| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 15:50 - Sep 8 with 3280 views | bosh67 |
Is Arry some kind of plant for the FA and football league? Someone secretly sent in to slim down the amount of teams in the top 2 leagues? |  |
|  |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 16:10 - Sep 8 with 3247 views | colinallcars |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 14:21 - Sep 8 by distortR |
we don't really know, but i imagine all teams except us are flaunting ffp and should be deducted 12 points with immediate effect, which would probably leave us comfortably mid-table for a couple of weeks.
edit - birmingham are wrong, in so many ways, but ffp is undoubtedly wronger. [Post edited 8 Sep 2018 14:22]
|
And Profitabilty & Sustainability are twice as wrongerer ! |  | | |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 17:02 - Sep 8 with 3164 views | VancouverHoop |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 13:28 - Sep 8 by davman |
I would agree apart from two things:
1. The football authorities do not listen to fans;
2. Although there appears to be a general murmuring on message boards such as this (quite rightly), I see no solid movement of fans across the board to challenge this. There are enough of us to make the authorities listen, but deep down, there aren't many who are prepared to follow interest up with a dedicated campaign to influence the authorities, so why should they listen?
Every football fan outside the top 6 (and maybe Everton too) should be very interested in influencing the authorities to do something about it, but those in the promised land are generally too arrogant to worry as they believe that their team is 'established' in the top flight and will never have to worry about getting someone to inject funding into their club to sustain a push to get back into the big money league once they fall out of it, because they won't...
I say it again. If the key issue FFP (or profitability and sustainment) rules are trying to protect is owners over committing clubs to debt they cannot service (like what happened to Portsmouth), then owners providing funds up front to cover their commitments or wiping debt is the way to go about it.
Effectively, what our owners tried to do... |
Agree. The problem too is that we fans don't see beyond club loyalty on issues like this. Do most of us care if Brum get deducted points? Do we f**k. Similarly did Brum supporters shed a tear because we got stung for £20 million? No, they probably think we deserve it. Doing anything about the unfairness of FFP can't happen on a club-by-club basis, and football supporters rarely come together on issues like this. |  | | |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 17:14 - Sep 8 with 3154 views | distortR |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 16:10 - Sep 8 by colinallcars |
And Profitabilty & Sustainability are twice as wrongerer ! |
if the owners want to fund a club out of their own pockets, i don't have a problem, ffp should be about stopping people financially saddling their mistakes on the backs of clubs.
anyway, as it's retrospective it doesn't stop the latter either - villa's owners could run up debts of 100m over 3 years and walk.
that would be wrongest. | | | |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 17:52 - Sep 8 with 3102 views | davman |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 17:14 - Sep 8 by distortR |
if the owners want to fund a club out of their own pockets, i don't have a problem, ffp should be about stopping people financially saddling their mistakes on the backs of clubs.
anyway, as it's retrospective it doesn't stop the latter either - villa's owners could run up debts of 100m over 3 years and walk.
that would be wrongest. |
Nah, the wrongiest of this whole saga is that Chelscum and Man City transformed run of the mill, average clubs into World Players because they were allowed to spend what the hell they wanted without recourse. The most unfairiest thing ever on FFP is that no-one else is allowed to do that now; the obvious question, is why is that fair on any level whatsoever? |  |
| |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 18:36 - Sep 8 with 3059 views | distortR |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 17:52 - Sep 8 by davman |
Nah, the wrongiest of this whole saga is that Chelscum and Man City transformed run of the mill, average clubs into World Players because they were allowed to spend what the hell they wanted without recourse. The most unfairiest thing ever on FFP is that no-one else is allowed to do that now; the obvious question, is why is that fair on any level whatsoever? |
it's definitely wronger and unfairer. | | | |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 19:23 - Sep 8 with 2990 views | WrightUp5hit___ |
Ah but is it wrongerier or the wrongeriest thing? |  | | |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 19:30 - Sep 8 with 2978 views | GroveR |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 17:52 - Sep 8 by davman |
Nah, the wrongiest of this whole saga is that Chelscum and Man City transformed run of the mill, average clubs into World Players because they were allowed to spend what the hell they wanted without recourse. The most unfairiest thing ever on FFP is that no-one else is allowed to do that now; the obvious question, is why is that fair on any level whatsoever? |
FFP has nothing to do with being fair in any form. It's about preventing small clubs from getting ideas above their station which is to act as the plucky underdog in cup ties against big club's reserves and produce talent that feeds big club's academies. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 20:03 - Sep 8 with 2935 views | distortR |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 19:23 - Sep 8 by WrightUp5hit___ |
Ah but is it wrongerier or the wrongeriest thing? |
wonga was the wrongeriest thing.
now it's monty don. | | | |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 20:54 - Sep 8 with 2868 views | GloryHunter |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 19:24 - Sep 7 by loftboy |
Can someone post the full article as it says I have to subscribe, thanks |
Exclusive: Birmingham City facing 12-point deduction after breaking EFL spending rules
Save
5
Birmingham City's ground
The club could be hit with the deduction this season, bringing further turmoil after a win-less start Credit: PA
John Percy
7 September 2018 - 4:00pm
Birmingham City are facing the prospect of being hit with a huge 12-point deduction for breaking rules on spending, in a landmark case for the English Football League.
Garry Monk’s Championship club could be struck with the unprecedented punishment this season after the EFL agreed on the proposed sanctions this week.
Birmingham are understood to be in deep trouble for breaching profitability and sustainability rules, with the EFL determined to adopt a tough stance by pushing for a deduction of up to 12 points and a heavy fine.
Rival Championship clubs have also complained over Birmingham’s £2m signing of Danish left-back Kristian Pedersen while under a transfer embargo.
Pedersen was signed from Union Berlin in June despite the club operating under a “soft” embargo, leading to the EFL later admitting in a statement that they were “exceptionally disappointed”.
Kristian Pedersen of Birmingham City during the Sky Bet Championship match between Birmingham City and Swansea City at St Andrew's Trillion Trophy Stadium on August 17, 2018 in Birmingham, England
Birmingham signed Pedersen while the club was under a transfer embargo Credit: Getty Images
Birmingham’s hearing is likely to be in the next two months and the club, owned by Trillion Trophy Asia, is expected to contest any sanctions. A verdict will then be delivered by an independent panel, possibly before Christmas, with the EFL and clubs pushing for a “game-changing punishment”.
Telegraph Sport understands the possible points deduction could even be imposed this season, which would throw Monk’s campaign into further turmoil.
Birmingham were hit with an embargo at the end of last season after exceeding the permitted losses of £39m over a three-year period. In August they had to agree a business plan with the EFL in August after the embargo was partially lifted.
That allowed Monk to sign five players in the summer transfer window, but the plan restricted him to only free transfers or low-cost loans on wages under £10,000 a week.
English Football League - Championship
Team P W D L GD Pts
1 Leeds United 6 4 2 0 10 14
2 Middlesbrough 6 4 2 0 7 14
3 Sheffield United 6 4 0 2 4 12
4 Derby County 6 4 0 2 2 12
5 Brentford 6 3 2 1 6 11
6 Bristol City 6 3 2 1 5 11
7 Swansea City 6 3 2 1 2 11
8 Bolton Wanderers 6 3 2 1 0 11
9 West Bromwich Albion 6 3 1 2 6 10
10 Wigan Athletic 6 3 1 2 3 10
11 Sheffield Wednesday 6 3 1 2 0 10
12 Aston Villa 6 2 3 1 0 9
13 Blackburn Rovers 6 2 3 1 -1 9
14 Nottingham Forest 6 1 4 1 0 7
15 Rotherham United 6 2 0 4 -6 6
16 Millwall 6 1 2 3 -2 5
17 Norwich City 6 1 2 3 -3 5
18 Stoke City 6 1 2 3 -4 5
19 Preston North End 6 1 2 3 -4 5
20 Birmingham City 6 0 4 2 -2 4
21 Hull City 6 1 1 4 -5 4
22 Queens Park Rangers 6 1 1 4 -10 4
23 Ipswich Town 6 0 3 3 -4 3
24 Reading 6 0 2 4 -4 2
If Birmingham are found guilty, it would be the toughest punishment since Leeds United were deducted 15 points in 2007.
Queens Park Rangers agreed a £42m settlement with the EFL in January and accepted an embargo for the next transfer window after overspending in the 2013-14 season.
Bournemouth and Leicester have also reached cash settlements for breaching FFP regulations, but a points deduction for Birmingham would be the most severe sanction.
Birmingham are currently 20th in the Championship and still waiting for their first league win of the season under Monk, who was appointed as manager in March.
A club spokesperson said: “We are complying with everything required under the imposed EFL business plan.” |  | | |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 22:57 - Sep 8 with 2776 views | daveB |
first real case that has gone to this tribunal so will be interesting to see what the punishment is, if it is soft then really can't see how it will be sustainable |  | | |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 12:40 - Sep 9 with 2592 views | TGRRRSSS |
EFL will get themselves into a right mess over this at some point, given the relative wealth behind us I am amazed we even lost the case (richer the owners better the lawyers etc) be interesting to see what happens here, but looking at it from Brum's POV - what happens if as I hope Villa fail again?
Or are they one of the designated few thats deemed " a proper Premier League Club" along with Leeds, Newcastle and 3 or 4 others who are obviously bigger than some currently in PL BUT........ are not. |  | | |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 13:00 - Sep 9 with 2570 views | DavieQPR |
What is the difference between a soft embargo when you can't buy anyone and a hard embargo when you can't sign anyone? |  | | |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 13:23 - Sep 9 with 2548 views | Roller |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 13:00 - Sep 9 by DavieQPR |
What is the difference between a soft embargo when you can't buy anyone and a hard embargo when you can't sign anyone? |
I'd assume that a hard embargo means that you can not sign anyone, whereas the soft embargo allows you to replace players who've left as long as they are a free signing and their wages are no more than 75% of the outgoing player's wages and less than £600,000 per year. |  | | |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 14:04 - Sep 9 with 2514 views | BirminghamR |
  | | | |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 17:06 - Sep 9 with 2397 views | CamberleyR |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 17:52 - Sep 8 by davman |
Nah, the wrongiest of this whole saga is that Chelscum and Man City transformed run of the mill, average clubs into World Players because they were allowed to spend what the hell they wanted without recourse. The most unfairiest thing ever on FFP is that no-one else is allowed to do that now; the obvious question, is why is that fair on any level whatsoever? |
^^^^^^
This. A million times.
Before Captain Birdseye started spending money they didn't have in the late 90s they'd won one league title in ninety odd years of existence (with the lowest points total ever under two points for a win) plus a couple of domestic cups.
Seventeen teams had won more league titles at that point. Twenty years later it's now five. We all remember the team we regularly used to turn over and finish above in the 70s/80s/90s, the team that we could have relegated to the third tier in 1982/83 had we beaten them at LR on Boxing Day (that still rankles with me).
Never in a million years would they have had the success without first Bates spending like it was going out of fashion, getting the ball rolling winning a few more cups and nearly sending them to the wall, before Abramovich bailed them out and then proceeded to blow Bates' spending out of the water. They racked up £630m of losses let's not forget in his first nine years there not turning a profit until 2012!
City a similar case albeit with a little more historic success but mainly pre- war. One league title, one FA Cup and two League Cups post war. 1976 the last time a trophy was won by them.
It's not just in England, in France, Paris St Germain were perennial underachievers and they'd made heavy losses for the previous ten years prior to their buy out. Two French league titles prior to their Arab oil money, now seven (they've won five of the last six). [Post edited 9 Sep 2018 17:25]
|  |
| |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 20:49 - Sep 9 with 2242 views | kingo |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 12:40 - Sep 9 by TGRRRSSS |
EFL will get themselves into a right mess over this at some point, given the relative wealth behind us I am amazed we even lost the case (richer the owners better the lawyers etc) be interesting to see what happens here, but looking at it from Brum's POV - what happens if as I hope Villa fail again?
Or are they one of the designated few thats deemed " a proper Premier League Club" along with Leeds, Newcastle and 3 or 4 others who are obviously bigger than some currently in PL BUT........ are not. |
As I understand it, the EFL basically said they didn’t care what was legally right or wrong if it went to the Courts, they would just exclude us from the league and give us no fixtures. The issue that I find most galling, is that we broke the original rules by keeping on players we had purchased while in the Prem, whereas these other teams are actively breaking the lesser rules by overbuying whilst actually in The EFL. |  |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 21:30 - Sep 9 with 2203 views | QPR_John |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 20:49 - Sep 9 by kingo |
As I understand it, the EFL basically said they didn’t care what was legally right or wrong if it went to the Courts, they would just exclude us from the league and give us no fixtures. The issue that I find most galling, is that we broke the original rules by keeping on players we had purchased while in the Prem, whereas these other teams are actively breaking the lesser rules by overbuying whilst actually in The EFL. |
"As I understand it, the EFL basically said they didn’t care what was legally right or wrong if it went to the Courts, they would just exclude us from the league and give us no fixtures."
.
So basically they said they will punish us if we go to court and the court found in our favour. Surely that would be contempt of court. I'd like to see the outcome for the FL if that happened.
"The issue that I find most galling, is that we broke the original rules by keeping on players we had purchased while in the Prem"
Surely any contract cannot be terminated unless both parties agree. The club cannot be punished by the FL for not selling players so I am sure FFP cannot have been worded that way | | | |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 12:40 - Sep 10 with 1982 views | kingo |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 21:30 - Sep 9 by QPR_John |
"As I understand it, the EFL basically said they didn’t care what was legally right or wrong if it went to the Courts, they would just exclude us from the league and give us no fixtures."
.
So basically they said they will punish us if we go to court and the court found in our favour. Surely that would be contempt of court. I'd like to see the outcome for the FL if that happened.
"The issue that I find most galling, is that we broke the original rules by keeping on players we had purchased while in the Prem"
Surely any contract cannot be terminated unless both parties agree. The club cannot be punished by the FL for not selling players so I am sure FFP cannot have been worded that way |
Quite simply, as the old saying goes possession is 9/10th and the EFL were not going to give us fixtures, no matter what the rights and wrongs were in the Courts, which obviously take a lot of time.
With regard to contracts, I completely agree with you. We were lumbered with contracts for prem players but FFP was only looking at income v expenditure. Unlike some of the teams now, our overspend was a legacy of being in the Prem. Brum, Wednesday, Forest, Villa etc are racking up their overexpenditure whilst being in the EFL (trying to get to the Prem). | |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 12:45 - Sep 10 with 1974 views | QPR_John |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 12:40 - Sep 10 by kingo |
Quite simply, as the old saying goes possession is 9/10th and the EFL were not going to give us fixtures, no matter what the rights and wrongs were in the Courts, which obviously take a lot of time.
With regard to contracts, I completely agree with you. We were lumbered with contracts for prem players but FFP was only looking at income v expenditure. Unlike some of the teams now, our overspend was a legacy of being in the Prem. Brum, Wednesday, Forest, Villa etc are racking up their overexpenditure whilst being in the EFL (trying to get to the Prem). |
Are you saying you have information that if we did not agree a deal when we did and continued to take legal action then the FL would have expelled us [Post edited 10 Sep 2018 12:46]
| | | |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 13:33 - Sep 10 with 1865 views | Northernr |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 00:13 - Sep 8 by Toast_R |
FFP surely has to be f*cked off. Fans will start to lose interest in their clubs whilst clubs are subject to these long drawn out uncertain processes whereby the clubs gets f*cked one way or another but no one knows when. Usually all the sh*t accumilates after a disaterous season where a lot of fans are at their wits end anyway. Right now you could be inclined to f*ck this season off as we're not able to mount a challenge being in the third year of the scrutiny, and come back next season when the new three year period begins and the club can spend again. It's going to kill football. |
Great post, but it's a rolling three year period so no money to spend next year either, or any year really, unless we want to be one of the gambling teams and try to force our way up again. |  | | |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 13:35 - Sep 10 with 1851 views | Northernr |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 13:28 - Sep 8 by davman |
I would agree apart from two things:
1. The football authorities do not listen to fans;
2. Although there appears to be a general murmuring on message boards such as this (quite rightly), I see no solid movement of fans across the board to challenge this. There are enough of us to make the authorities listen, but deep down, there aren't many who are prepared to follow interest up with a dedicated campaign to influence the authorities, so why should they listen?
Every football fan outside the top 6 (and maybe Everton too) should be very interested in influencing the authorities to do something about it, but those in the promised land are generally too arrogant to worry as they believe that their team is 'established' in the top flight and will never have to worry about getting someone to inject funding into their club to sustain a push to get back into the big money league once they fall out of it, because they won't...
I say it again. If the key issue FFP (or profitability and sustainment) rules are trying to protect is owners over committing clubs to debt they cannot service (like what happened to Portsmouth), then owners providing funds up front to cover their commitments or wiping debt is the way to go about it.
Effectively, what our owners tried to do... |
Yeh just make it a rule that owners can't leverage debt against the club. Spend what you like, but it has to be your money from your business, not the club's money that they then owe back to you. Problem solved. | | | |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 13:37 - Sep 10 with 1843 views | Northernr |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 22:57 - Sep 8 by daveB |
first real case that has gone to this tribunal so will be interesting to see what the punishment is, if it is soft then really can't see how it will be sustainable |
Exactly, Given that clubs are already completely ignoring it, if they start handing out meaningless token punishments then it'll fall apart entirely - that's why they came after us so hard and for so long for an amount of money they didn't actually want to fine us themselves. | | | |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 14:44 - Sep 10 with 1756 views | kingo |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 12:45 - Sep 10 by QPR_John |
Are you saying you have information that if we did not agree a deal when we did and continued to take legal action then the FL would have expelled us [Post edited 10 Sep 2018 12:46]
|
The latest set of FFP or Sustainability Regs give the FL far reaching powers, that is why Birmingham are potentially facing a points deduction. Their ultimate sanction is expulsion from the EFL, UEFA’s is the same. | |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 16:51 - Sep 10 with 1675 views | isawqpratwcity |
| Birmingham in deep doo doo on 13:35 - Sep 10 by Northernr |
Yeh just make it a rule that owners can't leverage debt against the club. Spend what you like, but it has to be your money from your business, not the club's money that they then owe back to you. Problem solved. |
Not quite problem solved.
We know from experience that wages alone from current contracts can easily dwarf income and could, if not covered by a still-participating owner, bankrupt a club within a season. |  |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
