Points Deduction AGAIN

[Orion1871]

Obviously our season was going better than expected, and defying the relegation hopes of the EFL.

[Hound]

"on the verge of being triggered amid claims the club have failed to cut their spending in accordance with a plan they agree with the EFL." is the exact quote being used by the journo on twitter

Right, so that would suggest this relates to last season and we were unable to get our wage bill down in accordance with the agreed decision - probably as we weren't able to move on certain players commanding higher salaries.

If that is the case, then we fully deserve the additional deduction and are right back in the relegation battle.

Would also expect the embargo to be continued.

Even this would be harsh. Couldn’t force teams to take on the likes of Meite, Moore, Ejaria etc

Guess only possibility is we turned down an offer for someone like Joao after saying we’d get him off our books

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Obviously our season was going better than expected, and defying the relegation hopes of the EFL.

Yeah the attention definitely turns to just remaining in the division now. If this is just another 6 points off then we still have a good buffer on those in the bottom 3 as well, anything more and it's beginning to look a little bit more difficult.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

"on the verge of being triggered amid claims the club have failed to cut their spending in accordance with a plan they agree with the EFL." is the exact quote being used by the journo on twitter

Right, so that would suggest this relates to last season and we were unable to get our wage bill down in accordance with the agreed decision - probably as we weren't able to move on certain players commanding higher salaries.

If that is the case, then we fully deserve the additional deduction and are right back in the relegation battle.

Would also expect the embargo to be continued.

Even this would be harsh. Couldn’t force teams to take on the likes of Meite, Moore, Ejaria etc

Guess only possibility is we turned down an offer for someone like Joao after saying we’d get him off our books

But then I don't see why we'd do that? Obviously hindsight is 20-20 but if our budgets are really that close to the point where we have breached, then that begs the question why would they have sanctioned the signings that we've made that means we've breached?

That goes for both seasons as well, not just this one. Surely the EFL wouldn't have sanctioned any signings if they knew we were going to go over budget?

I personally think it goes beyond just the wage bill and the transfers, I think it goes deeper into the operational costs of the club. In fairness, "failing to cut their spending" is a bit vague, we'd need to specifically see where we've failed to cut our spending.

[Sanguine]

I know Carroll is playing for peanuts (or was), but we've put together a decent matchday squad with loanees like Hendrick and Rahman and Lumley, who will be earning a fair bit. I don't imagine Shane Long is on a tiny salary either.

I'll be fcuking livid with the club if in doing so we've exceeded our financial targets again, but YR .says, this seems odd when our signings are approved. We maybe just have a more structural problem.

[Royal Rother]

If it all comes down to small margins, I wonder whether general inflation / energy costs could have tipped us marginally over the line?

[Greatwesternline]

Came across a reference to this reddit post on Twitter -

https://www.reddit.com/r/Championship/c ... ion_in_18/

Given that today is March 1st, the most likely thing that happened is this.

6.2 The Club is also subject to a suspended sanction of 6 points to be deducted from its season points total in Season 2021/22 (or Season 2022/23), on the first occasion on or before 30 June 2023 that: i) the Club fails to file such documents as are required to be filed in accordance with the provisions of Rule 2.2 of the P&S Rules by 1 March in the relevant Season(s);

2.2 The League shall determine whether consideration included in the Club’s Earnings Before Tax arising from an Associated Party Transaction is recorded in the Club’s Annual Accounts at a Fair Market Value. If it is not, The League shall restate it to Fair Market Value.

Fair Market Value adjustment?

Have we been paid some money for some sponsorship or sold an asset to a related party (an entity controlled by our owner) that the EFL belives to be artificially inflated in value)

[paultheroyal]

I know Carroll is playing for peanuts (or was), but we've put together a decent matchday squad with loanees like Hendrick and Rahman and Lumley, who will be earning a fair bit. I don't imagine Shane Long is on a tiny salary either.

I'll be fcuking livid with the club if in doing so we've exceeded our financial targets again, but YR .says, this seems odd when our signings are approved. We maybe just have a more structural problem.

my understanding is we are not paying a penny for Rahman or Hendrick - the only caveat is they must start in 90% of games if fit.

[Greatwesternline]

My thoughts:

1. I was already confused by the extent of our signings we've made. Sure, all free agents, but anyone with any understanding of football finances knows that the fee can be only a small part of the overall cost. We brought in PL loans and given contracts to the likes of Andy Carroll. I didn't understand how we could afford to do this.
   
2. It's no surprise that the EFL aren't micromanaging us. We agreed a business plan, the EFL expect us to follow it, whatever financial reporting we've had to do recently has apparently convinced the EFL that we haven't.
   
3. I am surprised that we would allow ourselves to get into this situation. Maybe we were pushing things to the absolute wire and the EFL have simply interpreted something differently to us. Or maybe a revenue stream that we were expecting didn't happen. My best guess is that we gambled on something that didn't pay off.
   
4. If . . .if that is the case then I don't blame the EFL for now continuing with our 6 point deduction. The whole point of the process was to get our spending better inline with our income, and we have apparently failed.
   
5. I don't agree with people saying that the EFL sanctions are 'flawed' if a club is unable to survive under them. No club has a god-given right to stay in any league. If our revenues don't support a Championship level wage bill then we don't deserve to be a Championship club. If we're not able to spend the same as other clubs with our income then that is more of a complaint - but frankly the entire point of the system to provide some disincentive to the ridiculous spending that we've done in recent years.
   
6. The primary reason that clubs like Bury have folded is because of a financial environment where every club feels the need to massively gamble on it's spending just in order to not lose ground. That environment is at least partially caused by owners like ours spending like ours - we fully deserve to be punished for the sake of the overall game.
   
7. It might obviously be the case that this is all media nonsense, or that the EFL have messed up with their analysis, in which case ignore all the above.

SO many +1111s.

I said on here i had no idea how we had signed Carrol and Long and Hendrick etc etc given we were under special measures. Special measures is normally, 'you will run an absolute bare bones outfit'. It has nothing to do with needing to be competitive. We broke many rules in the past, why would the EFL care if we are competitive?

[andrew1957]

Obviously our season was going better than expected, and defying the relegation hopes of the EFL.

It seems beyond belief that the club could be so stupid as to have failed to comply with the business plan. It makes me wonder if the EFL think we have committed an unforgivable sin by not being relegated as a result of a points deduction last season and tight restrictions this season - and so are now having another go at getting us relegated. .

[Stranded]

If it all comes down to small margins, I wonder whether general inflation / energy costs could have tipped us marginally over the line?

If the breach is in the accounts from last season, then no. Any breach based on this year can only be done on forecasts.

[NathStPaul]

I know Carroll is playing for peanuts (or was), but we've put together a decent matchday squad with loanees like Hendrick and Rahman and Lumley, who will be earning a fair bit. I don't imagine Shane Long is on a tiny salary either.

I'll be fcuking livid with the club if in doing so we've exceeded our financial targets again, but YR .says, this seems odd when our signings are approved. We maybe just have a more structural problem.

my understanding is we are not paying a penny for Rahman or Hendrick - the only caveat is they must start in 90% of games if fit.

Don't believe this for a second.

[NathStPaul]

Obviously our season was going better than expected, and defying the relegation hopes of the EFL.

It seems beyond belief that the club could be so stupid as to have failed to comply with the business plan. It makes me wonder if the EFL think we have committed an unforgivable sin by not being relegated as a result of a points deduction last season and tight restrictions this season - and so are now having another go at getting us relegated. .

But what are your views on masks?

[Greatwesternline]

Beyond how the hell this is possible if we've been working with the EFL then if the reporting says we are working to get an agreed decision again then it would suggest the breach is more to do with the business plan and we are not in danger of breaching FFP again - if it were the latter then it's a no brainer and we'll be getting 18 points lobbed off very soon (12 for a new breach plus the 6 suspended).

I can only see it being something like we have breached the average wage allowed rather than the total budget or somehow a miscount of permitted players has occurred where someone like John Clarke (for example, not definite) was not counted as one when he was meaning we have breached there.

If it is something that should not have been able to happen as a result of monitoring then it certainly will add to the conspiracy theory that the EFL just want us relegated.

It could easily happen if our income is substantially below forecast.

Let say the ELF rules say you can't have wages that are more than 150% of earnings. Then if a sponsorhip deal expires and we can't find one to replace it, or ticket sales dissapoint on teh down side, you can definitely see how a rule set by the EFL gets breached.

[Royal Rother]

If it all comes down to small margins, I wonder whether general inflation / energy costs could have tipped us marginally over the line?

If the breach is in the accounts from last season, then no. Any breach based on this year can only be done on forecasts.

For sure, I wasn't aware we knew it was on last year's accounts.

[Simon's Church]

ffs gourlay

[Mr Sitter]

[quote="paultheroyal"

my understanding is we are not paying a penny for Rahman or Hendrick - the only caveat is they must start in 90% of games if fit.[/quote]
This could be part of the problem. Kieran Maguire on one of his recent podcasts said that this kind of loan condition would break EFL rules.

[South Coast Royal]

What concerns me is, if the reporting is correct, the "...are in talks over an agreed punishment with the EFL".

Not "it is alleged" or "The EfL is looking at....", it says that we are already in talks about it with a view to coming to an agreement over any punishment.

Worrying times and maybe why I heard last weekend (as posted elsewhere) that Paul Ince won't be with us next season.

[Sutekh]

Looking forward to BBCBerks investigative and revealing report in time for Saturday.

[paultheroyal]

Looking forward to BBCBerks investigative and revealing report in time for Saturday.

To be fair Tim did allude to this 10 days ago - he felt club were pushing for a certain points target and 50 was too many and wondered if something was incoming.