13:13, Tue 12 Feb
Chelè
Spike
Redditch Blue
Heard that yes. However, given the knowledge that other clubs have complained about us to the EFL, then it's totally in the league's interest to say 'look, we've listened to and you and asked for 12, etc'.

If it's true that other clubs demanded that we be beaten with sticks, and if it's true that 12 points is the recommendation and the precedent going forward, I would imagine there are plenty of clubs now all over their pants and wishing they had kept their gobs shut.

Because this WILL be coming for other clubs.

And the first club that doesn't get the same punishment as whatever we end up getting, the EFL WILL get sued by Blues.

It won't be coming for other clubs, absolutely no chance.

It'll be hidden behind the Pedersen thing.

In fact, make it £200 if villa get punished like this, there is absolutely now way they haven't failed FFP to a greater extent than us.

It boils my piss to think it's been increased because they don't like the people they're dealing with at the club. The EFL are a joke, Shaun Harvey is a joke and a gangster businessman who couldn't run a raffle.

He's sent three clubs to the wall and this bald effing prick has the right to tell us what money we can spend?

He's effed up the Checkatrade Trophy, put cup draws on in Thailand at 3am and has been pushing for B Teams to ruin the credibility of his competition.

I hope he steps on Lego every day for the rest of his life.

Up the effing Blues.

πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘
13:13, Tue 12 Feb
And if they had done that with Pederson, how do you think it would have gone down?
Thongs
Number8 is the worlds best forum poster. FACT. End of chat.
13:14, Tue 12 Feb
Certainly not a badly as a possible 12 point deduction?
13:16, Tue 12 Feb
Dan, everyone apart from Rotherham spent money during the two transfer windows according to this:

[www.transfermarkt.co.uk]

It looks pretty accurate to be fair.

So my view on this is it was reported that up to 15 clubs had breached the rules, Blues being one of them. The EFL have apparently said to each club in the summer you're in breach BUT if you do this and we bend the rules like that we'll let you off. Blues didn't comply.

So then the Pedersen thing happens to annoy them and we're now getting done for the breach and antagonising the EFL by buying Pedersen in a soft embargo.

However, what is the point of having the rules if you're going to allow clubs off the hook on the very first breach of them just because they took retrospective action??? A breach of the rules should be black and white, no second chances. So we're basically getting done because we didn't put the retrospective actions in place and all of the clubs who did were then basically allowed to bring in players again even though they had effectively failed FFP / sustainability.

Even Bolton have been allowed to sign more players than Blues (albeit free or loans) and I think this is where everyone is getting pissed off with the EFL because it seems from the outside that there has been a bend of the rules and we're getting hit for not taking it.

For what ever reason we chose not to follow the bend and this is where I can see your side of the argument that its our own boards fault. However, 12 points for spending 2.25 million is excessive.

I want to see Blues fight this level of punishment not the punishment if that makes sense. 6 points and we can still have an outside crack at the play offs and a clean slate next season.

Lets not forget vile needed a 40 million profit this season to avoid failing FFP / sustainability and there is no way on gods earth they have done that considering they've spent heavy again on players/loans and wages plus a vastly reduced parachute payment which was widely reported as being forward financed. So if we're looking at 12 points what the feck will be thrown at them?
13:17, Tue 12 Feb
Jim
Bit harsh this even if they are tossers.

I hope he steps on Lego every day for the rest of his life.

So very harsh.πŸ˜‚πŸ˜‚
13:18, Tue 12 Feb
Spike
The two things aren't exclusive though.

One can accept that the running of our club has been a farce, overseen by idiots, for some considerable time now.

Whilst still not being able to avoid the conclusion that the same could be said about Shaun Harvey and the EFL.

There's no need for any piss boiling.

Dead on πŸ‘
13:22, Tue 12 Feb
Sorry, QPR and Sheff Wed didn't spend either, just checked the list again.
13:28, Tue 12 Feb
Chelè
It won't be coming for other clubs, absolutely no chance.

It'll be hidden behind the Pedersen thing.

In fact, make it £200 if villa get punished like this, there is absolutely now way they haven't failed FFP to a greater extent than us.

It boils my piss to think it's been increased because they don't like the people they're dealing with at the club. The EFL are a joke, Shaun Harvey is a joke and a gangster businessman who couldn't run a raffle.

He's sent three clubs to the wall and this bald effing prick has the right to tell us what money we can spend?

He's effed up the Checkatrade Trophy, put cup draws on in Thailand at 3am and has been pushing for B Teams to ruin the credibility of his competition.

I hope he steps on Lego every day for the rest of his life.

Up the effing Blues.

πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘​πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘πŸ‘

Post of the season
December 7 2018, about vile:
TrevorFr​ancisTrackSuits
I'd be surprised if they lose another game this season
14:20, Tue 12 Feb
El Mayor
Roland_Weary
Do you know which firm is representing us?

Believe I've mentioned it before, Mishcon de Reya.

They're good, as I know from personal experience.
They're aggressive, certainly. But that's not always the way to go in these matters.
14:29, Tue 12 Feb
Thanks Dan.

Ok, good to know. They’re not top tier in Sports law but certainly not the worst.
14:45, Tue 12 Feb
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
14:54, Tue 12 Feb
No no, Blues knew they shouldn't have been signing Pedersen for the fee and wages they did - that much was definitely clear to them.
14:55, Tue 12 Feb
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.
15:16, Tue 12 Feb
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 ......
15:21, Tue 12 Feb
Hantsbluenose


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 ......

Is it just possble they had their soft embargoes lifted before they spent money...

Remember, only four teams were in trouble come July 1...
15:32, Tue 12 Feb
And this is where transparency is needed. If teams have failed P&S, are under embargo etc, etc, it should be out there, as should the punishments they are facing. That's all I ask.
15:35, Tue 12 Feb
Redditch Blue
And this is where transparency is needed. If teams have failed P&S, are under embargo etc, etc, it should be out there, as should the punishments they are facing. That's all I ask.

Completely agree. This secrecy is unnecessary. It leads to doubt and suspicion that the EFl are making it up as they go along.
15:36, Tue 12 Feb
If they've not acted consistently then the case will be thrown out by the arbitration panel, we'll be awarded costs and the transfer embargo will be lifted. Alternatively, the EFL have made their position very clear, have agreed (or imposed) a plan for the business which has then been wilfully ignored by our management team. This notion that the EFL are going our of their way to single us out is daft, not saying they're perfect, however the onus is on us to comply with the rules as set out. Which is what all the other clubs did.

What is really important is that once judgement has been made, sentence has been passed, that the EFL are totally transparent in how they reached the conclusions that they did. As long as they can justify their actions, and similar penalties are imposed in the future for similar breaches then I'm not sure what more they could do?
15:37, Tue 12 Feb
bluer than blues
It leads to doubt and suspicion that the EFl are making it up as they go along.

To be fair, there's absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the EFL are making it up as they go along.

That is very, very, obvious.
15:51, Tue 12 Feb
Sasquatch
If they've not acted consistently then the case will be thrown out by the arbitration panel, we'll be awarded costs and the transfer embargo will be lifted. Alternatively, the EFL have made their position very clear, have agreed (or imposed) a plan for the business which has then been wilfully ignored by our management team. This notion that the EFL are going our of their way to single us out is daft, not saying they're perfect, however the onus is on us to comply with the rules as set out. Which is what all the other clubs did.

What is really important is that once judgement has been made, sentence has been passed, that the EFL are totally transparent in how they reached the conclusions that they did. As long as they can justify their actions, and similar penalties are imposed in the future for similar breaches then I'm not sure what more they could do?

The thing is we will never know if they have acted consistently as there is no transparency. Its only us that wash our dirty washing in public thanks to certain people who think its their mission in life to dig dirt and make public every bit of info they can find about the club. This isn't always helpful as sometimes things are best dealt with behind closed doors. Once you put it out there in the public domain you are inviting further speculation and more importantly you are asking the EFL to make an example of us.