986 views | DavieQPR |
Clubs are now asking for Derby CEO to be suspended from the EFL Board looking into Derbys ground sale( plus Reading CEO). They also want an investigation into the loan secured on a ground they don't own. Also the finance house that lent them the money has a loan outstanding with Sunderland in a possible conflict of interest. One day everything is going to come crashing down for them. |  | | |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 13:20 - Aug 21 with 3895 views | NewBee |
| Are Sheffield Wendy taking the piss? on 07:35 - Aug 21 by CamberleyR |
"The answer is to extend the range of possible punishments."
I've said it before on here and will keep saying it, any points deduction has to be a minimum of 20 points to make it any sort of deterrent.
If levied during the season and taking this last one as an example, -20 would have relegated everyone from Preston in 9th downwards. Alternatively if levied the following as in the Wendy's case, a team would have to have a play off season at the minimum to stay up. |
The problem with a 20 point minimum for breaching FFP is that it doesn't distinguish between clubs which are clearly taking the piss (owing tens of millions etc), and a club which is eg just a million over the limit, and then only because a sponsor suddenly went bust or a transfer out unexpectedly collapsed on deadline day.
In those circumstances, a club could well take it to court on the basis that such an arbitrary punishment is unlawful, especially when it would be replacing a previous sliding scale of deductions.
And in any case, a 20 point deduction wouldn't really punish a club which was already doomed to relegation anyway - they'd just bring forward whatever was needed to spark the deduction, take their punishment early and start the new season with a clean sheet.
I agree that having gone from solely fines, to fines and deductions hasn't worked yet, and it needs more work, but merely "going nuclear" doesn't work either.
Which as a QPR fan you should know as well as anyone, for when you were fined a huge amount, the EFL eventually had to reduce the punishment for fear of legal challenge. [Post edited 21 Aug 2020 13:21]
| | | |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
