20:32, Sun 10 Feb
In a rich man's world

[oddschanger.com]
20:55, Sun 10 Feb
So if that is correct and there are 11 other teams in more debt than us can someone please explain how half of the league aren't getting a bigger points deduction than us?

All the league table proves is that FFP / Sustainability does not work in today's game without implementing caps on wages and transfer fees.
21:07, Sun 10 Feb
If you service the debt correctly, balance the books, then you keep out of trouble. Just like keeping up with your mortgage payments.
21:44, Sun 10 Feb
Vile and Bolton have had winding up orders served against them this season. They weren't / aren't servicing their debts.
21:49, Sun 10 Feb
Thats why Bolton are in the trouble they are in.
Vile got new owners in and they serviced the debt to stop the winding up order.
22:05, Sun 10 Feb
Well obviously but Vile still have to be losing the same amount every month as they've chucked more money at it to still be shite. Their wages cannot be much different to July as they got the likes of Bolaise in on 70k a week, Abraham has to be on a big whack, they've just spent another £12m on a keeper and right back as well as bringing in more loans.

No idea how they can't lose money again this season.

I know they haven't completed the 3 seasons yet BUT cannot see how they wont have pissed all over the rules. Anyone know their actual losses the first two seasons down?
22:18, Sun 10 Feb
You are absolutely spot on in what you say. Their problems are not over but they got through a very big storm with the new owners. If we get a points deduction, big if for me but I could be wrong, I think they and others will be worried.
06:14, Mon 11 Feb
FFP/P&S isn't directly about debt, its about losses over a period. In theory team A can lose 38M over three years on a rolling basis ad infinitum and not be touched by the EFL where as team B can lose 40M over one three year period and be hit with a points deduction. Vile's losses may mean they breach P&S unless they generate enough income to off set this, which is what Purslow is there to do - hopefully he doesn't - but I'm guessing the people running the vile are better at it than the people running the Blues.
06:22, Mon 11 Feb
Am I wrong but I thought that FFP was about wealthy clubs subsidising losses to outspend their opponents and P&S was about stopping clubs crippling themselves by debts they couldn't afford?

And we were being done under P&S / breaching the embargo by signing Pedersen ?
07:12, Mon 11 Feb
The distinction is between losses and debts. P&S looks at losses over a three year period not the total debt. If a club can't service its debt it goes into admin and automatically gets a 12 point deduction - that's a different rule to P&S. The point of P&S is to try to prevent clubs amounting unsustainable / unserviceable debts.

Yes we are being done for both infractions you mention.
08:20, Mon 11 Feb
The thing is none of the clubs with higher debts than us can service them. Not one.

Indeed there are hardly any clubs in the Championship which can.

They are all reliant on either promotion or a benefactor. The first is a fool's errand and the second is of dubious legality.

The football authorities though have less than zero interest in doing anything about the latter.
08:36, Mon 11 Feb
100%
The authorities sit with their heads firmly buried in the sand when it comes to implementing their Fit and Proper Person ownership bollix.
It's they who are not fit to do their jobs !
Rosie ....Ohh Rosie ....I'd like to paint your knickers Blue and White !
08:41, Mon 11 Feb
Surprises for me on that list include Blackburn, Brentford, Bristol City & Ipswich, who unless they avoid relegation (unlikely) are surely in for a long period in the footballing wilderness.
08:47, Mon 11 Feb
bluearmyfaction
The thing is none of the clubs with higher debts than us can service them. Not one.

Indeed there are hardly any clubs in the Championship which can.

They are all reliant on either promotion or a benefactor. The first is a fool's errand and the second is of dubious legality.

The football authorities though have less than zero interest in doing anything about the latter.

I get where you're coming from. Until the bills can't be paid and (usually the HMRC) come knocking though clubs can continue to operate with debt - BWFC and the vile being two points in case. Its not necessarily right or ethical or moral or in the best interests of the game or however you want to package it that clubs can get to and continue operating in this position but its not illegal. Maybe a number of clubs will go to the wall, maybe, but I've been hearing about the impending cataclysm of lower league clubs for decades now.

Agree about Football regulators and administrators, but they can only be as strong as the legal and regulatory framework and enforcement powers that they operate under... and that is a whole different discussion.
08:48, Mon 11 Feb
Maxine Collins
Surprises for me on that list include Blackburn, Brentford, Bristol City & Ipswich, who unless they avoid relegation (unlikely) are surely in for a long period in the footballing wilderness.

I would take the numbers on that list with a shovel of salt.
09:06, Mon 11 Feb
Nose of Blue
So if that is correct and there are 11 other teams in more debt than us can someone please explain how half of the league aren't getting a bigger points deduction than us?

I'LL SHOUT SO YOU UNDERSTAND.....

...NO-ONE ELSE BOUGHT A PLAYER WHILST UNDER AN EMBARGO!!!! NO-ONE, NADA, NOT A SAUSAGE, ZIP, NUNK. GET IT?
AnE - conspiracy theorist, ardent viler-hater, nutjob cyclist, Cubie-bater, go-to iconoclast
09:16, Mon 11 Feb
Slightly Turbid
Maxine Collins
Surprises for me on that list include Blackburn, Brentford, Bristol City & Ipswich, who unless they avoid relegation (unlikely) are surely in for a long period in the footballing wilderness.

I would take the numbers on that list with a shovel of salt.

Agreed. For example, isn't our debt nearly twice that figure now?
09:22, Mon 11 Feb
Maybe if the League actually gave details of who was under what at the time then people would understand.

As it is, signing a player from the German second division while under soft embargo doesn't sound as bad as Bolton signing players that they knew they couldn't pay.
09:44, Mon 11 Feb
bluearmyfaction
Maybe if the League actually gave details of who was under what at the time then people would understand.

As it is, signing a player from the German second division while under soft embargo doesn't sound as bad as Bolton signing players that they knew they couldn't pay.
This for me is another great point. Why is it that the EFL only choose to make public information regarding certain clubs. If a club is under any embargo, then surely it is in the interest of the footballing public for it to be out there.
12:29, Mon 11 Feb
Bizzarely, Bolton who haven't been able to pay their players, were still signing players in January
What did the Knights in White satin?