10:22, Mon 11 Feb
Spike
Slightly Turbid
A point I raise a little bit higher up the thread. Think the main argument is that the final decision could get delayed by legal claims and appeals, this seems unlikely though.

Coming late to the thread - but I would say that IF they try to do us 12 points in one go it would be quite conceivable that we would appeal.

I think it's more likely that negotiations will have taken place to establish a punishment we would accept without appeal - because the EFL isn't going to want an appeal. And in reality that probably wouldn't suit us either. It needs to get sorted because there will be more clubs coming along and needing punishing soon enough, and the precedent needs to be established.

I'm sick of the whole thing and just want it sorted, but I find it hard to believe they will do us 12 points - that would be draconian. We'll see though.

I tend to agree with all that. All parties need it resolving. Maybe the club have fought hard already but are willing to accept 12 points now given that it shouldn't have an impact. If they appealed we may remain under an embargo or be in a position where we are trying to sign players in the summer for a team starting 12 points behind everyone else. Unless the appeal is a gamble on us getting up through the play offs which would be courageous.
11:12, Mon 11 Feb
3 points is as bad as 12 if it kills the chances of the play offs.
11:18, Mon 11 Feb
If you offered me our punishment being three points now, I'd bite your feckin hand off!.....But it won't be. Nine is my guess. Six for P&S and 3 for Pedersen.
11:25, Mon 11 Feb
This thread is beginning to mirror the Brexit Project Fear threads.

Nobody knows. There are no punishment rules in writing. Three men (Lawyers) are going to thrash it out and come up with a punishment that suits the crime.

That’s it.
Jim
11:27, Mon 11 Feb
Three men (Lawyers) are going to thrash it out and come up with a punishment that suits the crime.

That’s it.


Not exactly. Three people form the Commission that meets and either accepts or adjusts the 'punishment' demanded by the officers of the Football League.
Jim
Three men (Lawyers) are going to thrash it out and come up with a punishment that suits the crime.

That’s it.


Not exactly. Three people form the Commission that meets and either accepts or adjusts the 'punishment' demanded by the officers of the Football League.

Like he said its like Project Fear, you remember little parts of what is happening and dismiss the whole picture.
The Right Reverend Charcy Blue Blue
Jim
Three men (Lawyers) are going to thrash it out and come up with a punishment that suits the crime.

That’s it.


Not exactly. Three people form the Commission that meets and either accepts or adjusts the 'punishment' demanded by the officers of the Football League.

Like he said its like Project Fear, you remember little parts of what is happening and dismiss the whole picture.

The EFL aren’t even demanding a 12 point deduction.
They have ‘supposedly’ put forward a ‘suggestion’ of a 12 point deduction to the 3 man panel of lawyers, one of them representing Blues, and that suggestion is then up for discussion by the 3 lawyers as to how they mete out the punishment.

Nobody knows the outcome.
11:57, Mon 11 Feb
Exactly I don't really know what's new tbh the EFL were always going to suggest a point deduction,

Until they actually have the hearing and an independent panel decide what they think to be a fair punishment there is no point in speculating
Englishblue
Exactly I don't really know what's new tbh the EFL were always going to suggest a point deduction,

Until they actually have the hearing and an independent panel decide what they think to be a fair punishment there is no point in speculating

Didn't the Mail report say that they offer the sanction to blues first - then if we object it goes to the Disciplinary Panel?

Or did I misinterpret it.
12:16, Mon 11 Feb
My only thoughts on this though is that if it were down to money and a points deduction surely we would have sold Che adams, yes we couldnt sign a replacement but i'd have thought accepting £12-£15m from burnley sounds like it would have tiltedus out of FFP issues for this season, or we could have agreed a fee in the summer for him (they were willing to loan back) and negated this issue

Something about it doesnt quite add up, maybe im massively wrong and as the EFL seem to have their favourites, Villa have spent a small fortune, spent more again this window yet nothing is mentoined of them despite the fact they even nearly went bust and EFL was even helping them in the summer.
12:20, Mon 11 Feb
majson
My only thoughts on this though is that if it were down to money and a points deduction surely we would have sold Che adams, yes we couldnt sign a replacement but i'd have thought accepting £12-£15m from burnley sounds like it would have tiltedus out of FFP issues for this season, or we could have agreed a fee in the summer for him (they were willing to loan back) and negated this issue

Something about it doesnt quite add up, maybe im massively wrong and as the EFL seem to have their favourites, Villa have spent a small fortune, spent more again this window yet nothing is mentoined of them despite the fact they even nearly went bust and EFL was even helping them in the summer.

That's because they're spawnier than us. Always have been, always will.
Jim
12:27, Mon 11 Feb
Selling Adams on the cheap in January would most definitely NOT have negated the issue of past indiscretions.

The case is all about what happened in the previous financial year, so selling Adams would not have balanced the books, as it were.

It might have been a marginal help in proving to the Football League that as a club we are now trying to be compliant - by way of mitigation, if you will.
12:28, Mon 11 Feb
Jim
Feck em, do your worst.
12:30, Mon 11 Feb
OK, here is a question? Let's assume we get 12 points and don't appeal it. The result mid-table mediocrity which is a downer considering how well we have done but by no means a terrible season in context.

However, assuming we don't sell our players and assuming we are free to pick up more free transfers under wage restrictions I would imagine we will still be in breach of FFP for at least another year. Do we then get another 12 points next season or does the EFL imposed embargo, fine, deductions etc equate to a slate being wiped clean. If we are going to be bullied into selling players well below market value and non-renewal of players contracts then the 12 points is just the tip of the iceberg. Next year we will be damned if we do and damned if we don't. The EPL may as well just relegate us now.

If the EFL impose one season of constraints you could still see owners take a view it is best to hit it hard in the hope that a) you are promoted before FFP hits you or b) you can take a one off season and come out of it stronger.
12:31, Mon 11 Feb
Jim
Jim
Selling Adams on the cheap in January would most definitely NOT have negated the issue of past indiscretions.

The case is all about what happened in the previous financial year, so selling Adams would not have balanced the books, as it were.

It might have been a marginal help in proving to the Football League that as a club we are now trying to be compliant - by way of mitigation, if you will.

It would have helped with the fresh income thing - but only if the money was all up front which I very much doubt it was.
12:33, Mon 11 Feb
Jim
Well in that case the question must be asked as to why the EFL would not have allowed us to have Adams back on loan this season after the sale, as Burnley were willing to buy and loan back til end of season.

If its about last season and we could show that this season we'd be more compliant then what would the issue be of having him loaned back? I get the embargo to make sure that we dont spend more but net income would have been vastly in our favour.

Either have our fate sorted at the start of the season or dont, its a bit silly to be in feb and now only talking about what we might get for last season.
12:46, Mon 11 Feb
majson
Well in that case the question must be asked as to why the EFL would not have allowed us to have Adams back on loan this season after the sale, as Burnley were willing to buy and loan back til end of season.

If its about last season and we could show that this season we'd be more compliant then what would the issue be of having him loaned back? I get the embargo to make sure that we dont spend more but net income would have been vastly in our favour.

Either have our fate sorted at the start of the season or dont, its a bit silly to be in feb and now only talking about what we might get for last season.

And again, I'll point out that Blues asked for a delay in proceedings.
Jim
12:48, Mon 11 Feb
We were and still are under an embargo that only allowed us to register 5 players (either loans without a fee or free transfers, and costing under £10k pw each).

We had already taken our 5 players allowed for the season, and had Adams been sold, he could not have been loaned back because that would have been a sixth incoming player.
13:34, Mon 11 Feb
It's ok zxcv said we absolutely won't get a points deduction. I'm happy with that.
13:34, Mon 11 Feb
Bluesince62
It's ok zxcv said we absolutely won't get a points deduction. I'm happy with that.

Didn't he say we'd spend money in January?