EFL Statement - Club has no obligation to submit and agree business plan

[Chrysalis]

5 hours ago, Bert said:

No it’s because we aren’t in any breach of the rules. 

We have done a Man City, found a technicality which will prevent them from proving we in breach of the rules.  This is only a delay though as we will be found out later.

If we was on track to be within the rules we would have complied.

[Chrysalis]

4 hours ago, Chocolate Teapot said:

They've tried that too. They only interview in favourable terms in Thailand.

In addition Foxes Trust are put under NDA as well.

[blaaklint]

1 hour ago, Chrysalis said:

We have done a Man City, found a technicality which will prevent them from proving we in breach of the rules.  This is only a delay though as we will be found out later.

If we was on track to be within the rules we would have complied.

Every year, each club has to provide info for the EFL to make a projection for losses for the period ending next season. The EFL decided to do ours in November, over four months before we are required to provide them with said information. It's hardly a technicality; they've completely misapplied their own rules.

Edited 7 March 2024 by blaaklint

[fox_favourite]

We've just delayed the inevitable, we go up and we get fined and points deduction. We don't go up and sell all our players that we can for as much profit as possible, release all out of contract (even Vards) and basically start again. At best we'd become a mid table championship side that gets into the playoffs spots. The worst...Reading comes to mind. 

 

I can't see us able to invest to stay up. Yes, we have a better squad than Sheffield United, Burnley and Luton, but not after we've been ripped apart. Are we going to be able to invest in the players we need to stay up again? I very much doubt it.

 

My other question is how has Leeds not in trouble as well? 

Edited 7 March 2024 by fox_favourite

[Jattdogg]

7 hours ago, StanSP said:

Saudi takeover bid incoming? 

Speak to your cousin Ambani and see if he is willing to buy us or invest in us.

 

 

[fox_favourite]

1 minute ago, Jattdogg said:

Speak to your cousin Ambani and see if he is willing to buy us or invest in us.

 

 

Just had an email from a Nigerian business man that sounds like he's got some money. Let me ask

[eblair]

3 hours ago, dylanlegend said:

What about all the other clubs on this list?  our net spend is about -100million on transfer fees which would be the 15th lowest in the PL. We’ve sold well more than most in the PL I would say, which means the other clubs must really be struggling- does this mean all the other 14 clubs above are to be sanctioned also?
 

https://www.football365.com/news/transfers-premier-league-five-year-net-spend-man-utd-man-city

 

The current FFP are clearly not fit for purpose 

Nah we paid stupid wages

[Mickyblueeyes]

Bloody hell, that’s a bit click baity from Percy. 
 

On the first issue/statement. You can’t criticise the club for that (you can and should continue to criticise them for why we have to answer to the relevant authority due to the most avoidable relegation ever). It’s good lawyering. Credit where it’s due. Actually, the statement didn’t have a line where Top tells everyone he’s great because he was the sperm that won the race. But otherwise it’s fine. 
 

The Percy article doesn’t contain anywhere near enough information or facts to add any value to the discussion just yet. Well only if Percy is now moonlighting as an auditor for Deloittes (or whoever undertakes our audit) as there are no accounts just yet to scrutinise! 
 

I’m all for calling out the man child and his board of cronies but it might be a bit too early to do that just yet. 

Edited 7 March 2024 by Mickyblueeyes

[Babylon]

4 hours ago, Chrysalis said:

We have done a Man City, found a technicality which will prevent them from proving we in breach of the rules.  This is only a delay though as we will be found out later.

If we was on track to be within the rules we would have complied.

The panel is pretty clear and unanimous about the fact we are just adhering to the procedures as they are written. They specifically point out that the rules are clearly written and it’s not even a case of ambiguity, 

 

“the text of Rule 2.9 is, as the Panel finds it to be, clear and sets out a workable procedure”

[hejammy]

1 hour ago, fox_favourite said:

We've just delayed the inevitable, we go up and we get fined and points deduction. We don't go up and sell all our players that we can for as much profit as possible, release all out of contract (even Vards) and basically start again. At best we'd become a mid table championship side that gets into the playoffs spots. The worst...Reading comes to mind. 

 

I can't see us able to invest to stay up. Yes, we have a better squad than Sheffield United, Burnley and Luton, but not after we've been ripped apart. Are we going to be able to invest in the players we need to stay up again? I very much doubt it.

 

My other question is how has Leeds not in trouble as well? 

In that case with the tin foil hat on.... Are we purposely trying not to get promoted now? 

[Pliskin]

How can we get punished for the 22/23 accounts when half of the 23 financial year was spent in the championship? 
 

Of course there’s going to be losses, that’s a pretty big mitigation, relegation….. surely that’s not a fair process to be punished? 
 

Any money spent in the off season will be attributed to the championship, so, surely there’s a grey area there because the EFL can punish us because half of 23 was spent in the PL, and likewise with the PL. 

 

Like I said yesterday Everton had their punishment reduced, and their breach was blatant, came with a warning and they haven’t been relegated.

 

There’s literally nothing to worry about in my opinion, relegation could well save us from any punishment, because it simply wouldn’t be fair to if either the EPL or EFL punished us because we would have a massive mitigation that any reviewing panel would support. 
 

Nothing will happen, just a lot of clubs will be pissed off, and it could see the collapse of FFP. 

[K789]

We'll be in good company anyway if we go up 

 

 

[ClaphamFox]

19 minutes ago, hejammy said:

In that case with the tin foil hat on.... Are we purposely trying not to get promoted now? 

Why would we avoid promotion? That would make no sense, Even if we got promoted, played with the development squad and got relegated with 0 points, it would be far better for our finances than staying in the Championship. 
 

In reality, we’ll likely just have to sell some players before June 30 before reinventing from July 1. 

[An Away Move]

Think we might be overreacting to this news. It should come as no surprise that we should break EFL rules based on a projection of where this year’s figures are going to end up combined with the last 2-3 years worth of figures in the Premier League. The latter allows £20m more headroom of debt to account with, which disappears if we don’t get promoted in one season. In short this is a nothing story unless we fail to get out of this league. I suspect we will comply with EPL legislation too. We’ve just been sailing close to the wind. 

[Pliskin]

7 minutes ago, K789 said:

We'll be in good company anyway if we go up 

 

 

Again, how can us and Leeds possibly be in breach if we’ve spent half of 23 in the championship…… FFP for the PL and EFL are different, you simply can’t use any data from 23/24 because of the fact we were not in the PL. it’s nonsense. 

[eblair]

How hard can it be to not overrun a budget at a football club. I don’t understand how all these clubs are breaching ffp

[Pliskin]

2 minutes ago, eblair said:

How hard can it be to not overrun a budget at a football club. I don’t understand how all these clubs are breaching ffp

FFP is a load of shit. Football clubs aren’t ordinary businesses. Major things can happen that can impact the finances. It’s a system designed to protect the big clubs essentially, and keep the rest of us on a leash. 

[HighPeakFox]

4 minutes ago, eblair said:

How hard can it be to not overrun a budget at a football club. I don’t understand how all these clubs are breaching ffp

I think it is because it is almost impossible to run such a venture at a profit.

[Jazzy_Jeff]

4 minutes ago, eblair said:

How hard can it be to not overrun a budget at a football club. I don’t understand how all these clubs are breaching ffp

Look at Man Utd, for years they’ve been in massive debt with a stadium that’s falling apart yet they can spend hundreds of millions a year on players with an unfathomable wage bill and be deemed ok 

[fox_favourite]

8 minutes ago, eblair said:

How hard can it be to not overrun a budget at a football club. I don’t understand how all these clubs are breaching ffp

The cost to stay up and be competitive. To not be a Sheffield United. Fan pressure to invest. Running costs spiraling out of control. Yes, some missing management for sure, but it's not so black and white. How many clubs are able to run at a profit?

Edited 7 March 2024 by fox_favourite

[Babylon]

7 minutes ago, eblair said:

How hard can it be to not overrun a budget at a football club. I don’t understand how all these clubs are breaching ffp

It's a choice, not a shock that it's mostly clubs who had ambitious new owners. 

 

The whole thing can be solved by simply saying spend what you want, but anything above income has be come from the owner and be ring fenced for x number of years to make sure it's all paid for, and can't be leveraged against the club, clubs can't be asset stripped etc. 

[Scotch]

4 minutes ago, eblair said:

How hard can it be to not overrun a budget at a football club. I don’t understand how all these clubs are breaching ffp

Look at it this way... Let's say you set a shopping budget 10 years ago. Do you think you would still get much for that same budget these days after the price of everything has went up? 

 

Same sort of deal... we are trying to adhere to FFP rules from over a decade ago that have never been amended to consider how much more expensive it is to run a club these days. 

[ClaphamFox]

13 minutes ago, Pliskin said:

Again, how can us and Leeds possibly be in breach if we’ve spent half of 23 in the championship…… FFP for the PL and EFL are different, you simply can’t use any data from 23/24 because of the fact we were not in the PL. it’s nonsense. 

That’s not true. They still calculate allowable losses over three years - it just goes down if you spend any of that time in the Championship. The problem is that unless a club is actively planning to get relegated, there is no way for them to prepare ahead for the reduced target. 

[Babylon]

2 minutes ago, fox_favourite said:

The cost to stay up and be competitive. To not be a Sheffield United. Fan pressure to invest. Running costs spiraling out of control. Yes, some missing management for sure, but it's not so black and white. 

Look at us, we budgeted and spent for a club chasing Europe, not one in the championship. The unravelling was extraordinary, some self-inflicted with bad signings, Rodger's being a total muppet and then all the FFP changes they were all aligned to totally stop our way of working. 

Edited 7 March 2024 by Babylon

[Chrysalis]

10 minutes ago, Babylon said:

It's a choice, not a shock that it's mostly clubs who had ambitious new owners. 

 

The whole thing can be solved by simply saying spend what you want, but anything above income has be come from the owner and be ring fenced for x number of years to make sure it's all paid for, and can't be leveraged against the club, clubs can't be asset stripped etc. 

I proposed same idea, but I keep being shot down for it, the main issue though is the big 6 would never agree to it, as they want FFP to protect their status quo.  Same with the big EU clubs as well RM, Barca etc.