Mr Popodopolous Posted January 31, 2019 Author Share Posted January 31, 2019 (edited) 36 minutes ago, BTRFTG said: The finances are all very interesting but does anybody know, real world, what the actual sanctions are for breaching FFP? There was talk of a fixed levy taken from TV monies but I'm not sure this has ever been sanctioned (why further push a club into debt if it risks their existence?) I know there have been a few transfer embargoes but are they that stringent? Seem to recall a few clubs who were constrained managing to take in players on loan if it was an emergency, they were over 6ft, bald or any other get-out they could summon up. I believe it has been a work in progress but now they're getting somewhere. They should have thought ahead really, the EFL etc- but then they are the EFL so what do you expect? Initially the punishment was pisspoor- a fine if you got promoted under the old rules and then you had to if you were the EFL fight for it and it got redistributed amongst the rest of the clubs. If you stayed down, a transfer embargo. Point is that was clearly inadequate. The new 3 year rolling rules that began in 2015/16 mean that if you breach it you can get a points deduction for example, perhaps even get demoted from top 2 to top 6 or top 6 to out of playoffs. In terms of transfer embargoes- they are pretty strict. Well Bolton's was anyway in 16/17 to last season. Birmingham's seems a bit too light but where they went wrong was signing a left back called Pedersen on a permanent deal when under embargo- that really pissed off the EFL and other clubs. They are the first big test case of this- hearing in February as they have put a horse and cart through the rules. Talk of up to a 15 point deduction for them, that is in this case 12 for the initial offence and 3 points for an aggravated breach (the aggravated breach as in signing Pedersen when they were under embargo). Now the embargoes. They tend to mean the following: You cannot spend money on a player in the form of a transfer fee. You cannot pay an agents fee. You cannot pay a loan fee. You cannot register a player over a specified maximum wage (in Birmingham's case, it is possibly £10,000 per week). This appears to be a soft embargo. A hard/full embargo means you cannot register players full stop. At the same time, as well as punishment, the EFL don't want to cripple clubs or **** them over basically. Bolton's was very strict at times- imagine being a Championship club unable to sign players on more than £4,500 per week! https://bolton.vitalfootball.co.uk/bolton-embargo-goalposts-moved/ This year will be the big test though- this is the first full 3 year cycle where you can argue discount a year for reasonable adjustment because rules changed from £5m loss in a season to sudden 3 year rolling (2015/16) and 2016/17-end of this season. Well a lot of clubs have surely flouted it to varying degrees. Birmingham's hearing in February will be very telling and should set a big precedent moving forward. Accounts for this season, plus the prior 2 seasons will be assessed in March 2019. EFL have all this info (ahead of Companies House in quite a few cases). Think full accounts for last season had to be submitted in December and accounts projected for this season by the clubs submitted in March 2019. Edited January 31, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BTRFTG Posted January 31, 2019 Share Posted January 31, 2019 Mr P's provided a very comprehensive response to the what ifs, but there appears to be no direct correlation between 'crime and punishment'. So if withholding payments have now gone how are the infringements assessed ( £x overspend = y points: is that a one-off, i.e. I reckon we could live with a 3 point deduction and still go up hence may risk overspending by.. or would an accumulative £x overspend in the second year ( or previous period) be worthy of greater punishment, 6 points say?) I also don't get the bit about embargoes, which as Mr P implies were written with an intent to drive a coach and horses through them. If in Brum's case they were embargoed how did they sign and register a player without EFL consent (or did they sign him without an ability to play him, else did EFL themselves screw up?) That's what I meant by it all appearing a tad lax, a touch old boys network and dependant upon how much the top table likes you. Is there an appeals system, or arbitrage? Does punishment against one period receive some form of 'relaxation' else may one be subject to double jeopardy? Rules designed by committee methinks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 1, 2019 Author Share Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) @BTRFTG Will address your points fully later. To say on it briefly though it still seems a bit of a work in progress. Quick update. Birmingham surely now for the high jump. Selling Che Adams could have alleviated their 3 year loss quite a bit- 12 pts + 3 pts for an aggravated offence had been mooted? Would seem quite fair. Aston Villa have made some cuts but I think a drop in the ocean set against their losses. Hope they're likewise going to get what they deserve this or next season. 15 points fair? Sheffield Wednesday had a £15m hole apparently in the 3 seasons from 2015/16 to last season. They've hardly made swingeing cuts though they're in a bit or a better place than the other 2. Again a points deduction next season maybe? Stoke if they don't go up this year, may have some issues next. Edited February 1, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 1, 2019 Author Share Posted February 1, 2019 (edited) Really hope Aston Villa get punished the worst- they seem to not even be paying lip service. This January- just taken a look- they have: Brought Kalinic for £5.4m (a Croatia international keeper). Brought Guilbert for £4.5m from Ligue 1. Loaned in Mings, Hause and Tom Carroll. Kept Abraham. Yes, they cancelled Moreira (half-season loan), Bolasie (half-season loan), loaned out Bree, Guilbert, Hogan (half season loans) and McCormack (went to one club, and then another) but their 3 year breach must be approaching huge levels. Edited February 1, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 3, 2019 Author Share Posted February 3, 2019 (edited) If this is true...it sets a huge precedent. Will affect Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday right now or should and quite a few clubs down the line. £7m seems a bit low too, £11m the most widely quoted overspend. I think for a start they need to sell Adams and Jota quite a creator so he can also either get a big fee or wages and a good loan fee by another club. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/birmingham-city-could-face-new-charge-over-che-adams-xtd0dbnd8 Quote Birmingham City could face new charge over Che Adams matt hughes, sports news correspondent Share Save Birmingham City’s decision to reject several bids for the striker Che Adams this week could lead to a second charge of committing an “aggravated breach” of the EFL’s profit and sustainability rules, which would trigger a second points deduction in as many seasons. The Sky Bet Championship club are already facing being docked up to 15 points this season as a sanction for missing the EFL’s spending limits by £7 million over the three seasons from 2015 to 2018, with an independent disciplinary commission due to rule on the case this month. This has led to fears that the team, who are 12th in the table, 16 points off the bottom three, could be dragged into a relegation battle. Ironically, such concerns influenced their reasoning in rejecting offers from Burnley and Southampton for Adams, who has scored 15 league goals this season. This may have been a serious miscalculation, however, as the club club need to raise considerable funds and/or make significant savings by the end of the season in order to comply with the EFL’s rules, with a failure to do so raising the prospect of a double punishment. If it is proved that they rejected formal bids for Adams during the relevant accounting period — there have been reports of four offers of up to £12 million for the 22-year-old — the EFL may deem it to be an aggravated breach for deliberately ignoring the profit and sustainability rules, which could trigger an additional nine-point deduction, which would be applied next season. Birmingham are contesting an aggravated breach charge for their signing last summer of the former Denmark Under-21 international Kristian Pedersen despite being under a transfer embargo. Edited February 3, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 6, 2019 Author Share Posted February 6, 2019 Wigan's results are out. Not quite sure how they did it but they had a pretty low loss last season despite the parachute payments ending, the solidarity payments being lower in League One as well as the TV cash down there also being lower and a reduced profit on transfers...so they're nowhere near FFP basically. Income fell by 73.38% and yet loss was as below- not so much. Loss last year? £7,668,613 from a profit of £4.256,253 the prior season. It's all pretty much in the accounts on their site but still struggle to see how they balanced that and their losses were not bigger. Nowhere near FFP basically. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 Really need the EFL to come down hard on Brum to set a precedent for Villa if needed. Thought the Swansea / Leeds / Dan James But was worth copying in full. It’s not just a case of agree a fee, the terms that go with it are key also. Loan terms cost Leeds Huw Jenkins, the Swansea City chairman, vetoed the club’s decision to sell the winger Daniel James to Leeds United at 10pm on Thursday after discovering the terms of the payment structure, which would have meant that they did not receive any money for one of their best players until June. The club had agreed to loan James for £1.5 million for the rest of the season, with Leeds obliged to buy him for a set fee of £7 million if they are promoted to the Premier League. On closer examination of the paperwork, however, Jenkins found that Leeds were not obliged to pay the loan fee for the 21-year-old winger until June 30, with any subsequent transfer fee payable in instalments over four years. That deal would have significantly strengthened Marcelo Bielsa’s Leeds squad, as they chase promotion, for no initial outlay. Leeds are unhappy at the late collapse of the transfer but may benefit in the long run as James has only 18 months left on his contract and Swansea have not offered him a new deal, so he is likely to be available for much less this summer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 They probably have and he’s turned it down on interest from other clubs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted February 6, 2019 Admin Share Posted February 6, 2019 Yet another jumps the Swansea ship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 (edited) 32 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said: Its only because the bit you pasted said they hadnt. Whether he accepts or not is unimported as far as the tribunals go- as far as I'm aware. I think the only condition is it can't be a pisstake offer, like 1/4 of whatever he's currently on. They have to offer him a contract of at least equal to his current contract. yes, re pasted bit, I missed that, but they don’t have to offer him anything yet....of course it would be good if they could tie him to a new deal. But they don’t have to let him go in the summer, and they can wait til next summer to offer him another contract. Gonna piss the player off, yes, but it’s in their control to some extent. Edited February 6, 2019 by Davefevs 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishRed Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 On 03/02/2019 at 01:21, Mr Popodopolous said: If this is true...it sets a huge precedent. Will affect Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday right now or should and quite a few clubs down the line. £7m seems a bit low too, £11m the most widely quoted overspend. I think for a start they need to sell Adams and Jota quite a creator so he can also either get a big fee or wages and a good loan fee by another club. https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/birmingham-city-could-face-new-charge-over-che-adams-xtd0dbnd8 IF this happens it could be the defining moment for FFP in English football. Somwhow I suspect it won’t be a points deduction punishment. I also believe that Villa, who must also have issues, have spent in Jan comfortable in the knowledge that any punishment will be financial. Otherwise their actions are bizarre. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 6, 2019 Share Posted February 6, 2019 10 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said: Knew there was a condition about the contract offered, just couldn't remember what it was. Agree it's not panic stations yet. More surprised that a highly rated player hasn't been offered a new deal with 18 months left. Would be akin to us not offering COD one wouldn't it? In fairness, he’s only played 1st Team football this season. Signed a contract until 2020 (back in Nov 17), and BBC report it as “at least” until 2020....so might even be a year option....meaning no rush during the window just gone. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 6 hours ago, ScottishRed said: IF this happens it could be the defining moment for FFP in English football. Somwhow I suspect it won’t be a points deduction punishment. I also believe that Villa, who must also have issues, have spent in Jan comfortable in the knowledge that any punishment will be financial. Otherwise their actions are bizarre. I wouldn't be surprised if there has been a conversation with the EFL. "Don't worry, you won't get a points deduction, we'll agree a purely symbolic fine then you can carry on as before. If we want to make an example of somebody we'll go after some penniless League 2 club." Cynical , moi? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishRed Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 2 hours ago, chinapig said: I wouldn't be surprised if there has been a conversation with the EFL. "Don't worry, you won't get a points deduction, we'll agree a purely symbolic fine then you can carry on as before. If we want to make an example of somebody we'll go after some penniless League 2 club." Cynical , moi? Exactly. Otherwise Villa’s actions in particular, would be utterly reckless and I just don’t see them doing that considering the ‘potential ‘ consequences. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 3 hours ago, chinapig said: I wouldn't be surprised if there has been a conversation with the EFL. "Don't worry, you won't get a points deduction, we'll agree a purely symbolic fine then you can carry on as before. If we want to make an example of somebody we'll go after some penniless League 2 club." Cynical , moi? They probably looked at QPR. originally rumour was £60m fine, then it turned out to be £42m. That then got haggled down to £17m and the owners writing off £22m. Not sure who was owner then, but if it was the 3 that were in charge when they sounded all the money, they were worth around £25 billion ! Villa probably thought the risk worth it, that and I don’t think the League can chase a Prem club to impose the fine if they did make it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 7, 2019 Author Share Posted February 7, 2019 10 hours ago, ScottishRed said: IF this happens it could be the defining moment for FFP in English football. Somwhow I suspect it won’t be a points deduction punishment. I also believe that Villa, who must also have issues, have spent in Jan comfortable in the knowledge that any punishment will be financial. Otherwise their actions are bizarre. There's no doubt it's a watershed moment. Birmingham get docked a healthy number of points, plus embargoed and maybe fined? Big precedent. Lots of clubs should be wary moving forward... @1960maaan That was under the old rules. This aforementioned Birmingham case, is the first serious test case under the old rules...if they don't get a points deduction, or a long term embargo at bare minimum- but really it should be points plus couple of windows embargo- we may as well scrap the whole thing. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1960maaan Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 22 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: .if they don't get a points deduction, or a long term embargo at bare minimum- but really it should be points plus couple of windows embargo- we may as well scrap the whole thing. Agree. the embargo’s have been pretty toothless previously. In some cases it seemed clubs have done business knowing that they can’t deal in the following window. Should be instant, not the window after next each time. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 39 minutes ago, 1960maaan said: They probably looked at QPR. originally rumour was £60m fine, then it turned out to be £42m. That then got haggled down to £17m and the owners writing off £22m. Not sure who was owner then, but if it was the 3 that were in charge when they sounded all the money, they were worth around £25 billion ! Villa probably thought the risk worth it, that and I don’t think the League can chase a Prem club to impose the fine if they did make it. 33 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: There's no doubt it's a watershed moment. Birmingham get docked a healthy number of points, plus embargoed and maybe fined? Big precedent. Lots of clubs should be wary moving forward... @1960maaan That was under the old rules. This aforementioned Birmingham case, is the first serious test case under the old rules...if they don't get a points deduction, or a long term embargo at bare minimum- but really it should be points plus couple of windows embargo- we may as well scrap the whole thing. I think most are now aware that the new rules allow a points penalty to be applied for clubs that breach and that this can be used to deny a club promotion. A few , including me, have indicated that it needs big club like villa to be hit this way if FFP is to really work going forward, on the assumption that Villa will finish in the promotion/play off places. It might be ironic if Villa do fall foul of FFP but are well out of the play off picture. If that were the case, would then a big fine plus a transfer embargo hit them harder? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 7, 2019 Author Share Posted February 7, 2019 3 minutes ago, downendcity said: I think most are now aware that the new rules allow a points penalty to be applied for clubs that breach and that this can be used to deny a club promotion. A few , including me, have indicated that it needs big club like villa to be hit this way if FFP is to really work going forward, on the assumption that Villa will finish in the promotion/play off places. It might be ironic if Villa do fall foul of FFP but are well out of the play off picture. If that were the case, would then a big fine plus a transfer embargo hit them harder? Could a points penalty be applied to Aston Villa next year perhaps? Because chances are that if they were in breach for the 3 years to this season, they will be in breach for the 3 years to next season. Perhaps by more as this is the 3rd and final year of parachute payments. Aggravated breach- keeping Chester and Grealish when they were bids for them seemingly? If Birmingham get punished on that, then so can Aston Villa possibly. Fine. Maybe, maybe not- how would it be calculated with regards FFP? If it didn't count towards their FFP figure then it's questionable. Embargo though? Should already be in one IMO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayne allisons tongues Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 Personally I think if clubs break ffp should be a poi ts points deduction, and do it for each £2m overspend 1 point deduction. This way clubs know the consequences, and if you mistakenly fall foul by a bit you don’t get punished as much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishRed Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Could a points penalty be applied to Aston Villa next year perhaps? Because chances are that if they were in breach for the 3 years to this season, they will be in breach for the 3 years to next season. Perhaps by more as this is the 3rd and final year of parachute payments. Aggravated breach- keeping Chester and Grealish when they were bids for them seemingly? If Birmingham get punished on that, then so can Aston Villa possibly. Fine. Maybe, maybe not- how would it be calculated with regards FFP? If it didn't count towards their FFP figure then it's questionable. Embargo though? Should already be in one IMO. The next few weeks could get hugely interesting. Reading the article from The Times further up in this thread it is mooted that one of the reasons Brum kept hold of Che Adams was because they believe a potential points deduction this season could put them into a relegation fight! and was worth the risk of aggravated breach! So, if true, Brum see a points deduction as a real threat. Villa, on the other hand, seem to be carrying on regardless - are they maybe not in breach? Or, at least dont think they are? Interesting times. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 7, 2019 Author Share Posted February 7, 2019 (edited) 12 minutes ago, ScottishRed said: The next few weeks could get hugely interesting. Reading the article from The Times further up in this thread it is mooted that one of the reasons Brum kept hold of Che Adams was because they believe a potential points deduction this season could put them into a relegation fight! and was worth the risk of aggravated breach! So, if true, Brum see a points deduction as a real threat. Villa, on the other hand, seem to be carrying on regardless - are they maybe not in breach? Or, at least dont think they are? Interesting times. Yeah, that figures- they can always sell Adams in the summer I suppose, and goals of Adams get them over the line. In terms of a points deduction, 12-15 points I believe is the most quoted figure. If it came to pass, that would definitely put them in amongst the relegation scrap- I think they would have enough to survive but they would be down there at the very least on the edges of it. Aston Villa...it's an interesting one. From 2015/16 i.e. their last season in the PL to last season, I don't believe they breached. Narrow margins probably but still alright. However the crunch of £22m knocked off allowable losses (in PL you can lose £35m per season, in Championship it's £13m- total falls from £61m to £39m max losses plus academy expenditure etc) combined with their parachute payments dropping from £33m to £15m this year- that's £40m minus any surplus they had in 3 year FFP- say they still had £5m left to play with, then it's a shortfall of £35m additional income they needed to find from last season to this. However they can spend because they aren't technically in breach until March. That said come March, their breach will surely be very large and they need to be made an example of. Definitely interesting times. Edited February 7, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 @JamesBCFC 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted February 7, 2019 Share Posted February 7, 2019 1 hour ago, JamesBCFC said: It's clear what's happened here. One of Swansea's staff has been reading OTIB to see how other clubs are doing FFP wise, saw my post and thought "Hmm, he makes a good point. Why haven't we offered a new contract yet?" No other explanation. How much are you getting as an "agents" fee James? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 Just rumoured on 5 Live that a decision is imminent on Brum and that it will be a ' sporting sanction', i.e. a points deduction. 2 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 9 minutes ago, chinapig said: Just rumoured on 5 Live that a decision is imminent on Brum and that it will be a ' sporting sanction', i.e. a points deduction. Woah.....nice. Hope you’re right. No point in FFP otherwise. Watershed moment. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chinapig Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 2 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Woah.....nice. Hope you’re right. No point in FFP otherwise. Watershed moment. It came from Mark Clemmit , who knows his stuff. Will set an important precedent if true. Could the EFL for instance deduct points from Brum but not Villa? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CotswoldRed Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 Get the feeling it's a decision that suits everyone. Brum won't be going up or down. Easy way out sanction. If they were in or near the relegation zone I don't think such a sanction would be imposed. Football authorities are very weak. A relegation would be punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 9, 2019 Author Share Posted February 9, 2019 (edited) 15 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said: Get the feeling it's a decision that suits everyone. Brum won't be going up or down. Easy way out sanction. If they were in or near the relegation zone I don't think such a sanction would be imposed. Football authorities are very weak. A relegation would be punishment. A 12-15 point deduction could see them slide into the mire tbh. @chinapig @Davefevs Punishment would fit the crime well and truly- great news eh! Edited February 9, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 (edited) 25 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said: Get the feeling it's a decision that suits everyone. Brum won't be going up or down. Easy way out sanction. If they were in or near the relegation zone I don't think such a sanction would be imposed. Football authorities are very weak. A relegation would be punishment. This was one of my concerns about the points deduction option, i.e. that it could be applied to a club where the effect would be relatively negligible and to avoid a big fine that might cause a knock on effect, in terms of the club's financial solvency and the danger of causing real financial problems. However........ 32 minutes ago, chinapig said: It came from Mark Clemmit , who knows his stuff. Will set an important precedent if true. Could the EFL for instance deduct points from Brum but not Villa? If a points penalty is applied to Brum, then it does set a precedent, so it makes it difficult for the EFL not to apply the same sanction where a club would be hit hard i.e. taking them out of the promotion race or putting them into a relegation fight. Should Villa fall foul of ffp, then given their transfer activity - the players they've brought in- and not selling players like Grealish surely it would come into the aggravated breach category and deserving of the toughest penalty? Edited February 9, 2019 by downendcity 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 33 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: A 12-15 point deduction could see them slide into the mire tbh. @chinapig @Davefevs Punishment would fit the crime well and truly- great news eh! Isn’t there a possibility that they could also give a points deduction to next season too? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 9, 2019 Author Share Posted February 9, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Davefevs said: Isn’t there a possibility that they could also give a points deduction to next season too? That'd be the aggravated breach- 9 points if proven according to that Times piece. In addition to any deduction this season. I doubl Birmingham will be free of FFP issues in fact until 2020/21 at the earliest, so it's never been tested fully but in theory I suppose they would be open to rolling punishments until it is cleared. Whether that happens in practice is a different matter. Edited February 9, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Rob Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 1 hour ago, downendcity said: Should Villa fall foul of ffp, then given their transfer activity - the players they've brought in- and not selling players like Grealish surely it would come into the aggravated breach category and deserving of the toughest penalty? I don't imagine that not selling Grealish will be a factor, if the player didn't want to move, you can't force him, and If the offers they received were well below perceived market value you can't blame them for keeping him. A transfer embargo would be interesting however, they seem to be a bit leaky at the back, and without the chance to improve in that area, they could well find themselves stuck in this division for the foreseeable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 1 minute ago, Bristol Rob said: I don't imagine that not selling Grealish will be a factor, if the player didn't want to move, you can't force him, and If the offers they received were well below perceived market value you can't blame them for keeping him. A transfer embargo would be interesting however, they seem to be a bit leaky at the back, and without the chance to improve in that area, they could well find themselves stuck in this division for the foreseeable. My mistake - thought they did get offers in the summer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bristol Rob Posted February 9, 2019 Share Posted February 9, 2019 37 minutes ago, downendcity said: My mistake - thought they did get offers in the summer. If memory serves, Spurs made a bid, but it was about fifteen million short of their valuation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 9, 2019 Author Share Posted February 9, 2019 (edited) 4 hours ago, Bristol Rob said: If memory serves, Spurs made a bid, but it was about fifteen million short of their valuation. Still turned down a legitimate bid for a saleable asset when breaching FFP that could have helped resolve it- perhaps classed as an aggravated breach. Where it may diverge is that Birmingham were IIRC working under an EFL business plan- maybe still are- and so far as I can see, Aston Villa are not at this time and perhaps were not then, so harder to enforce in that instance. Edited February 9, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 10, 2019 Author Share Posted February 10, 2019 (edited) It could be referencing the Mark Clemmit points deduction scoop but then again this guy seems pretty clued up on FFP and especially with Birmingham- it forms a thread but the first post the key one. Edited February 10, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanterne Rouge Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 I just hope they don`t deduct them points the day before we play them. They`d be so fired up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 14 minutes ago, Red Right Hand said: I just hope they don`t deduct them points the day before we play them. They`d be so fired up. Fam will be spitting if they do....or is it sweat? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 10, 2019 Author Share Posted February 10, 2019 (edited) 6 hours ago, Red Right Hand said: I just hope they don`t deduct them points the day before we play them. They`d be so fired up. Would be typical! 6 hours ago, Davefevs said: Fam will be spitting if they do....or is it sweat? Oh I forgot about that...let us hope Messrs Dean and Davis get the welcome and subsequently through the game, the reception (i.e. booing every time they touch the ball) that kinda thing! Edited February 10, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 10, 2019 Share Posted February 10, 2019 19 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Would be typical! Oh I forgot about that...let us hope Messrs Dean and Davis get the welcome and subsequently through the game, the reception (i.e. booing every time they touch the ball) that kinda thing! Think Fam was pretty fired up in the away game....should be the same for the home game too. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 10, 2019 Author Share Posted February 10, 2019 6 minutes ago, Davefevs said: Think Fam was pretty fired up in the away game....should be the same for the home game too. So long as he channels it right, don't want him giving away sloppy fouls or trying too hard and say giving the ball away in dangerous positions- or worse still needless bookings/red cards! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 12, 2019 Author Share Posted February 12, 2019 (edited) Sheffield United results are in. Lost £1,894,507 last season...they could have gone nuts this season in the transfer market if they wanted- could have hit Birmingham (well, Redknapp) levels of profligacy. Given Brooks was sold for big cash and Leonard and Evans both yielded a profit then their losses this season shouldn't be huge either despite high profile signings. Edited February 12, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 13, 2019 Author Share Posted February 13, 2019 Birmingham believe they are being singled out...to which I say don't through incompetence or arrogance, breach the rules by this much in such a short space of time. https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11694/11636412/birmingham-unhappy-at-being-singled-out-by-efl-with-potential-12-point-deduction Another piece of FFP news I read relating to Birmingham- and whether it will prove to be true time will tell, but this is something along the lines of what I said about enforcement and rolling punishments or otherwise. The interesting twist in the tail is that once they have been punished for their 3 year breach, from here on in well the next couple of seasons i.e. this and next, they will only be assessed on single season results- i.e. £13m loss limits, so they are not punished again for their 2016/17 figures and especially these ones. Unsure what to make of that... My reading of that basically is that instead of looking at £37m loss and loss in 16/17 and adding it to 18/19 say, then it'll be struck from the record and only in 2018/19 if they broke the rules of £13m will they be punished again and even more so for the cycle from 2017/18-2018/19, that huge loss last season and any this year provided they are compliant of £13m or less won't be counted. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 14, 2019 Author Share Posted February 14, 2019 (edited) Forgot to add in that post @Davefevs, @chinapig and @downendcity you may all be interested in the above. Edited February 14, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 14, 2019 Author Share Posted February 14, 2019 (edited) QPR- the first big offenders who received a punishment under the old rules have released their financial results for last season... The £20m exceptional item I assume is one aspect of their fine you can strip from the losses but- and even this is with parachute payments...they'll need to cut deep and fast next year unless they fluke a promotion to PL via playoffs this season. They have been offloading high earners this summer though which will help and the sacking of Holloway will have created a non-recurring cost. Edited February 14, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 13 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Birmingham believe they are being singled out...to which I say don't through incompetence or arrogance, breach the rules by this much in such a short space of time. https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11694/11636412/birmingham-unhappy-at-being-singled-out-by-efl-with-potential-12-point-deduction Another piece of FFP news I read relating to Birmingham- and whether it will prove to be true time will tell, but this is something along the lines of what I said about enforcement and rolling punishments or otherwise. The interesting twist in the tail is that once they have been punished for their 3 year breach, from here on in well the next couple of seasons i.e. this and next, they will only be assessed on single season results- i.e. £13m loss limits, so they are not punished again for their 2016/17 figures and especially these ones. Unsure what to make of that... My reading of that basically is that instead of looking at £37m loss and loss in 16/17 and adding it to 18/19 say, then it'll be struck from the record and only in 2018/19 if they broke the rules of £13m will they be punished again and even more so for the cycle from 2017/18-2018/19, that huge loss last season and any this year provided they are compliant of £13m or less won't be counted. They knew the rules and penalties, so should expect the appropriate punishment, but whoever was first to be hit was always going to make a fuss when points penalties were handed out. The "worrying" comment in the article, is that Brum's penalties is an initial 6 point deduction, increased to 12 for an aggravated breach. It says that this will set a precedent for the smaller points penalty, which will be used as the standard for similar punishment in the future. In Brum's case the aggravation was because they were already subject to a transfer embargo and working to a plan agreed with the EFL to bring their finances into line with the sustainability criteria, that they spent double their income on wages last year is what caused the aggravated charge. However, if a club decides to go all out for promotion, overspends like mad on top players, busts the ffp limits by millions but when assessed has a 10 point lead at the top of the table, the 6 point deduction ( established by this precedent) will only penalise them slightly in the greater scheme of things. I would have thought/hoped that each case would be judged on it's merits, so the points penalty could reflect the scale of beach and the benefit the club gained by breaching. Nonetheless, it is hopefully a good sign that the EFL is prepared to apply a points deduction, which could make a huge difference to clubs that throw financial caution to the wind in an attempt to buy promotion to the prem. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 14, 2019 Author Share Posted February 14, 2019 1 minute ago, downendcity said: They knew the rules and penalties, so should expect the appropriate punishment, but whoever was first to be hit was always going to make a fuss when points penalties were handed out. The "worrying" comment in the article, is that Brum's penalties is an initial 6 point deduction, increased to 12 for an aggravated breach. It says that this will set a precedent for the smaller points penalty, which will be used as the standard for similar punishment in the future. In Brum's case the aggravation was because they were already subject to a transfer embargo and working to a plan agreed with the EFL to bring their finances into line with the sustainability criteria, that they spent double their income on wages last year is what caused the aggravated charge. However, if a club decides to go all out for promotion, overspends like mad on top players, busts the ffp limits by millions but when assessed has a 10 point lead at the top of the table, the 6 point deduction ( established by this precedent) will only penalise them slightly in the greater scheme of things. I would have thought/hoped that each case would be judged on it's merits, so the points penalty could reflect the scale of beach and the benefit the club gained by breaching. Nonetheless, it is hopefully a good sign that the EFL is prepared to apply a points deduction, which could make a huge difference to clubs that throw financial caution to the wind in an attempt to buy promotion to the prem. Yeah, agree- it hopefully will set a precedent in that the bigger the loss/flouting, the bigger the advantage gained- the bigger the penalty. Fully agree, they knew the rules and therefore have to take their medicine. EFL have to get this right, it sets a precedent moving forward... The good news on that is their own rules or interpretations on websites of these, say that the EFL say nothing is off the table and they can set punishments as they deem fit- in theory at least it means the idea of demotion from top 2 to playoffs or if a bigger breach still. top 2 to 7th say can still happen and indeed top 6 to outside playoffs. Would say that 12 points would be fairer and a bigger deterrent but The grey area here though- and in legal terms it perhaps makes sense- is the switching from 3 year to 1 year assessment periods once a side has been punished for the duration i.e. Birmingham's increased losses in 16/17 won't count against them this year and their huge losses last year won't count against them this or next season...if it's true I don't know but Al Majir who writes about Birmingham finances seems pretty clued up so who knows. Their 6 month results from their parent company in Hong Kong will be instructive as to whether they will be breaching it this season as well, even on the one year ruling- I'll keep an eye out for BSH Holdings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottishRed Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 Not looking to pxxx on anyone's chips but according to an article on the BBC Football site the date for the EFL meeting to discuss Brum's potential punishment has not even been set as yet! Could be any number of reasons for this, but it would suggest all is not cut and dried! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin phantom Posted February 14, 2019 Admin Share Posted February 14, 2019 1 hour ago, downendcity said: In Brum's case the aggravation was because they were already subject to a transfer embargo and working to a plan agreed with the EFL to bring their finances into line with the sustainability criteria, Also the fact they signed Kristian Pedersen and didn't sell Che Adams is being used against them Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 14, 2019 Author Share Posted February 14, 2019 25 minutes ago, JamesBCFC said: If a club is having their position demoted from a promotion spot as a punishment then, IMO, it should be out of all contention. Be utterly pointless to drop them into the playoffs- if they were top 2 then they know they should be the best side in the playoffs. That doesn't guarantee them winning it, but if they win the playoffs then literally no punishment has been metered out- the club gets more revenue from the matches, televised and gate receipts. It's only the fans who suffer there by having to shell out for 3 more games. I agree with you- assuming though that it's linked to some sort of sliding scale i.e. small but still notcieable breach top 2 to playoffs, or perhaps smaller but notable top 6 to outside playoffs but bigger and it is top 2 to outside playoffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazooka Joe Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 On 10/02/2019 at 16:38, Red Right Hand said: I just hope they don`t deduct them points the day before we play them. They`d be so fired up. Hopefully, it would totally deflate them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Peacock Posted February 14, 2019 Share Posted February 14, 2019 9 hours ago, Mr Popodopolous said: The good news on that is their own rules or interpretations on websites of these, say that the EFL say nothing is off the table and they can set punishments as they deem fit- in theory at least it means the idea of demotion from top 2 to playoffs or if a bigger breach still. top 2 to 7th say can still happen and indeed top 6 to outside playoffs. Would say that 12 points would be fairer and a bigger deterrent but Or they can give a piddly meaningless fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 15, 2019 Author Share Posted February 15, 2019 14 hours ago, Drew Peacock said: Or they can give a piddly meaningless fine. Given they seem to be planning to hit Birmingham hard, I wouldn't bank on it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Peacock Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 3 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Given they seem to be planning to hit Birmingham hard, I wouldn't bank on it... I was thinking more of Villa. I shall be pleasantly surprised if they do hand out serious punishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 15, 2019 Author Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said: I was thinking more of Villa. I shall be pleasantly surprised if they do hand out serious punishment. Fair point- I think it's possible but not cut and dried. My view on it is that Championship clubs who have complied and those who have been punished seriously should look at legal routes if they bottle it on Aston Villa- EFL should be wary of this. Edited February 15, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Peacock Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said: Fair point- I think it's possible but not cut and dried. My view on it is that Championship clubs who have complied and those who have been punished seriously should look at legal routes if they bottle it on Aston Villa- EFL should be wary of this. I quite agree. I can see it getting very messy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
downendcity Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 5 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said: I was thinking more of Villa. I shall be pleasantly surprised if they do hand out serious punishment. The way things are going Villa could be out of the promotion/play off picture without the need for a FFP points deduction! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 15, 2019 Author Share Posted February 15, 2019 (edited) 34 minutes ago, Drew Peacock said: I quite agree. I can see it getting very messy. The worst scenario would be something like this- punished but not meaningfully... Here goes. This season, found in 3 year breach but complied with EFL business plan so docked 6 points thereby killing off any remaining playoff places but not enough for the drop. Maybe a fine of some sort. Then as per something I read on the Birmingham site who writes about FFP in general (only read it for the FFP), once you are punished you are measured and punished on one year totals so you are not punished twice for the past overspend- if that's true then... High earners out of contract, their losses £12m next season and their huge losses of this and last season ignored because of the punishment this year and they go up- that's an appalling loophole if true. In Aston Villa's case, not so sure it would be applicable because of the drop of parachute payments at same time as high earners out so may well have to sell anyway, but for a fair to middling Championship club then maybe. Edited February 15, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Never to the dark side Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 https://www.telegraph.co.uk/football/2019/02/14/birmingham-learn-sanctions-breaking-efl-spending-rules-hearing/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 “Decision by the end of the season”....I should hope so! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slartibartfast Posted February 15, 2019 Share Posted February 15, 2019 Relegate the ***** ! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 16, 2019 Author Share Posted February 16, 2019 (edited) On 15/02/2019 at 19:28, slartibartfast said: Relegate the ***** ! I appreciate the sentiment, but the problem with that is given that the Championship is a financial shitstorm, you may well end up having to set a precedent which means a bottom 6 as well as a top 6 or even relegating half the division. 12 points this season and 9 next season of the other aggravated breach is proven will do for now I reckon...as well as however long their transfer embargo will be. They need to sell Adams and either loan or sell Jota- in the case of the latter wages in full plus loan fee- for a start. Edited February 16, 2019 by Mr Popodopolous Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 and for all of you wondering whether it’s worth a read, Kieran Maguire’s stuff is always worth opening just to read / work out what little message he gives from the starting letter of each paragraph. I wonder if it’s true!!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davefevs Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 Swansea: How Swansea City went from model club to desperate cautionary tale Chaotic transfers and incompetence at the top have put the club into a downward spiral with no obvious source of salvation Stuart James @StuartJamesGNM Sat 16 Feb 2019 18.26 GMTFirst published on Sat 16 Feb 2019 18.00 GMT Shares 643 Swansea City’s Jay Fulton looks downcast after a missed chance against Birmingham. Photograph: John Sibley/Action Images As the clock ticked down on transfer deadline day last month, and chaos reigned behind the scenes at Swansea City, Connor Roberts tweeted a gif showing Milhouse, a character from The Simpsons, throwing a frisbee to himself in the park. The Wales international removed the post not long afterwards but the inference was clear: Swansea’s players were feeling every bit as disillusioned as the supporters. Swansea were doing what Swansea now have a reputation for doing on deadline day – shifting everything they possibly can. The same happened last August, when four players departed in the final 24 hours of business. On that occasion it was the turn of the top scorer, Oli McBurnie, to post a soon-to-be-deleted message on Twitter expressing his bemusement. Graham Potter: I did not move the family back from Sweden just for a job Read more Plenty of others felt the same. Privately, players are dismayed at the way the club is being run and feel disappointed for the manager, Graham Potter, as much as themselves. Leroy Fer, the captain, was so frustrated with the prospect of Daniel James leaving in January that – and this was before the deadline-day fiasco when the plug was pulled on the winger’s move to Leeds at the last minute – he telephoned Swansea’s American owners, Steve Kaplan and Jason Levien, to ask what was going on. Perhaps at this stage it is worth pointing out to anyone who has taken a break from football for the past three years that Swansea, who host Brentford in the FA Cup fifth round on Sunday, are no longer the model club they once were. Huw Jenkins, who was a hero when he presided over Swansea’s rise through the leagues, was cast as a villain by the time he resigned as chairman a fortnight ago, and the supporters trust is engaged in a bitter legal dispute with those who sold their shares to the Americans in 2016. As for Kaplan and Levien, it has been a disastrous two and a half seasons under their watch and the harsh reality is that the wording on the cover of the latest edition of the Swansea Oh Swansea fanzine probably sums up how the vast majority of supporters feel about them: “Get out of our club”. Physically, they are rarely in it. Decisions are made from the other side of the Atlantic and apart from appointing Potter, who had previously guided Ostersund from the fourth to the top tier of Swedish football, it is hard to think of much else Kaplan and Levien have got right. Quick guide Follow Guardian sport on social media Show Advertisement The strategy since relegation has been cuts, cuts and more cuts. Or, to borrow the Americans’ phrase, “hard medicine”. Sixteen senior players have left and only five have arrived. When the summer transfer window closed, Potter was left with one senior central defender after two were sold on deadline day. Backed into a corner, Potter has relied on youngsters to such an extent that Swansea, who spent seven seasons in the top flight and were relegated from the Premier League nine months ago, are fielding a team in the Championship that, in terms of the age of their players, resembles that of a club operating on a shoestring in League Two. FacebookTwitterPinterest Jordan Ayew is one of Swansea’s high-earners now out on loan. Photograph: Andrew Matthews/PA Before this weekend’s matches – and this is an extraordinary statistic – players aged 23 and under had racked up 17,357 minutes for Swansea in the Championship this season – the third-highest total by the 72 Football League clubs, behind Yeovil and Swindon with Crewe fourth on the list. The two other clubs relegated from the Premier League last season, West Brom and Stoke, are 65th (5,101 minutes) and 71st (2,717 minutes) respectively. The primary factor in all of this is that Swansea are in a dire position financially, paying the price for a wage bill that was allowed to spiral out of control over the course of several years and a series of calamitous signings during their last season in the Premier League in particular. Each party will cite mitigating circumstances but the reality is that Jenkins and the owners – not one or the other – have their fingerprints on that mess. It is sobering to think that the best part of £45m was wasted on Sam Clucas, Wilfried Bony and André Ayew last season, and £25m on wages, loan fees and transfer fees for Renato Sanches, Tammy Abraham and Roque Mesa. Swansea wrote off millions when they sold Clucas to Stoke in that deadline day fire sale in August. Bony was earning £4.5m a year in the Championship until a heavily subsidised loan move was agreed in January – the Ivorian had no relegation clause in his contract – while no permanent buyer could be found for Ayew last summer. Bony and Ayew, incidentally, were August and January deadline-day signings last season. For an image of Swansea’s approach to transfers during that turbulent campaign, picture a bloke dashing down Oxford Street as the shops prepare to close on Christmas Eve, buying the wrong present for his wife and overpaying at the same time. Then later finding out nobody else wants it. The Fiver: sign up and get our daily football email. Worryingly for Swansea, Ayew, who is on loan at Fenerbahce, will still have two years to run on a lucrative contract when this season is over. Borja Bastón, who was the £15.5m club-record signing until Ayew rejoined from West Ham, is also out on loan – the Spaniard has started four league games for Swansea in three years – and under contract until 2020. Jordan Ayew, Jefferson Montero and Tom Carroll, on loan at Crystal Palace, West Brom and Aston Villa respectively, also have deals that run for another 16 months. The same applies to Nathan Dyer and Kyle Naughton. Swansea’s Oli McBurnie: ‘I wear toddlers’ shin pads, the smallest I can find’ Read more All of which means that as much as Swansea want to press the reset button, they cannot leave the pain of their financial profligacy in the Premier League behind, and that has damaging ramifications for Potter. It is understood there is another £30m hole to fill in the summer, even allowing for a second parachute payment, and it is hard to see how selling the players listed above – if buyers can be found – would make much of a dent in that figure. With Swansea’s owners unwilling or unable to put any money in themselves to cover that shortfall – “We will be relentless in our determination to continually improve this club, and we have the financial resources to do so” was the dubious claim made by Kaplan and Levien after they became majority shareholders – the concern is that Potter will have to sell one or more of the youngsters who have thrived under him and played with the sort of hunger and passion that restores the faith of supporters. It is remarkable then that despite all this doom and gloom, the off-field distractions and the clear sense that things could get worse at Swansea before they get better, Potter continues to diligently go about his work, refusing to sound downbeat and remaining totally committed to the job that he took on last summer. He is the glue holding a broken club together. Since you’re here … … we sincerely hope you enjoyed this article, which was our gift to you. At The Guardian we don’t believe in putting up paywalls, seeing our journalism as a Sunday league centre-back sees possession of a football, as something to be given away in a manner some would consider reckless. But not all the best things in life are free and sending crack journalists to top sporting events armed with deep knowledge, a working laptop and a vaguely acceptable level of literacy certainly is not. We welcome you here all the same, because we like you – all of you, but especially the ones who give us money. If you like what we do, perhaps you might consider becoming the small-scale Sheikh Mansour to our miniature Manchester City by making a small contribution. If everyone who reads and enjoys our reporting helps to support it, our future will become much more secure 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old_eastender Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 (edited) I believe Villa, Norwich (will be irrelevant if they go up), Hull & QPR are all in the final season of parachute payments. Add to them the financial holes that Stoke, Swansea, Forest & Brum are going to find themselves in. Going to be more FFP coming into play next season I reckon. Edited February 18, 2019 by old_eastender Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CyderInACan Posted February 18, 2019 Share Posted February 18, 2019 Very interesting thread. Will be watching with interest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 18, 2019 Author Share Posted February 18, 2019 4 hours ago, old_eastender said: I believe Villa, Norwich (will be irrelevant if they go up), Hull & QPR are all in the final season of parachute payments. Add to them the financial holes that Stoke, Swansea, Forest & Brum are going to find themselves in. Going to be more FFP coming into play next season I reckon. Aston Villa, Hull and QPR are in the final year. Norwich have run out of theirs and this is also Middlesbrough's last year- but both of these are club who look to do the right thing and they took tough decisions when they had parachute payments- I don't have the figures to hand but I think Norwich did a player write down last season as well as the player sales from Jan 2017 and especially summer 2018. Middlesbrough sold Gibson, Traore, Bamford and loaned out Braithwaite- not playing Downing either as to do so would trigger a wage rise. I don't think Gibson and Smith at Middlesbrough or Norwich would recklessly gamble against FFP regs personally. Swansea is an interesting one and last years accounts will be instructive- when they finally release them! Surely they are in quite a smaller hole than say Stoke, but again the Coates will fund any Stoke losses from a solvency/going concern POV- Kaplan and the other American investors at Swansea, much less clear cut. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Popodopolous Posted February 19, 2019 Author Share Posted February 19, 2019 Middlesbrough lost around £6.8m last season- that was after player sales though. In FFP terms, they're surely fine for this and next season. Their big departures summer 2018 were a preparation for the ending of parachute payments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddoh Posted February 19, 2019 Share Posted February 19, 2019 17 hours ago, Davefevs said: Swansea: How Swansea City went from model club to desperate cautionary tale Chaotic transfers and incompetence at the top have put the club into a downward spiral with no obvious source of salvation Stuart James @StuartJamesGNM Sat 16 Feb 2019 18.26 GMTFirst published on Sat 16 Feb 2019 18.00 GMT Shares 643 Swansea City’s Jay Fulton looks downcast after a missed chance against Birmingham. Photograph: John Sibley/Action Images As the clock ticked down on transfer deadline day last month, and chaos reigned behind the scenes at Swansea City, Connor Roberts tweeted a gif showing Milhouse, a character from The Simpsons, throwing a frisbee to himself in the park. The Wales international removed the post not long afterwards but the inference was clear: Swansea’s players were feeling every bit as disillusioned as the supporters. Swansea were doing what Swansea now have a reputation for doing on deadline day – shifting everything they possibly can. The same happened last August, when four players departed in the final 24 hours of business. On that occasion it was the turn of the top scorer, Oli McBurnie, to post a soon-to-be-deleted message on Twitter expressing his bemusement. Graham Potter: I did not move the family back from Sweden just for a job Read more Plenty of others felt the same. Privately, players are dismayed at the way the club is being run and feel disappointed for the manager, Graham Potter, as much as themselves. Leroy Fer, the captain, was so frustrated with the prospect of Daniel James leaving in January that – and this was before the deadline-day fiasco when the plug was pulled on the winger’s move to Leeds at the last minute – he telephoned Swansea’s American owners, Steve Kaplan and Jason Levien, to ask what was going on. Perhaps at this stage it is worth pointing out to anyone who has taken a break from football for the past three years that Swansea, who host Brentford in the FA Cup fifth round on Sunday, are no longer the model club they once were. Huw Jenkins, who was a hero when he presided over Swansea’s rise through the leagues, was cast as a villain by the time he resigned as chairman a fortnight ago, and the supporters trust is engaged in a bitter legal dispute with those who sold their shares to the Americans in 2016. As for Kaplan and Levien, it has been a disastrous two and a half seasons under their watch and the harsh reality is that the wording on the cover of the latest edition of the Swansea Oh Swansea fanzine probably sums up how the vast majority of supporters feel about them: “Get out of our club”. Physically, they are rarely in it. Decisions are made from the other side of the Atlantic and apart from appointing Potter, who had previously guided Ostersund from the fourth to the top tier of Swedish football, it is hard to think of much else Kaplan and Levien have got right. Quick guide Follow Guardian sport on social media Show Advertisement The strategy since relegation has been cuts, cuts and more cuts. Or, to borrow the Americans’ phrase, “hard medicine”. Sixteen senior players have left and only five have arrived. When the summer transfer window closed, Potter was left with one senior central defender after two were sold on deadline day. Backed into a corner, Potter has relied on youngsters to such an extent that Swansea, who spent seven seasons in the top flight and were relegated from the Premier League nine months ago, are fielding a team in the Championship that, in terms of the age of their players, resembles that of a club operating on a shoestring in League Two. FacebookTwitterPinterest Jordan Ayew is one of Swansea’s high-earners now out on loan. Photograph: Andrew Matthews/PA Before this weekend’s matches – and this is an extraordinary statistic – players aged 23 and under had racked up 17,357 minutes for Swansea in the Championship this season – the third-highest total by the 72 Football League clubs, behind Yeovil and Swindon with Crewe fourth on the list. The two other clubs relegated from the Premier League last season, West Brom and Stoke, are 65th (5,101 minutes) and 71st (2,717 minutes) respectively. The primary factor in all of this is that Swansea are in a dire position financially, paying the price for a wage bill that was allowed to spiral out of control over the course of several years and a series of calamitous signings during their last season in the Premier League in particular. Each party will cite mitigating circumstances but the reality is that Jenkins and the owners – not one or the other – have their fingerprints on that mess. It is sobering to think that the best part of £45m was wasted on Sam Clucas, Wilfried Bony and André Ayew last season, and £25m on wages, loan fees and transfer fees for Renato Sanches, Tammy Abraham and Roque Mesa. Swansea wrote off millions when they sold Clucas to Stoke in that deadline day fire sale in August. Bony was earning £4.5m a year in the Championship until a heavily subsidised loan move was agreed in January – the Ivorian had no relegation clause in his contract – while no permanent buyer could be found for Ayew last summer. Bony and Ayew, incidentally, were August and January deadline-day signings last season. For an image of Swansea’s approach to transfers during that turbulent campaign, picture a bloke dashing down Oxford Street as the shops prepare to close on Christmas Eve, buying the wrong present for his wife and overpaying at the same time. Then later finding out nobody else wants it. The Fiver: sign up and get our daily football email. Worryingly for Swansea, Ayew, who is on loan at Fenerbahce, will still have two years to run on a lucrative contract when this season is over. Borja Bastón, who was the £15.5m club-record signing until Ayew rejoined from West Ham, is also out on loan – the Spaniard has started four league games for Swansea in three years – and under contract until 2020. Jordan Ayew, Jefferson Montero and Tom Carroll, on loan at Crystal Palace, West Brom and Aston Villa respectively, also have deals that run for another 16 months. The same applies to Nathan Dyer and Kyle Naughton. Swansea’s Oli McBurnie: ‘I wear toddlers’ shin pads, the smallest I can find’ Read more All of which means that as much as Swansea want to press the reset button, they cannot leave the pain of their financial profligacy in the Premier League behind, and that has damaging ramifications for Potter. It is understood there is another £30m hole to fill in the summer, even allowing for a second parachute payment, and it is hard to see how selling the players listed above – if buyers can be found – would make much of a dent in that figure. With Swansea’s owners unwilling or unable to put any money in themselves to cover that shortfall – “We will be relentless in our determination to continually improve this club, and we have the financial resources to do so” was the dubious claim made by Kaplan and Levien after they became majority shareholders – the concern is that Potter will have to sell one or more of the youngsters who have thrived under him and played with the sort of hunger and passion that restores the faith of supporters. It is remarkable then that despite all this doom and gloom, the off-field distractions and the clear sense that things could get worse at Swansea before they get better, Potter continues to diligently go about his work, refusing to sound downbeat and remaining totally committed to the job that he took on last summer. He is the glue holding a broken club together. Since you’re here … … we sincerely hope you enjoyed this article, which was our gift to you. At The Guardian we don’t believe in putting up paywalls, seeing our journalism as a Sunday league centre-back sees possession of a football, as something to be given away in a manner some would consider reckless. But not all the best things in life are free and sending crack journalists to top sporting events armed with deep knowledge, a working laptop and a vaguely acceptable level of literacy certainly is not. We welcome you here all the same, because we like you – all of you, but especially the ones who give us money. If you like what we do, perhaps you might consider becoming the small-scale Sheikh Mansour to our miniature Manchester City by making a small contribution. If everyone who reads and enjoys our reporting helps to support it, our future will become much more secure it is quite sad that a team that turned themselves around and floated to the top and were a model club to base your team on have dived so badly but I guess changing manager and owner(s) is possibly not the best maybe @Miah Dennehy can enlighten us Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.