15:55, Tue 12 Feb
Pathfinder
It was obvious we'd signed Pedersen way before it was announced. It was widely reported we'd agreed a fee and he'd had a medical. He then disappeared and we assumed he would sign for someone else.

It can't be a massive coincidence we announced the signing shortly after releasing Robert Tesche.

Is there any way we misunderstood the requirements? Not saying we didn't have all the info but maybe misunderstood what we could and couldn't do.

Nah, it's not sadly.
15:56, Tue 12 Feb
Absolutely baffles me that Bolton haven't had much worse than what they have.

May be on my own but happy we signed Pedersen, helped shake up that left back problem we've had since Murphy. Him coming in has probably help solidify the defence and save us 12 points over the course of the season.
15:58, Tue 12 Feb
I get what you're saying, but why do we have to wait until judgement has been made for the EFL to be transparent in how they've reached their decisions on sanction? That information (such as a scale for size of points deduction depending on level of breach) should be out there from the outset.
Then, once hearing is done, there should be another update about how the panel reached its decision and how much it agreed/disagreed with the sanction.
The EFL are seemingly happy to drip feed some info about our case to the media, yet continually spout to the likes of Brian Dick that they will not comment about our cases until the punishment is accepted or hearing done with.
I'm sorry, that's not on. Either put up or shut up. You can't say a bit here and a bit here to suit your agenda but then when asked to explain yourself say 'sorry no comment'.
16:00, Tue 12 Feb
Looked to me like we tried to pull a fast one thinking Tesche out and Pedersen in would be ok, but didn't wait to ask, when Tesche out (with a pay off) and Pedersen in were not close to balancing one another out.
@LeMod1875
16:01, Tue 12 Feb
Pathfinder
It was obvious we'd signed Pedersen way before it was announced. It was widely reported we'd agreed a fee and he'd had a medical. He then disappeared and we assumed he would sign for someone else.

It can't be a massive coincidence we announced the signing shortly after releasing Robert Tesche.

Is there any way we misunderstood the requirements? Not saying we didn't have all the info but maybe misunderstood what we could and couldn't do.


I would agree as I'm sure GM would rather have no Pedersen and no points deduction if everyone was aware that signing him will end up in this mess..

Saying that I would say if they didn't understand would be more down to ignorance than not been informed
16:06, Tue 12 Feb
This place would have hit meltdown if the league had made us sell Pederson - especially as he's looked a bargain.

We have no one to blame for effing up, but as others have said, the EFL have made a right balls up of the process and almost anything that happens will probably lead to further consequences, either for us or lots of other teams, or the EFL itself if they don't treat clubs equally.

Its a shit show all round, bit like the country and Brexit.
Thongs
Number8 is the worlds best forum poster. FACT. End of chat.
16:06, Tue 12 Feb
Blues are guilty of breaching the embargo fella, that's not really in doubt. We were trying to spend decent bucks on the Ipswich keeper and others too, I believe Grabban, so it's not just a case of Pedersen.
16:07, Tue 12 Feb
number8
This place would have hit meltdown if the league had made us sell Pederson - especially as he's looked a bargain.

We have no one to blame for effing up, but as others have said, the EFL have made a right balls up of the process and almost anything that happens will probably lead to further consequences, either for us or lots of other teams, or the EFL itself if they don't treat clubs equally.

Its a shit show all round, bit like the country and Brexit.

Best summary really.
16:09, Tue 12 Feb
number8
This place would have hit meltdown if the league had made us sell Pederson - especially as he's looked a bargain.

We have no one to blame for effing up, but as others have said, the EFL have made a right balls up of the process and almost anything that happens will probably lead to further consequences, either for us or lots of other teams, or the EFL itself if they don't treat clubs equally.

Its a shit show all round, bit like the country and Brexit.

I think that's fair.

I also think it's fair that if the EFL don't show any of their reasoning when this all is done and dusted then it's a farce.
16:12, Tue 12 Feb
Pathetic. So it's Dan's fault? Not the clubs owners?
Get a grip.
16:15, Tue 12 Feb
Does this apply to all reporting, or just football clubs?
16:17, Tue 12 Feb
El Mayor
Mario kempes 78
Serious question
Will we have our lawyers out in force trying to save our bacon or will the clubs owners just sit on there hands and take it? As I’ve not a heard a thing from our club saying they are going to fight this.

So frustrating but I wouldn’t mind putting up a bit of a fight.

We've had Mishcon de Reya on it for four months mate.

We've fought and it looks like we've lost.

I must admit, having Mishcon De Reya fighting our corner, gives me confidence 👍
16:20, Tue 12 Feb
Having to deal with them, it's no surprise things are taking so long. Their idea of quick, is about 3 weeks
What did the Knights in White satin?
16:32, Tue 12 Feb
Mishcon de Reya also suggested it was considering a challenge against transparency measures introduced by David Cameron requiring UK companies to identify their true owners.

No wonder Dong likes them
@LeMod1875
16:34, Tue 12 Feb
Hantsbluenose
El Mayor
Hantsbluenose
Top post

By the way what is a 'soft embargo' ? Did the EFL explain what this actually means before we signed Pedersen ? Spending
£2.2m is hardly taking the piss - its less than what Villa are paying in wages to each of 3 loanees (ok one has since gone back to his club).

Seems we are playing under different rules

Yes, they explained it.

As I've explained before on here and on my website:

Soft embargo - lenient transfer restrictions
Hard embargo - harsh transfer restrictions

Blues will 100% absolutely have been made aware of what the specific restrictions were. One of them was no transfer fees under soft or hard embargo.


A lot of what I read on here and elsewhere are points of view and assumptions so its not easy to determine what is actual fact. When it comes to the EFL I have very little faith that they are consistent with what they say and do. I read there were 13 teams under a soft embargo yet only 3 didn't spend money in the transfer market. That contradicts their definition of a soft embargo ......

As I've explained before on here and on my website:

Soft embargo - lenient transfer restrictions
Hard embargo - harsh transfer restrictions

Whilst I am not meant to comment on what you say. That isn't an explanation, at most its the worst most, vague explanation ever. Lenient and harsh - you may as well say soft and hard.
Revere me.
16:35, Tue 12 Feb
number8
the EFL have made a right balls up of the process and almost anything that happens will probably lead to further consequences, either for us or lots of other teams, or the EFL itself if they don't treat clubs equally.

This is a key point for me and another reason I find it so hard to believe it will end up being anything like 12 points.

Even if there is an additional consideration for aggravating factors - it's also why I say there will have to be a framework set out for what is an aggravating factor.

As we will be the first club punished there is a precedent being set, 12 points is going in incredibly hard and leaving yourself with really nowhere else to go.

Which is probably why they keep floating ideas in the press and out to other clubs to establish what they can get away with. Another reason for floating it to other clubs would be to say "ok, you wanted us to go in kicking...but just keep in mind that it could end up being you with this punishment at some point...so you might want to be careful what you wish for".

And then obviously if Blues get a whiff that another club has been treated more leniently they will - quite understandably - be demanding the points back - and what a mess that will end up.

I've hit on an idea though, when you put regulations in place and ask people to sign up - what about if you already had the framework in place for what would happen in the event of breeches?..rather than a vague "a full range of punishments will be available..."...but don't worry - just sign up to this notion and we'll sort out the details later...

I know it's a crazy radical suggestion, but hey, that's me all over. It might just work though.
16:36, Tue 12 Feb
El Mayor
Pathfinder
It was obvious we'd signed Pedersen way before it was announced. It was widely reported we'd agreed a fee and he'd had a medical. He then disappeared and we assumed he would sign for someone else.

It can't be a massive coincidence we announced the signing shortly after releasing Robert Tesche.

Is there any way we misunderstood the requirements? Not saying we didn't have all the info but maybe misunderstood what we could and couldn't do.

Nah, it's not sadly.

Any chance we argued we had a (dumb) business plan, based on hypothetical money coming in from Butland's sell-on fee, and shifting Stockdale & Koosh off the wagebill, and for a fee?
16:39, Tue 12 Feb
I think the lack of a framework is where we can really catch the EFL out.

It was in the rules that they could deduct points, so I suspect that's whatll happen as they'll be able to defend themselves legally on that one.

But it didn't say how many, for that reason the lawyers should be able to bring that 12 point threat right down.
@LeMod1875
16:54, Tue 12 Feb
The lack of a specific punishment to the crime is what I don't get.

Make it a point for breaching, then a point for every million thereafter. Make it clear.
Revere me.
17:00, Tue 12 Feb
baldrick
El Mayor
Pathfinder
It was obvious we'd signed Pedersen way before it was announced. It was widely reported we'd agreed a fee and he'd had a medical. He then disappeared and we assumed he would sign for someone else.

It can't be a massive coincidence we announced the signing shortly after releasing Robert Tesche.

Is there any way we misunderstood the requirements? Not saying we didn't have all the info but maybe misunderstood what we could and couldn't do.

Nah, it's not sadly.

Any chance we argued we had a (dumb) business plan, based on hypothetical money coming in from Butland's sell-on fee, and shifting Stockdale & Koosh off the wagebill, and for a fee?

I actually think there maybe something in this... but our board gambled on Butland moving on rather than waiting for it to actually happen.