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).
10:36, Sun 10 Feb
If the EFL regulated the spending of relegated premier league teams i.e. Spending parachute payments and allowing three years before they fall completely into EFL then transfer fees and wages wouldn't shaft the rest of the league.

If they didn't let super agents further compromise the system it wouldn't force others to play catch up

Equally if footballing authorities did more to prevent dodgy owners in the first place we wouldn't have needed to spend recklessly to bring a competitive squad together, we were buying at Primark for countless years post Yeung.

Transfer caps, squad size limits, and wage caps should be introduced across the league if the EFL wanted to really make it fair

If the norm becomes 12 point deductions for teams people will really start to lose interest
10:38, Sun 10 Feb
Is that not what Villa have been able to do for three years? Fortunately they have employed muppets but most clubs would have been promoted with such a financial advantage
10:40, Sun 10 Feb
In a way - but these new owners of vile, if allowed, could make Wolves spending look like us under Lee Clark. The fact they haven't (I assume) is because they have no more parachute payments left and have an eye on P&S rules.
10:43, Sun 10 Feb
i think what i’m saying is if i thought these rules were good enough to protect clubs from shady ownership, then great

but they’re not ... we just get points deduction and shady owners

we’ve had a series of owners that don’t know a clothes line from a goal line.... and to think Fry labelled that at Sullivan !!!
10:45, Sun 10 Feb
Jenny Tulwought
An interesting read...

[www.birminghammail.co.uk]

So there are no rules regarding punishment and the panel of 3 legal representatives, one being a legal representative of Blues will thrash out a deal for any punishment if so be it.

No way will we receive 12 points deduction as legally, the no rules scenario doesn’t have a leg to stand on legally.
10:50, Sun 10 Feb
yes this is the answer... across the league as a whole EFL and EPL

squad limits... how can chelsea be allowed to loan out 40 plus players isn’t it? thus influencing leagues unfairly below them

wage/spending caps - why not. if everyone has an upper limit then now we have a sport based on team ethics, scouting and coaching


and ffs stop rewarding failure with such monetary gain

relegation or 17th finish in the prem is FAILURE
winning the FA CUP is SUCCESS
winning the League Cup is SUCCESS
winning the Zenith Data Systems Cup is SUCCESS!!!
10:53, Sun 10 Feb
Again great post from Bluemachine all of which is valid.

But the world as we all know is grossly unfair and heavily biased in the favour of the "Haves" not the "Have Nots".

However much we disagree with it, the FFP while being far off from the finished article, is a step in the right direction, it's just our bad luck we're the first ones to get hammered by it, and that's down to our owners fecking up royally.

I just want someone in the EFL to now kick on and have the balls to challenge the parachute payment system, THIS is fundamentally what is causing the problem. And here's how they could maybe do it - change the EFL rules so that parachute payments are EXCLUDED from the financial assessments, and change the period from 3 years to 12 months.
10:57, Sun 10 Feb
So other teams parachute payments are to blame for us spending shitloads?

Ok
Fat Buddha - 'Rab C Nesbitt. He's a contrary fecker, but invariably right. He has his finger on the motherfecking pulse.'
10:59, Sun 10 Feb
Yes, exactly this - and not just Blues. It's created a situation where most Championship clubs are over-spending to try and compete with clubs like Villa.
11:04, Sun 10 Feb
Yes, exactly this - and not just Blues. It's created a situation where most Championship clubs are over-spending to try and compete with clubs like Villa.

Believe me ... Villa haven't spent tuppence of what they could spend under their new owners !! They are SO cash rich they cold outspend virtually anyone in the UK including Premiership teams if the rules allowed it
11:08, Sun 10 Feb
Nobody would be complaining if blues had just been relegated and had just spent massive on players to go straight back up.

Besides how many clubs recently have come down, spent wisely and gone straight back up? Last I can remember is Newcastle.

I understand why people get frustrated, but you can’t agree to rules, break said rules and then moan that you’re getting punished surely?
11:14, Sun 10 Feb
Nobody would be complaining if blues had just been relegated and had just spent massive on players to go straight back up.

Besides how many clubs recently have come down, spent wisely and gone straight back up? Last I can remember is Newcastle.

I understand why people get frustrated, but you can’t agree to rules, break said rules and then moan that you’re getting punished surely?

We didn't just agree to abide by them ... we were one of the clubs who voted for them to be applied
11:16, Sun 10 Feb
Yes, exactly this - and not just Blues. It's created a situation where most Championship clubs are over-spending to try and compete with clubs like Villa.

Believe me ... Villa haven't spent tuppence of what they could spend under their new owners !! They are SO cash rich they cold outspend virtually anyone in the UK including Premiership teams if the rules allowed it

Just in case people aren't aware .... the Sawiris family are worth about £38 billion ... but £28 billion of that is in cash !!!
11:17, Sun 10 Feb
Yes I agree totally.

My point though (putting to one side for a moment Blues pending points deduction), if we're going to tackle the problem of clubs spending beyond their means then the parachute payment system has to be looked at it, particularly in relation to FFP. Nothing you can do about the riches of the Premiership, but when they drop down to the EFL (and the EFL's rules) it needs to be made more of a level playing field.