st albans fox

Owynn PA says we can’t extend contracts either without the approval of the efl

They are - it’s a preventative policy to avoid intervention too late whether they are acting as much out of spite in this instance is possibly likely I believe we would be able to register a player with their approval

Gaps in the rules will mean that lawyers get rich and our fate will lie in the attitude of the commission to those gaps. I suspect that they would acknowledge the issue in the rules but punish us because of the reality. We could possibly get away with loopholes in a court but I don’t think we are able to take the PL or EFL to court (or CAS)

They are going over the top because of our attitude and the fact we’ve fought them over this but the usual procedure with projected losses in the efl is for clubs to be brought under special measures (inc transfer controls ). Usually before the Jan window but we scuppered them on that

On the precedent of Chelsea buying kovacic I think we will be allowed to register him if we are promoted

We haven’t seen our numbers They have Should saying ‘don’t worry, we’ll be fine cos we’ll sell a couple big players in June’ be an acceptable position? what if we don’t sell those players ? What if it all went TU financially for us cos we didn’t get promoted? the efl would be slaughtered for allowing it.

Because we didn’t give them our accounts end dec as all PL clubs are required to because we argued we aren’t a PL club so not under their jurisdiction. We are having our cake and eating it. Arguing against each league with the same point. efl - you can’t have our numbers from last year in November cos we weren’t an efl club then so none of your business ep, - you can’t have our numbers from last year end dec cos we aren’t a PL club now so none of your business the assumption is that we gave the efl our numbers on 1 march as required and they passed them onto the PL

The EFL have charged us ?

Why didn’t we begin this fight against these wholly unfair rules until we failed them ? We spent almost a decade in the PL. we suffered in the championship before that was there a period where we felt somewhat protected by psr ourselves - whilst we turned over 200m+ and clubs historically larger were unable to do that. Villa couldn’t spend what we were spending because they couldn’t generate the on field income that we were. They had wealthier owners than us. Did we spent a few years thinking that psr was protecting our place between the rich six and the others. there must be a reason why we didn’t challenge the rules with big shot lawyers whilst we were actually sitting at the top table and infact not far from the top of it

clearly the authorities don’t agree with that because they found forest guilty End of year accounts are end of year accounts. financial deadlines have to be met . If you don’t want to undersell a particular asset then sell others or don’t spend until the following financial year begins.

nothing he’s asked is a secret from what I’ve read in his letter is there an election soon ?

sadly sums up SM And they actually believe it I suppose we’ve moved on - before Israel was created it was usually the Jews who were responsible for all the ills of the world ……

Did you find this out yourself or was it something you’d heard from a reputable source. ? if true it’s a big problem in addition to us being unable to renew contracts of existing players we may have wanted to (according to owynn PA ) without efl approval you’d assume that the club would understand all the issues before ‘going to war’

Why couldn’t we strengthen ?

I’m afraid your rowing against a considerable tide with that Of course the authorities who hated us and were out to get us then allowed us to win the fa cup - surely they could have found some dodgy ref calls in the 1/4 final or final ? how difficult would it have been for var to disallow youri’s winning goal for ayo’s use of the arm ?? No one is arguing that ffp protects the rich clubs. It may well not have been thought up to do so but it was clear that it would do this once people looked at the mechanics of it. why on earth wouldn’t those clubs want to maintain it and their position. None of them want a Newcastle spending a billion quid in two seasons to ensconce themselves in that top 4 at one of their expense. I’m pretty sure that we voted with the rich six to give them a larger share of global tv revenues a few season ago. You can hardly point at the unfairness of the financial constraints of ffp when you’re voting with the rich six to make the other fourteen poorer!

There was a comment on TS yesterday evening that probably 80% of the PL have broken psr i expect it was just a throw away line but it seems to have become fact in here !

not the same scenario as us but embargo placed before efl knew the details of the accounts https://www.theguardian.com/football/2023/mar/12/efl-place-burnley-under-transfer-embargo-after-late-accounts-submission

it’s standard procedure for efl to put clubs in special measures if they expect the club to break psr by a substantial amount and potentially they consider the club should not spend any money to protect its future. It’s posturing but it’s justifiable imo. Ordinarily the club and the efl would be talking about the situation, giving their budgets and intentions. But it’s clear we aren’t on speaking terms ! No

assuming we stay down, the efl can only screw us if we fail to sell enough players in June. It’s likely but it’s not a certainty I’m not a lawyer and I don’t have the epl rules and regs to hand !

Depends if they’ve got their ducks in a row legally if we squirm our way out of this on technicalities then you can be sure they’ll want to see everything we’re up to for years to come

We proved that they couldn’t ask us to supply our management accounts to end June 2023 in the autumn so they could decide if we were likely to fail psr and be put into special measures (which would likely be a transfer embargo ) but 1st march we had to give them the audited accounts and the club should not be surprised by this development (although they will pretend that they are)

So the gloves are really off with the efl Placing an embargo on us registering new players seems plain weird at this stage of the season. In addition, there is no way that they can be sure we will fail psr this year as we have June to make sig player sales and be ok. However, the efl have stated publicly that they are pro active in attempting to prevent any of their clubs falling foul of financial disaster - allowing us to trade once the window opens and then we don’t sell anyone and fail psr by a big margin whilst buying a few new players would raise questions of their plausibility in this regard. it’s not really a surprise, despite the club making a public statement . Suspect the issue is more that the efl made the embargo public.

Kdh linked to yanited

this from the MEN a few days ago (for avoidance of doubt, City = Man City) There are accusations with not co-operating with the Premier League investigation, not abiding by PSR regulations, and - most damningly - nine seasons of essentially not giving truthful and accurate information about their finances. These are incredibly damaging allegations that, if proven (and it's a big if), would warrant incredibly serious punishments. Barely any details of the case can be made public, although a date for City's hearing has been set. It is expected to be later in 2024, with the intention of everything being cleared up by the end of the 2024/25 campaign. Why has it taken so long? City were charged in February 2023, so the whole process could take over two years to complete. That feels like a long time, and Pep Guardiola is included in the long list of people who would like it wrapped up sooner. However, because the list of charges is so long and complicated and because the consequences of the hearing will be so monumental, time has to be given for everything to be done properly. As football finance expert Kieran Maguire told the Manchester Evening News at the time: "The Premier League is shooting itself in the foot. If you have 100 charges, you need to have the time to have 100 defences." City haven't 'got away with it', it is just their day of reckoning is further away because it is so much more complex. Why are City treated differently to other clubs? City are treated differently to clubs such as Everton and Nottingham Forest because their situations are completely different. City aren't so much disputing multiple murder charges as claiming that there is no victim, whereas according to the Premier League both Everton and Forest have accepted breaches but believe their reasons for doing so is enough mitigation to avoid strict punishment. As Premier League chief executive Richard Masters said when speaking at a select committee: "They are very different charges. If any club, whether they are the current champions or otherwise, had been found in breach of the spending rules for year '23, they would be in exactly the same position as Everton or Nottingham Forest. "The volume and character of the charges laid before Man City, which I cannot talk about at all, are being heard in a completely different environment. There is a date set for that proceeding." Why not deal with City first though? Again, this is a reasonable enough thought but one that doesn't tie in with the reality of what the clubs have already decided. Everton, Nottingham Forest and everyone else agreed to a set of rule changes at the Premier League AGM in 2023 to speed up straightforward cases. This meant that standard directions were put in place for PSR cases to be handled in the season in which the breaches occurred so that everybody can be happy that nobody has got away with an unfair competitive advantage. City's breaches are historical, and denied, so they are not straightforward. Work is also being done on the case at the same time as others are being dealt with, it just takes longer for all the reasons set out above. Doesn't that mean City are getting away with it? If they are found to have breached PSR and systemically misrepresented their finances, they will have operated with an unfair competitive advantage for years. That's why, if the Premier League prove the case, the consequences will be more in line with expulsion from the league rather than a few points being deducted. At the same time, the most significant charges are so serious that it will take a high bar of evidence to support the claims. "It would not be good enough for the Premier League to argue that Manchester City failed to co-operate with the Premier League’s investigation," write Dr Dan Plumley and Dr Gregory Ioannidis in an academic paper in the International Sports Law Review. "The Premier League would have to go beyond this, by proving that Manchester City, as a matter of fact and evidence, failed to produce accurate financial information (and/or lied about it) in relation to their revenue, within the meaning of the current regulations. This is not an easy burden for the Premier League. But it should not be easy, because the allegations produced are of a very serious nature." It's not a perfect system, but it is the system that everyone signed up for.

Just to upset you even more, hamza’s previous deal was 60k/week