10:01, Sun 10 Feb
greenwayarms
El Mayor
And if things were to go pear shaped, how many people would demand the EFL do more to protect the club?

This is what I don't understand.

The punishment could could possibly extend to a 2yr embargo, not even being allowed to sign loans. A huge point deduction and not even being able to re sign current players.

For what exactly? In comparison to how others have been treated (precedent is a legal value) we are being hammered.

That is protection? It will put us into League 1. We will lose our management team and god knows how our investment driven owners will react.

Thanks for the protection.....
A further embargo would completely destabilise the club.
Monk would go,so would the likes of Morrison.Another relegation battle.
Hard to see how this would help anyone.
10:02, Sun 10 Feb
agree with this

what rules were there to protect us from the Yeung era?
what rules were there for these invisible ownerships we have suffered since?

i know this is old ground - but yesterday’s game really got to me - and the deduction just feels now what’s the jeffing point

the blues finances need sorting to be sustainable .. agreed
will a points deduction make reckless owners responsible to this? i doubt it

we’ve been punished more than enough by the actual reasonable punishment already... the transfer embargo and signing restrictions... fine


at the end of the day the straw that tipped the camel over was a left back from the German second division ffs
10:08, Sun 10 Feb
bluearmyfaction
Luton was a complete total and utter stitch-up. They blew the whistle on bungs and instead of investigating the League screwed them over for it.

Compare the treatment to Spurs for the same thing. Or even West Ham for fielding 2 ineligible players for 90% of a season - then allowing them to sign them after the window had closed.

And amongst the other problems is a 12 deduction does indeed leave them with nowhere to go. For a £7m FFP breach, as reported. What about teams that are going to breach it by the tens of millions?

It's not just for the breach though is it?

It's for waving two fingers at the rules instead of working with the EFL.

It's for signing Pedersen while embargoed, and trying to sign other players while in the same position.
10:10, Sun 10 Feb
derbyblue
agree with this

what rules were there to protect us from the Yeung era?
what rules were there for these invisible ownerships we have suffered since?

i know this is old ground - but yesterday’s game really got to me - and the deduction just feels now what’s the jeffing point

the blues finances need sorting to be sustainable .. agreed
will a points deduction make reckless owners responsible to this? i doubt it

we’ve been punished more than enough by the actual reasonable punishment already... the transfer embargo and signing restrictions... fine


at the end of the day the straw that tipped the camel over was a left back from the German second division ffs

Point by point

Yeung era started in the Premier League, not the EFL.
Suffered invisible ownerships since? Well, since Yeung was binned the club have started paying players more than 5k per week and went on a huge splurge one summer. Where did we suffer? Or are you saying the league should have prevented us from hiring Steve Cotterill?
10:10, Sun 10 Feb
What sticks in the craw is that the FFP gap could have been closed had Liverpool bought Butland, instead of spending twice as much on a foreign goalkeeper.

Plus we wouldn't have had to sell Butland for a song in the first place without other clubs spending us into oblivion.

And the ultimate cherry is that without the more lenient FFP rules for relegated teams, or the parachute payments, Stoke would have had to sell Butland - in the exact same way that we had to sell our best players on relegation because the previous TV deal and the parachutes then were of much lower value.

There is fertile ground there for exploring the fairness of the FFP rules. Not sure Mishcons are the right people to do it though. They play the media more than the court.
10:12, Sun 10 Feb
An interesting read...

[www.birminghammail.co.uk]
This information is sponsored by Lubicon Ltd. Did you know that 65% of North American couples said their relationship has been enhanced by Lubicon products ?
Lubicon products are available at all good chemists, some dodgy chemists and the viler club shop.
10:17, Sun 10 Feb
We received parachute payments that helped us pay a player 60k plus per week , and that was 7 seasons back. We didn't moan then
Fat Buddha - 'Rab C Nesbitt. He's a contrary fecker, but invariably right. He has his finger on the motherfecking pulse.'
10:20, Sun 10 Feb
Jenny Tulwought
An interesting read...

[www.birminghammail.co.uk]

It's on this board and everyone ignored it :(
10:21, Sun 10 Feb
El Mayor
Suffered invisible ownerships since? Well, since Yeung was binned the club have started paying players more than 5k per week and went on a huge splurge one summer.
The average Championship wage is north of £10k. And every club is haemorrhaging money. We were basically suffering by having to pay well under the average because we didn't have any monetary backing - and the League did nothing to stop everyone else overspending.

We have one season of splurge in a decade, and the League comes down like a ton of bricks.

What about Forest with their £40m write-off? What about Vile with their £180m debt parked in a parent company and players' wages not coming from the football club? What about Wolves with their blatant third party ownership rule breaches? What about Middlesbrough spending twice their income to get promoted? Bolton not paying players? Brighton getting promoted with £170m debt? Cardiff getting promoted with £100m debt? Hull with their £100m debt? And so on and so forth.

It shows how the rules are a sham. They're there because someone demanded they do something. So they come up with a tickbox exercise that teams with smarter, more engaged, richer, and more corrupt owners just avoid. And the League doesn't have the nous, the balls, or the money to do a damn thing about it.

And by cheating to go up the rewards carry on through. One season of PL money and parachute money means a relegated club can spend £100m+ WITHOUT breaking the rules. Huddersfield went £40m into debt despite not spending much. That will be close to wiped out and suddenly a comparatively small club will be a financial giant in the EFL, as opposed to clubs with twice their support.

If the League wants to know why clubs are spending into the red, they should look to why their rules positively demand it.
10:26, Sun 10 Feb
One other point while I'm thinking about it.

One reason why clubs cannot generate income is a mix of FFP/P&S and PL money. To whom can we sell, say, Juke? We could realistically demand £10m for him. Which EFL club can pay that? Pretty much only those with parachute money. The only other clubs who could buy him would be PL clubs - who don't need to spend £10m on a Championship player when they can spend £15m on a top flight player from a top European league.
10:26, Sun 10 Feb
Is this new news? Was it not already known that the EFL would recommend a 12 point deduction to the panel?
@LeMod1875
10:27, Sun 10 Feb
derbyblue
agree with this

what rules were there to protect us from the Yeung era?
what rules were there for these invisible ownerships we have suffered since?

i know this is old ground - but yesterday’s game really got to me - and the deduction just feels now what’s the jeffing point

the blues finances need sorting to be sustainable .. agreed
will a points deduction make reckless owners responsible to this? i doubt it

we’ve been punished more than enough by the actual reasonable punishment already... the transfer embargo and signing restrictions... fine


at the end of the day the straw that tipped the camel over was a left back from the German second division ffs
Spot on.

I get the fact we have broken the rules.
But it’s almost like we have committed some heinous crime and should be punished with a death penalty.

We as fans want what is fair.We want the punishment to reflect our breach of FFP rules.
Not to be some showcase scapegoat for the EFL.
10:29, Sun 10 Feb
El Mayor
Suffered invisible ownerships since? Well, since Yeung was binned the club have started paying players more than 5k per week and went on a huge splurge one summer.
The average Championship wage is north of £10k. And every club is haemorrhaging money. We were basically suffering by having to pay well under the average because we didn't have any monetary backing - and the League did nothing to stop everyone else overspending.

We have one season of splurge in a decade, and the League comes down like a ton of bricks.

What about Forest with their £40m write-off? What about Vile with their £180m debt parked in a parent company and players' wages not coming from the football club? What about Wolves with their blatant third party ownership rule breaches? What about Middlesbrough spending twice their income to get promoted? Bolton not paying players? Brighton getting promoted with £170m debt? Cardiff getting promoted with £100m debt? Hull with their £100m debt? And so on and so forth.

It shows how the rules are a sham. They're there because someone demanded they do something. So they come up with a tickbox exercise that teams with smarter, more engaged, richer, and more corrupt owners just avoid. And the League doesn't have the nous, the balls, or the money to do a damn thing about it.

And by cheating to go up the rewards carry on through. One season of PL money and parachute money means a relegated club can spend £100m+ WITHOUT breaking the rules. Huddersfield went £40m into debt despite not spending much. That will be close to wiped out and suddenly a comparatively small club will be a financial giant in the EFL, as opposed to clubs with twice their support.

If the League wants to know why clubs are spending into the red, they should look to why their rules positively demand it.

Brilliant post 👍
10:31, Sun 10 Feb
Read Rags post from the page before this - he's spot on. If the league just allow a free for all, then vile would just buy a prem side and walk it. We are just unfortunate in that we are first to fall foul, due to our irresponsible owners, who could well have ruined the club if allowed to.
10:33, Sun 10 Feb
Sweepover
El Mayor
Suffered invisible ownerships since? Well, since Yeung was binned the club have started paying players more than 5k per week and went on a huge splurge one summer.
The average Championship wage is north of £10k. And every club is haemorrhaging money. We were basically suffering by having to pay well under the average because we didn't have any monetary backing - and the League did nothing to stop everyone else overspending.

We have one season of splurge in a decade, and the League comes down like a ton of bricks.

What about Forest with their £40m write-off? What about Vile with their £180m debt parked in a parent company and players' wages not coming from the football club? What about Wolves with their blatant third party ownership rule breaches? What about Middlesbrough spending twice their income to get promoted? Bolton not paying players? Brighton getting promoted with £170m debt? Cardiff getting promoted with £100m debt? Hull with their £100m debt? And so on and so forth.

It shows how the rules are a sham. They're there because someone demanded they do something. So they come up with a tickbox exercise that teams with smarter, more engaged, richer, and more corrupt owners just avoid. And the League doesn't have the nous, the balls, or the money to do a damn thing about it.

And by cheating to go up the rewards carry on through. One season of PL money and parachute money means a relegated club can spend £100m+ WITHOUT breaking the rules. Huddersfield went £40m into debt despite not spending much. That will be close to wiped out and suddenly a comparatively small club will be a financial giant in the EFL, as opposed to clubs with twice their support.

If the League wants to know why clubs are spending into the red, they should look to why their rules positively demand it.

Brilliant post 👍

It seems then that the answer is to get in owners who a) have money and b) know how to cheat the system.

Sadly ours failed on b).