07:56, Thu 13 Feb
With the first deduction, I got the feeling that they waited until we had amassed enough points that it wouldn't affect our season too much in regards to going up or down, ie for legal reasons if that did happen.

I don't know a great deal about point deductions, but maybe that could be the delay? A fair few Blues fans have consigned to our season being over. A 3 point deduction wouldn't send us down but it would allow the EFL to say that they've punished us.
08:00, Thu 13 Feb
Certainly seems to be how things work. Gutless of them
Fat Buddha - 'Rab C Nesbitt. He's a contrary fecker, but invariably right. He has his finger on the motherfecking pulse.'
Jim
08:03, Thu 13 Feb
A 3 point deduction wouldn't send us down but it would allow the EFL to say that they've punished us.

But it would kill off that outside chance of creeping into the Play Offs that, while an unlikely longshot, does still give some purpose and impetus to what would otherwise be a meaningless run of games.

I still fail to see what could be deemed 'Profitable' or 'Sustainable' about selling off a club's prized assets for peanuts just to satisfy some faceless bureaucrats, hiding behind the charade of an 'independent' commission, with a warped paternalistic idea of how football clubs should be run.
08:09, Thu 13 Feb
Jim
A 3 point deduction wouldn't send us down but it would allow the EFL to say that they've punished us.

But it would kill off that outside chance of creeping into the Play Offs that, while an unlikely longshot, does still give some purpose and impetus to what would otherwise be a meaningless run of games.

I still fail to see what could be deemed 'Profitable' or 'Sustainable' about selling off a club's prized assets for peanuts just to satisfy some faceless bureaucrats, hiding behind the charade of an 'independent' commission, with a warped paternalistic idea of how football clubs should be run.

Where do the EFL stand in regards to being able to dictate how a business should be run when they are not a shareholder of that company? I know if I was a shareholder and an outside organisation was trying to force my company into selling assets for less and thus create less profit that I would be calling in the company solicitors....
08:13, Thu 13 Feb
#DingDong
A 3 point deduction wouldn't send us down but it would allow the EFL to say that they've punished us.

But it would kill off that outside chance of creeping into the Play Offs that, while an unlikely longshot, does still give some purpose and impetus to what would otherwise be a meaningless run of games.

I still fail to see what could be deemed 'Profitable' or 'Sustainable' about selling off a club's prized assets for peanuts just to satisfy some faceless bureaucrats, hiding behind the charade of an 'independent' commission, with a warped paternalistic idea of how football clubs should be run.

Where do the EFL stand in regards to being able to dictate how a business should be run when they are not a shareholder of that company? I know if I was a shareholder and an outside organisation was trying to force my company into selling assets for less and thus create less profit that I would be calling in the company solicitors....

Yeah - logic would say that our case is pretty strong on this one. No deduction, fire the bus up.
Jim
08:18, Thu 13 Feb
The 'clean shirts' will point out that the Football League is merely a conglomerate of football clubs who have all agreed and signed up to the P & S rules.

We broke the rules, blah, blah, blah. "Hit me harder, please!"
08:20, Thu 13 Feb
Jim
That is the reality though.
Fat Buddha - 'Rab C Nesbitt. He's a contrary fecker, but invariably right. He has his finger on the motherfecking pulse.'
08:22, Thu 13 Feb
The only way for a football club to bring in guaranteed funds is to sell assets if there is a willing buyer, however, the EFL should not be able to dictate the terms of sale for an independent business.

They can seek investment through sponsorship etc. however that is not guaranteed, a company cannot be made to invest in another. There are ways around that sure, but that then becomes murky surely.
08:24, Thu 13 Feb
Can anyone remember how long it took from last years hearing until we found out the punishment?
Tell you what that crack is really moreish.
08:32, Thu 13 Feb
Jim
Jim
A 3 point deduction wouldn't send us down but it would allow the EFL to say that they've punished us.

I still fail to see what could be deemed 'Profitable' or 'Sustainable' about selling off a club's prized assets for peanuts just to satisfy some faceless bureaucrats, hiding behind the charade of an 'independent' commission, with a warped paternalistic idea of how football clubs should be run.

I suppose it'll all come down to what we said to them. I completely agree with you, but if Blues have signed some legally binding agreement that we would sell Che Adams ASAP to balance the books and then didn't do it, we've obviously not adhered to this alleged plan in place.

If it was a vague agreement that we'll sell Adams when we feel the price is right, then I suppose we would have some room to maneuver.

It's all b*llocks though. If the EFL cared about sustainability, they'd be praising us for getting a much bigger fee for him in the Summer. He kept us up and then bought in more money, which is worth way more than some desperate, derisory £9mil offer from Burnley which we reportedly turned down in January.

I suppose all of the details will come out eventually.
08:35, Thu 13 Feb
Surely the player and his agent has some involvement in any move.
If he doesn't want to go or more probably, the money isn't right, he doesn't have to go. The EFL certainly can't force an unwilling player to move on
09:22, Thu 13 Feb
LH_4
Jim
A 3 point deduction wouldn't send us down but it would allow the EFL to say that they've punished us.

I still fail to see what could be deemed 'Profitable' or 'Sustainable' about selling off a club's prized assets for peanuts just to satisfy some faceless bureaucrats, hiding behind the charade of an 'independent' commission, with a warped paternalistic idea of how football clubs should be run.

I suppose it'll all come down to what we said to them. I completely agree with you, but if Blues have signed some legally binding agreement that we would sell Che Adams ASAP to balance the books and then didn't do it, we've obviously not adhered to this alleged plan in place.

If it was a vague agreement that we'll sell Adams when we feel the price is right, then I suppose we would have some room to maneuver.

It's all b*llocks though. If the EFL cared about sustainability, they'd be praising us for getting a much bigger fee for him in the Summer. He kept us up and then bought in more money, which is worth way more than some desperate, derisory £9mil offer from Burnley which we reportedly turned down in January.

I suppose all of the details will come out eventually.
You think we should be praised for losing millions even after selling the ground or a player for £15m?
Fat Buddha - 'Rab C Nesbitt. He's a contrary fecker, but invariably right. He has his finger on the motherfecking pulse.'
09:28, Thu 13 Feb
Not praised on how the club is run.

But in the context of that particular punishment and those particular figures, we turned a potential £9mil sale into almost double based on future events, and he also stuck around to save us from relegation.

On that basis, the EFL should take their medicine and realise that we actually made better steps towards sustainability in that particular scenario, than what they proposed we should do. By no means should the overall running of the club be praised.

However if we've signed a legally binding document, then it's hard to see how we could get out of that?
09:40, Thu 13 Feb
eff the efl

shiny arsed tosspots
09:42, Thu 13 Feb
Super Hans
Can anyone remember how long it took from last years hearing until we found out the punishment?

Percy says in the article we should know by the end of the month