Transfer Embargo

[ClaphamFox]

15 minutes ago, coolhandfox said:

It not an embargo. 

 

SCMP is monitored real time and each transfer is assessed against you current position, if it take you over it the limited the deal can't be completed.

 

Hence Faes out Smallbone in.  

 

It based on player wages including against fees vs turnover.

 

Transfer fee paid are not included in the calculation, but transfer fee received are included in the turnover element

 

Debt owed to bank etc is not part of the calculation   

Exactly. The BBC report is misleading in that it has described a temporary restriction on spending under SCMP rules as an 'embargo'. If there was a formal embargo, there would have been an announcement. 

Edited yesterday at 10:42 by ClaphamFox

[Sol thewall Bamba]

Also another one for the King Power under Awaiyatt rap sheet.

 

- First ever double relegation

- First ever points deduction 

- First ever charge for price fixing against their own fans 

- Lowest ever league position 

- *NEW* First ever transfer embargo 

[ClaphamFox]

7 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Also another one for the King Power under Awaiyatt rap sheet.

 

- First ever double relegation

- First ever points deduction 

- First ever charge for price fixing against their own fans 

- Lowest ever league position 

- *NEW* First ever transfer embargo 

It wasn't an embargo, though. Embargos are a legal measure taken against clubs that have broken the rules or failed to submit accounts. Temporary restrictions on spending under SCMP rules are very different and apparently quite common.

[Sol thewall Bamba]

20 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

It wasn't an embargo, though. Embargos are a legal measure taken against clubs that have broken the rules or failed to submit accounts. Temporary restrictions on spending under SCMP rules are very different and apparently quite common.

- *NEW* First ever transfer embargo.

Edited 3 hours ago by Sol thewall Bamba
It was a transfer embargo #NeverWrong

[ClaphamFox]

9 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

- *NEW* First time someone outside the football club had to tell the football club when they could and could not sign players.

 

How's that Clapham

Better

 

It's worth pointing out that this season is the first time we've operated under SCMP rules. All clubs subject to SCMP are routinely assessed against their permitted spending limits—it isn't a system that the EFL activates only when it suspects a club is in financial difficulty. You're not allowed to spend until the EFL is confident you can do so and stay within the rules. Given the number of overpaid players still on our wage bill at the beginning of the window, it wasn't surprising that the EFL wanted to be sure that we had offloaded some of them and brought some funds in before we could bring anybody in. Apparently it's a very common step for the EFL to take and is not something that has to be formally announced, unlike an actual embargo.

There were plenty of stories in the summer suggesting that the EFL had told us we needed to sell before we could buy. The BBC story has just confirmed it. Unfortunately the journalist used the misleading term 'embargo' to describe something entirely different, which seems to have got loads of people on social media in a proper tizzy. 

Edited 23 hours ago by ClaphamFox

[BKLFox]

1 hour ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Also another one for the King Power under Awaiyatt rap sheet.

 

- First ever double relegation

- First ever points deduction 

- First ever charge for price fixing against their own fans 

- Lowest ever league position 

- *NEW* First ever transfer embargo 

Surely we got a transfer embargo in 2002 🤷‍♂️ 

[Tommy G]

FoxesTrust mouth piece defending Jon Rudkin in that article - when it comes to print people just can't help themselves. Pathetic. 

[Soar Fox]

1 hour ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Also another one for the King Power under Awaiyatt rap sheet.

 

- First ever double relegation

- First ever points deduction 

- First ever charge for price fixing against their own fans 

- Lowest ever league position 

- *NEW* First ever transfer embargo 

Didn’t we get one in 2002/03 hence the reason McKinley & Summerbee played for free? 

[Lambert09]

Hahaha not a single Leicester fan noticed because our general incompetence means that we don’t get deals done until late in the window anyway 

[pazzerfox]

4 hours ago, AKCJ said:

We didn't appear on this website though? https://www.efl.com/governance/embargoes/

 

 

I like the discipline regarding running, re - mobile phones and litter.  Any standards is better than what we're used to!

[ClaphamFox]

1 hour ago, ClaphamFox said:

Better

 

It's worth pointing out that this season is the first time we've operated under SCMP rules. All clubs subject to SCMP are routinely assessed against their permitted spending limits—it isn't a system that the EFL activates only when it suspects a club is in financial difficulty. You're not allowed to spend until the EFL is confident you can do so and stay within the rules. Given the number of overpaid players still on our wage bill at the beginning of the window, it wasn't surprising that the EFL wanted to be sure that we had offloaded some of them and brought some funds in before we could bring anybody in. Apparently it's a very common step for the EFL to take and is not something that has to be formally announced, unlike an actual embargo.

There were plenty of stories in the summer suggesting that the EFL had told us we needed to sell before we could buy. The BBC story has just confirmed it. Unfortunately the journalist used the misleading term 'embargo' to describe something entirely different, which seems to have got loads of people on social media in a proper tizzy. 

I'm going to hold my hands up—it turns there WAS a formal embargo in the summer, albeit a preventative one under SCMP rules rather than a disciplinary one because of a rule breach. It was lifted as soon as we generated enough funds to bring us back in compliance. Anybody interested can read more here: https://images.gc.eflservices.co.uk/6ab726b0-c89b-11f1-9851-279330bb15c7.pdf

On the subject of whether the club should have announced it or not, I suspect that alerting other clubs that we had to sell before buying might have weakened our position when negotiating sales. Either way, I'm glad the EFL were all over us during the summer as I don't trust the club to get it right on its own.

[ealingfox]

Tony Herlihy, tra la la la la

[filbertway]

I swear I remember this being discussed in the summer.

[jonthefox]

I know it’s old news, but that guy’s name 

[Muzzy_no7]

I will never not chuckle when I read Nick Mashiter’s name.

[ClaphamFox]

Just now, Muzzy_no7 said:

I will never not chuckle when I read Nick Mashiter’s name.

I always imagine a Scottish bloke telling a story of a recent burglary. "The thievin' wee scunners even stole ma bathroom sink! But at least they didnae nick mashiter..."

[Cincinnati Fox]

6 hours ago, Spudulike said:

"Leicester missed out on targets who were not willing to wait but Chaplin, McCarthy and Wes Burns were just three who were prepared to hold on to join Martin".

 

Is that code for 'no other offer's' ?

**** sake! We are banned from signing players and still sign crap

[Pita]

11 minutes ago, Cincinnati Fox said:

**** sake! We are banned from signing players and still sign crap

Wonderful management we have 

[Corky]

Embarrassing that we need our hands held to get through this given we have had two PSR breaches in the past four years.

[Muzzy_no7]

2 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

I always imagine a Scottish bloke telling a story of a recent burglary. "The thievin' wee scunners even stole ma bathroom sink! But at least they didnae nick mashiter..."

😂😂😂 why on earth hasn’t he deed polled it ?

[AyewJoking]

10 hours ago, Spudulike said:

"Leicester missed out on targets who were not willing to wait (unless we offered them more money) but Chaplin, McCarthy and Wes Burns were just three who were prepared to hold on to join Martin".

 

Is that code for 'no other offer's' ?

 

[AyewJoking]

bet Chaplin, McCarthy and Wes Burns were all thinking about retirement and having to cut back on their lavish lifestyles...............

 

 HOLD MY BEER!!

[davieG]

The internet 

 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

9 hours ago, ClaphamFox said:

Better

 

It's worth pointing out that this season is the first time we've operated under SCMP rules. All clubs subject to SCMP are routinely assessed against their permitted spending limits—it isn't a system that the EFL activates only when it suspects a club is in financial difficulty. You're not allowed to spend until the EFL is confident you can do so and stay within the rules. Given the number of overpaid players still on our wage bill at the beginning of the window, it wasn't surprising that the EFL wanted to be sure that we had offloaded some of them and brought some funds in before we could bring anybody in. Apparently it's a very common step for the EFL to take and is not something that has to be formally announced, unlike an actual embargo.

There were plenty of stories in the summer suggesting that the EFL had told us we needed to sell before we could buy. The BBC story has just confirmed it. Unfortunately the journalist used the misleading term 'embargo' to describe something entirely different, which seems to have got loads of people on social media in a proper tizzy. 

Just for completeness the EFL document uses the word "embargo" 18 times.

 

https://images.gc.eflservices.co.uk/6ab726b0-c89b-11f1-9851-279330bb15c7.pdf

Edited 14 hours ago by Sol thewall Bamba

[ClaphamFox]

14 minutes ago, Sol thewall Bamba said:

Just for completeness the EFL document uses the word "embargo" 18 times.

 

https://images.gc.eflservices.co.uk/6ab726b0-c89b-11f1-9851-279330bb15c7.pdf

I did hold my hands up to that! However I think it’s still worth distinguishing between a disciplinary embargo (which are usually imposed over a set period of time) and a preventative embargo under SCMP rules (which can be swiftly removed once a club generates some revenue). Oxford Utd fans are currently up in arms because they don’t understand why we had an embargo but were able to eventually spend a fair amount whereas theirs was much stricter. It’s because they don’t understand the difference between the two types of embargo.