Points Deduction Incoming!

[Lower West]

So, in summary - is this all at the door of Ron Gourlay, was it the excessive contracts during his tenure that was the downfall.

Owners naïve etc but Gourlay was the one?

Gourlay is an employee. Paid to do a job for his masters. His personal opinion has no bearing. I'm sure that he could perform an excellent job running a football club. Nigel Howe no doubt to retain his own credibility, decided to walk. I'd guess the signing of Ejaria was the final straw, Probably why Bowen declined the DOF role. Both disagreed with Dai and the manner in which he was controlling the club (from afar).

[Lower West]

I'd like to hear from the owner announcing we're up for sale.

I don’t think there would be many offers mate. I’m surprised at the level of positivity towards our owners right now. Didn’t they appoint Gourlay? We have managed to go 150 years without a points deduction until now it seems.

If you add in the training complex to the mix it would take a huge amount to buy us. We aren't in administration, a potential buyer wouldn't get us on the cheap. I guess we could be taken over by a wealthy Middle Eastern group but why would they choose us?

What's the value of a football training ground without a football club? There's no clubs close by in need of such a facility.

[Hound]

So, in summary - is this all at the door of Ron Gourlay, was it the excessive contracts during his tenure that was the downfall.

Owners naïve etc but Gourlay was the one?

Gourlay is an employee. Paid to do a job for his masters. His personal opinion has no bearing. I'm sure that he could perform an excellent job running a football club. Nigel Howe no doubt to retain his own credibility, decided to walk. I'd guess the signing of Ejaria was the final straw, Probably why Bowen declined the DOF role. Both disagreed with Dai and the manner in which he was controlling the club (from afar).

I’m very sure Gourlay should be let nowhere near another champ club ever again. Maybe bexcept Forest

No doubts Dai was well aware a punishment could be down the line. No real issue with him knowing that and trying anyway. But we proper blew the lot and an average aging bunch of shite, we really did

Know people to back to Puscas and Joao, and also Ejaria, but these were youngish players with sell on; all have had some success here. The likes of Aluko, Baldock l, Edwards and the big money to Yann, Meyler Joey and co was big money down the toilet. Terrible decisions for average players

[Brogue]

I’m very sure Gourlay should be let nowhere near another champ club ever again. Maybe bexcept Forest

https://www.expressandstar.com/sport/fo ... d-adviser/

[Millsy]

Annoying as this is we have to remember rules and punishments like this are ultimately here to protect us.

When cops stopped me years ago for not having my safety belt on I thanked them.

Unless of course we think this is some sort of scheme to keep the elite and the up-and-coming clubs forever separate. But I don't think so.

Rather this than some dodgy owner completely bankrupts us.

“We don’t want too many Leicester Citys.”

These were the words spoken by a senior figure from the Premier League’s ‘big six’ clubs, in the kind of high-end London hotel you can easily imagine.

“Football history suggests fans like big teams winning,” the official continued, to the group of business people and media figures present.

“A certain amount of unpredictability is good, but a more democratic league would be bad for business.”

Ok well that's very concerning. Is there proof for this or does this come from conspiracy land?

And surely the same rules apply to them, so it's not like they're taking anyone to court and getting away with stuff is it.

[PremAddict]

Annoying as this is we have to remember rules and punishments like this are ultimately here to protect us.

When cops stopped me years ago for not having my safety belt on I thanked them.

Unless of course we think this is some sort of scheme to keep the elite and the up-and-coming clubs forever separate. But I don't think so.

Rather this than some dodgy owner completely bankrupts us.

“We don’t want too many Leicester Citys.”

These were the words spoken by a senior figure from the Premier League’s ‘big six’ clubs, in the kind of high-end London hotel you can easily imagine.

“Football history suggests fans like big teams winning,” the official continued, to the group of business people and media figures present.

“A certain amount of unpredictability is good, but a more democratic league would be bad for business.”

Ok well that's very concerning. Is there proof for this or does this come from conspiracy land?

And surely the same rules apply to them, so it's not like they're taking anyone to court and getting away with stuff is it.

I don't think you need to go all the way to the tin-hat world to imagine that there are business forces that like the way it works...for them. This is especially so in a sports league that has the concept of relegation/promotion.

[PremAddict]

I don’t think there would be many offers mate. I’m surprised at the level of positivity towards our owners right now. Didn’t they appoint Gourlay? We have managed to go 150 years without a points deduction until now it seems.

If you add in the training complex to the mix it would take a huge amount to buy us. We aren't in administration, a potential buyer wouldn't get us on the cheap. I guess we could be taken over by a wealthy Middle Eastern group but why would they choose us?

What's the value of a football training ground without a football club? There's no clubs close by in need of such a facility.

We got pinched by FFP, not a deduction from administration. Looking from abroad, if an owner cannot invest in his/her club then what's the point, especially in a league where you have to compete against parachute payments (a joke IMHO) and if you get to the "promised land" you basically have a cartel? Someone on this board or on the TTE podcast commented about whether or not an owner could just give the club money without expecting it to be paid back; if that was subject to FFP.

[Sutekh]

Annoying as this is we have to remember rules and punishments like this are ultimately here to protect us.

When cops stopped me years ago for not having my safety belt on I thanked them.

Unless of course we think this is some sort of scheme to keep the elite and the up-and-coming clubs forever separate. But I don't think so.

Rather this than some dodgy owner completely bankrupts us.

“We don’t want too many Leicester Citys.”

These were the words spoken by a senior figure from the Premier League’s ‘big six’ clubs, in the kind of high-end London hotel you can easily imagine.

“Football history suggests fans like big teams winning,” the official continued, to the group of business people and media figures present.

“A certain amount of unpredictability is good, but a more democratic league would be bad for business.”

Ok well that's very concerning. Is there proof for this or does this come from conspiracy land?

And surely the same rules apply to them, so it's not like they're taking anyone to court and getting away with stuff is it.

Obviously fans want their team to win but in general I would presume that actually most fans don’t like the “big” teams winning all the time, it’s just absolute cr@p and makes for the diabolical situation that you now have in most of the top leagues across the world.

[Hound]

hasn't that been the case for about 50 years though? Spain is nearly always Barca, Real and Atletico, Germany Bayern/Dortmund etc. France is a bit random which is quite nice. At least we have a pool of 5 or 6 teams that can win it here

Certainly not a new thing

[Stranded]

If you add in the training complex to the mix it would take a huge amount to buy us. We aren't in administration, a potential buyer wouldn't get us on the cheap. I guess we could be taken over by a wealthy Middle Eastern group but why would they choose us?

What's the value of a football training ground without a football club? There's no clubs close by in need of such a facility.

We got pinched by FFP, not a deduction from administration. Looking from abroad, if an owner cannot invest in his/her club then what's the point, especially in a league where you have to compete against parachute payments (a joke IMHO) and if you get to the "promised land" you basically have a cartel? Someone on this board or on the TTE podcast commented about whether or not an owner could just give the club money without expecting it to be paid back; if that was subject to FFP.

May have been me on here - certainly wrote out that somewhere (TTE may well have said the same) but in my view the tweak needed is that money from an owner should be seen as income and counted as such.

As part of the EFL process, a new owner has to sign a legal document that says the money they invest can only be recouped if the club turns a profit and then only up to say 50% of that profit. So Dai (or any owner) can plough in 100m but if the club loses money in any season they cannot reclaim it. However, if the club accounts show a 10m profit, the owner could reclaim a total of 5m.

On the sale, the owner can try and negotiate with the new owner for a return of funds if he wants as part of the sale price but there is no legal right to recouping the cash.

[Franchise FC]

What's the value of a football training ground without a football club? There's no clubs close by in need of such a facility.

We got pinched by FFP, not a deduction from administration. Looking from abroad, if an owner cannot invest in his/her club then what's the point, especially in a league where you have to compete against parachute payments (a joke IMHO) and if you get to the "promised land" you basically have a cartel? Someone on this board or on the TTE podcast commented about whether or not an owner could just give the club money without expecting it to be paid back; if that was subject to FFP.

May have been me on here - certainly wrote out that somewhere (TTE may well have said the same) but in my view the tweak needed is that money from an owner should be seen as income and counted as such.

As part of the EFL process, a new owner has to sign a legal document that says the money they invest can only be recouped if the club turns a profit and then only up to say 50% of that profit. So Dai (or any owner) can plough in 100m but if the club loses money in any season they cannot reclaim it. However, if the club accounts show a 10m profit, the owner could reclaim a total of 5m.

On the sale, the owner can try and negotiate with the new owner for a return of funds if he wants as part of the sale price but there is no legal right to recouping the cash.

Pretty much this


Been saying for ages that capital injection (non-refundable from the business) should be perfectly acceptable.
Only means of getting a return would be through a sale or dividends.
Company Law would prevent dividends being paid if there are accumulated losses, so no legal means of getting the cash any other way (except salaries, perhaps)

[Nameless]

THE the ‘we don’t want another lei ester’ Quote is interestingly. Leicester were pretty much the reason points deductions etc were brought in. When they built their new stadium they went into administration, ducked out of paying their debts, reformed as a new company’s and carried on. It was a shocking piece of business and IIRC much of what we have now is intended to,stop other clubs racking up debt and just walking away from it like Leicester did,
I think some of the debt may have subsequently been honoured by new owners but it was a shameful episode and while I’m more than happy for different clubs to win trophies clubs should not be allowed to welsh on debts (as Derby will be doing and we are not )

[Sutekh]

We got pinched by FFP, not a deduction from administration. Looking from abroad, if an owner cannot invest in his/her club then what's the point, especially in a league where you have to compete against parachute payments (a joke IMHO) and if you get to the "promised land" you basically have a cartel? Someone on this board or on the TTE podcast commented about whether or not an owner could just give the club money without expecting it to be paid back; if that was subject to FFP.

May have been me on here - certainly wrote out that somewhere (TTE may well have said the same) but in my view the tweak needed is that money from an owner should be seen as income and counted as such.

As part of the EFL process, a new owner has to sign a legal document that says the money they invest can only be recouped if the club turns a profit and then only up to say 50% of that profit. So Dai (or any owner) can plough in 100m but if the club loses money in any season they cannot reclaim it. However, if the club accounts show a 10m profit, the owner could reclaim a total of 5m.

On the sale, the owner can try and negotiate with the new owner for a return of funds if he wants as part of the sale price but there is no legal right to recouping the cash.

Pretty much this


Been saying for ages that capital injection (non-refundable from the business) should be perfectly acceptable.
Only means of getting a return would be through a sale or dividends.
Company Law would prevent dividends being paid if there are accumulated losses, so no legal means of getting the cash any other way (except salaries, perhaps)

Can’t do that as a) it’s reasonably sensible and b) would therefore start to create challenges to the “big boys” which, as the earlier quote on this thread indicates, is the last thing that they want.

[tidus_mi2]

I also think capital injection should be allowed but it has to be done in a way to ensure protection of a club, so say you buy a player on a 4 year contract that with transfer fee is worth a total of £10m, the owner if they want that figure excluded from FFP calculations has to put £10m into the club there and then, rather than giving £2.5m at the end of the season when the figures are all tallied up. The reason for that being, the owner one season could be happy to finance all the excess expenditure but then walk away the next so in this example, leaving £7.5m of player against the club.

[Lower West]

hasn't that been the case for about 50 years though? Spain is nearly always Barca, Real and Atletico, Germany Bayern/Dortmund etc. France is a bit random which is quite nice. At least we have a pool of 5 or 6 teams that can win it here

Certainly not a new thing

Menwhile the financial bubble gets bigger and bigger. Even clubs like Norwich struggle to be profitable despite the revenues generated.

European football nights used to be exciting. Knock out competition. Not a means to televise more and more meaningless matches.

[Snowflake Royal]

Annoying as this is we have to remember rules and punishments like this are ultimately here to protect us.

When cops stopped me years ago for not having my safety belt on I thanked them.

Unless of course we think this is some sort of scheme to keep the elite and the up-and-coming clubs forever separate. But I don't think so.

Rather this than some dodgy owner completely bankrupts us.

“We don’t want too many Leicester Citys.”

These were the words spoken by a senior figure from the Premier League’s ‘big six’ clubs, in the kind of high-end London hotel you can easily imagine.

“Football history suggests fans like big teams winning,” the official continued, to the group of business people and media figures present.

“A certain amount of unpredictability is good, but a more democratic league would be bad for business.”

Ok well that's very concerning. Is there proof for this or does this come from conspiracy land?

And surely the same rules apply to them, so it's not like they're taking anyone to court and getting away with stuff is it.

Its also completely irrelevant, as PL clubs have no say in FL FFP rules.

And even in the PL rules, the Big [insert changeable number here] couldn't force through without the agreement of a goodly number of the rest when their rules were created.

[Elm Park Kid]

I also think capital injection should be allowed but it has to be done in a way to ensure protection of a club, so say you buy a player on a 4 year contract that with transfer fee is worth a total of £10m, the owner if they want that figure excluded from FFP calculations has to put £10m into the club there and then, rather than giving £2.5m at the end of the season when the figures are all tallied up. The reason for that being, the owner one season could be happy to finance all the excess expenditure but then walk away the next so in this example, leaving £7.5m of player against the club.

Wouldn't it then just lead to an arms race between owners of who can pump the most money in? Success just depends on how has the richest owner rather than who actually spends their money the wisest.

What's wrong with a system where clubs only spend what they can raise in revenue - with some redistribution to ensure that the richest clubs don't just entirely dominate? All it would take is a fairer share of tv revenue and to bring back the rule that that ticket incomes have to be shared between home and away club. After that . . . . .well if a big club can bring in more money through commercial deals etc then it deserves to have an advantage. There's nothing wrong with a football world where Leeds, Derby and Sunderland can outspend Reading - if you have more fans then fair enough.

[SCIAG]

I also think capital injection should be allowed but it has to be done in a way to ensure protection of a club, so say you buy a player on a 4 year contract that with transfer fee is worth a total of £10m, the owner if they want that figure excluded from FFP calculations has to put £10m into the club there and then, rather than giving £2.5m at the end of the season when the figures are all tallied up. The reason for that being, the owner one season could be happy to finance all the excess expenditure but then walk away the next so in this example, leaving £7.5m of player against the club.

Wouldn't it then just lead to an arms race between owners of who can pump the most money in? Success just depends on how has the richest owner rather than who actually spends their money the wisest.

What's wrong with a system where clubs only spend what they can raise in revenue - with some redistribution to ensure that the richest clubs don't just entirely dominate? All it would take is a fairer share of tv revenue and to bring back the rule that that ticket incomes have to be shared between home and away club. After that . . . . .well if a big club can bring in more money through commercial deals etc then it deserves to have an advantage. There's nothing wrong with a football world where Leeds, Derby and Sunderland can outspend Reading - if you have more fans then fair enough.

Why is having more fans or being able to generate more commercial revenue “fairer” than having a rich owner? At the end of the day it all seems to be quite luck-based.

[Sutekh]

I also think capital injection should be allowed but it has to be done in a way to ensure protection of a club, so say you buy a player on a 4 year contract that with transfer fee is worth a total of £10m, the owner if they want that figure excluded from FFP calculations has to put £10m into the club there and then, rather than giving £2.5m at the end of the season when the figures are all tallied up. The reason for that being, the owner one season could be happy to finance all the excess expenditure but then walk away the next so in this example, leaving £7.5m of player against the club.

Wouldn't it then just lead to an arms race between owners of who can pump the most money in? Success just depends on how has the richest owner rather than who actually spends their money the wisest.

What's wrong with a system where clubs only spend what they can raise in revenue - with some redistribution to ensure that the richest clubs don't just entirely dominate? All it would take is a fairer share of tv revenue and to bring back the rule that that ticket incomes have to be shared between home and away club. After that . . . . .well if a big club can bring in more money through commercial deals etc then it deserves to have an advantage. There's nothing wrong with a football world where Leeds, Derby and Sunderland can outspend Reading - if you have more fans then fair enough.

Why is having more fans or being able to generate more commercial revenue “fairer” than having a rich owner? At the end of the day it all seems to be quite luck-based.

Exactly. If you have rich owners willing to gamble and pump money in it will increase a club’s chance of success but hardly guarantees anything as the money has to be used wisely so the right players are brought in and create the right dynamics, particularly at clubs outside the PL.

In my opinion clubs lucky enough to benefit from wealthy owners should be allowed to take that gamble without being penalised so long as rules exist to protect the club in the long term.

[Snowflake Royal]

I also think capital injection should be allowed but it has to be done in a way to ensure protection of a club, so say you buy a player on a 4 year contract that with transfer fee is worth a total of £10m, the owner if they want that figure excluded from FFP calculations has to put £10m into the club there and then, rather than giving £2.5m at the end of the season when the figures are all tallied up. The reason for that being, the owner one season could be happy to finance all the excess expenditure but then walk away the next so in this example, leaving £7.5m of player against the club.

Wouldn't it then just lead to an arms race between owners of who can pump the most money in? Success just depends on how has the richest owner rather than who actually spends their money the wisest.

What's wrong with a system where clubs only spend what they can raise in revenue - with some redistribution to ensure that the richest clubs don't just entirely dominate? All it would take is a fairer share of tv revenue and to bring back the rule that that ticket incomes have to be shared between home and away club. After that . . . . .well if a big club can bring in more money through commercial deals etc then it deserves to have an advantage. There's nothing wrong with a football world where Leeds, Derby and Sunderland can outspend Reading - if you have more fans then fair enough.

Why is having more fans or being able to generate more commercial revenue “fairer” than having a rich owner? At the end of the day it all seems to be quite luck-based.

Because one is income and grows with success, so is earnt over time whilst the other is debt and can turn up instantly.

Because rich owners pumping in money rarely run clubs well. They just buy success with problems to follow. The club becomes a status symbol and a play thing. And they become opportunities for money laundering and attractive to all sorts of crazies and undesirable types.