Points Deduction AGAIN

[tidus_mi2]

I want the EFL to oxf*rd off now. We’ve been punished enough. Maybe not in terms of a points deduction but we’ve been under a transfer embargo for 3 seasons now and all of that has probably taken 2k off the turnstiles, plus prevented us offering longer term deals to players we could have gotten a fee for.

We have been badly run but at least we’ve been in open dialogue with the EFL for years now and they’ve scrutinised every player we’ve signed this season. It’s not helpful to the fans or players having this hanging over us for so long.

Have to agree, although I do think the EFL putting us under a strict embargo has forced us to reduce our outgoings in a way I don't think the Dais ever would have done, you saw this with the soft embargo, the moment it was dropped we went out and spunked £10m on Puscas, £5m on Joao and set up an agreed fee of £3.5m on Ejaria.

Maybe lessons have been learned on part of the owners, but we won't really know until we're out of the embargo.

It does however feel frustrating that we are potentially getting further punished on top of being unable to make decent signings for multiple windows due to the embargo when we are least equipped to deal with it.

[Mr Angry]

Daily routine:

Wake up, switch on Sky Sports fearing the scrolling yellow bar of doom announcing our 6 point penalty. Not there.

Go on HNA? for the latest and most up to date and detailed analyis of the situation.

Groundhog Day

[From Despair To Where?]

Thing is, if there's nothing to report, then there's nothing to report.

Given the rumours flying around though, it would be nice to have some sort of timescale.

[Chairman Mao]

I want the EFL to oxf*rd off now. We’ve been punished enough. Maybe not in terms of a points deduction but we’ve been under a transfer embargo for 3 seasons now and all of that has probably taken 2k off the turnstiles, plus prevented us offering longer term deals to players we could have gotten a fee for.

We have been badly run but at least we’ve been in open dialogue with the EFL for years now and they’ve scrutinised every player we’ve signed this season. It’s not helpful to the fans or players having this hanging over us for so long.

its certainly not helping us financially is it

losing players on frees, losing gate receipts has is probably the difference, not feeling able to sell players we could get a fee for, because of the complexities of getting replacements in...
i dont know how much we have missed teh target on the financial plans, but it feels like the above could easily have made the difference.
in which case all theyre doing is oxf*rd us, and they should abandon the pretence of trying to help us be run better.

[Chairman Mao]

Not a lot to investigate with Huddersfield, they're either in administration or not and that's not something assessed by the FL. They just apply the sanction.

Likewise Wigan, there's a clear breach.

I reckon with is its either marginal and there's a lot of legal shizzle being thrown back and forth, hence the silence or the original report was based on someone putting 2 and 2 together and getting it wrong.

What concerns me is there's absolutely no consistency in the reports of what the breach is regarding. If its historical, it should be clear cut. If its based on the submitted accounts, we were doing everything with FL approval.

If we've overspent, then there's a case for making an adjustment for rising costs and that should be applied to every club, either by adjusting the losses down or increasing the threshold for losses. With inflation at 10% every club is going to see an increase in costs. Would make sense to have some element of the considered costs index linked.

our money going out for players has been tightly controlled, and we have reduced our general spending massively, but that doesnt guarantee we have met our financial objectives as set out in the plan.
and the EFL have had no control on our incoming money. we may have budgeted to sell a high wage player for a fee, and then not done so, or our reduced gate receipts may have meant we missed our target there...
them having the final say on what we offer in terms of wages/contract t any new player has no impact on any of that other stuff that will be set out in the plan

[Snowflake Royal]

Yeah it is annoying to not have heard anything for a number of weeks now and yes agree that being under restrictions for a few years hasn't helped us (even the year we bought Puscas, Joao and Ejaria* we were under a soft embargo for a few weeks) and it hasn't allowed us to be competitive and offer players like Richards or Olise better contracts so we could get larger fees for them potentially if they signed.

Having said that, the argument against that would be we missed our opportunity to do that with the likes of Moore and Swift and possibly a couple of others a few years ago. If we'd have just sold those players when we had the chance, we wouldn't be in half as bad shape as we have been over the last few years.

We've got off lightly considering how long and how many chances we've been given to sort ourselves out imo.

The ongoing problems are firmly of our (Dai's) making.

[Snowflake Royal]

Not a lot to investigate with Huddersfield, they're either in administration or not and that's not something assessed by the FL. They just apply the sanction.

Likewise Wigan, there's a clear breach.

I reckon with is its either marginal and there's a lot of legal shizzle being thrown back and forth, hence the silence or the original report was based on someone putting 2 and 2 together and getting it wrong.

What concerns me is there's absolutely no consistency in the reports of what the breach is regarding. If its historical, it should be clear cut. If its based on the submitted accounts, we were doing everything with FL approval.

If we've overspent, then there's a case for making an adjustment for rising costs and that should be applied to every club, either by adjusting the losses down or increasing the threshold for losses. With inflation at 10% every club is going to see an increase in costs. Would make sense to have some element of the considered costs index linked.

our money going out for players has been tightly controlled, and we have reduced our general spending massively, but that doesnt guarantee we have met our financial objectives as set out in the plan.
and the EFL have had no control on our incoming money. we may have budgeted to sell a high wage player for a fee, and then not done so, or our reduced gate receipts may have meant we missed our target there...
them having the final say on what we offer in terms of wages/contract t any new player has no impact on any of that other stuff that will be set out in the plan

Home attendance is up on last season. If we forecast based on more than 500 increase in average attendance given the state we're in, whoever did that should be shot.

[Chairman Mao]

just an example of where we could happily do everything the EFL said but still not meet the business plan.
because they have no control over our incoming money

[blythspartan]

Yeah it is annoying to not have heard anything for a number of weeks now and yes agree that being under restrictions for a few years hasn't helped us (even the year we bought Puscas, Joao and Ejaria* we were under a soft embargo for a few weeks) and it hasn't allowed us to be competitive and offer players like Richards or Olise better contracts so we could get larger fees for them potentially if they signed.

Having said that, the argument against that would be we missed our opportunity to do that with the likes of Moore and Swift and possibly a couple of others a few years ago. If we'd have just sold those players when we had the chance, we wouldn't be in half as bad shape as we have been over the last few years.

We've got off lightly considering how long and how many chances we've been given to sort ourselves out imo.

The ongoing problems are firmly of our (Dai's) making.

I agree with you about a lot of things but I don’t believe we’ve got off lightly. We have in terms of a points deduction so far but not how it must have affected our potential revenue over the last few years. Plus, to have this lingering over us for so long isn’t nice for the fans or the players.

This is just my view but it’s like the EFL take over the driving of a car, they apply the brakes and accelerator and make sure it’s going in the right direction at a speed they dictate. However, they do it for so long that the car depreciates in value and they take away the enjoyment of driving it and eventually it ends up at the scrap yard.

[Hound]

Haven’t got off lightly, it’s been a painful and grim struggle for the last 3 years or so since Gourlay went nuts with Dai’s chequebook.

It’s still pretty crap that you can be punished continuously 3-4 years after the actual misdemeanours

[Snowflake Royal]

Yeah it is annoying to not have heard anything for a number of weeks now and yes agree that being under restrictions for a few years hasn't helped us (even the year we bought Puscas, Joao and Ejaria* we were under a soft embargo for a few weeks) and it hasn't allowed us to be competitive and offer players like Richards or Olise better contracts so we could get larger fees for them potentially if they signed.

Having said that, the argument against that would be we missed our opportunity to do that with the likes of Moore and Swift and possibly a couple of others a few years ago. If we'd have just sold those players when we had the chance, we wouldn't be in half as bad shape as we have been over the last few years.

We've got off lightly considering how long and how many chances we've been given to sort ourselves out imo.

The ongoing problems are firmly of our (Dai's) making.

I agree with you about a lot of things but I don’t believe we’ve got off lightly. We have in terms of a points deduction so far but not how it must have affected our potential revenue over the last few years. Plus, to have this lingering over us for so long isn’t nice for the fans or the players.

This is just my view but it’s like the EFL take over the driving of a car, they apply the brakes and accelerator and make sure it’s going in the right direction at a speed they dictate. However, they do it for so long that the car depreciates in value and they take away the enjoyment of driving it and eventually it ends up at the scrap yard.

Given Dai spent his first two seasons making a precarious situation into a disaster and then doing the bare minimum required afterwards, its entirely self inflicted and 6 + 6 suspended seems light to me.

[From Despair To Where?]

Not a lot to investigate with Huddersfield, they're either in administration or not and that's not something assessed by the FL. They just apply the sanction.

Likewise Wigan, there's a clear breach.

I reckon with is its either marginal and there's a lot of legal shizzle being thrown back and forth, hence the silence or the original report was based on someone putting 2 and 2 together and getting it wrong.

What concerns me is there's absolutely no consistency in the reports of what the breach is regarding. If its historical, it should be clear cut. If its based on the submitted accounts, we were doing everything with FL approval.

If we've overspent, then there's a case for making an adjustment for rising costs and that should be applied to every club, either by adjusting the losses down or increasing the threshold for losses. With inflation at 10% every club is going to see an increase in costs. Would make sense to have some element of the considered costs index linked.

our money going out for players has been tightly controlled, and we have reduced our general spending massively, but that doesnt guarantee we have met our financial objectives as set out in the plan.
and the EFL have had no control on our incoming money. we may have budgeted to sell a high wage player for a fee, and then not done so, or our reduced gate receipts may have meant we missed our target there...
them having the final say on what we offer in terms of wages/contract t any new player has no impact on any of that other stuff that will be set out in the plan

I get that but our revenue is up. If we've over-estimated on revenue then that's fcuking stupid. The only other, and arguably more likely way is that variable costs have gone up, the biggest probably being energy costs and I think there's a fair argument to say that affects every club and is totally beyond our control, hence my point about some sort of FFP adjustment across the board to account for inflation.

With energy prices spiralling and inflation at 10%, that £13m allowable loss is shrinking in real terms by about £300-500,000.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

We've got off lightly considering how long and how many chances we've been given to sort ourselves out imo.

The ongoing problems are firmly of our (Dai's) making.

I agree with you about a lot of things but I don’t believe we’ve got off lightly. We have in terms of a points deduction so far but not how it must have affected our potential revenue over the last few years. Plus, to have this lingering over us for so long isn’t nice for the fans or the players.

This is just my view but it’s like the EFL take over the driving of a car, they apply the brakes and accelerator and make sure it’s going in the right direction at a speed they dictate. However, they do it for so long that the car depreciates in value and they take away the enjoyment of driving it and eventually it ends up at the scrap yard.

Given Dai spent his first two seasons making a precarious situation into a disaster and then doing the bare minimum required afterwards, its entirely self inflicted and 6 + 6 suspended seems light to me.

Not for me personally I wouldn't say it's a light punishment in respect to the other clubs who have been punished in recent years. Anything above 6 points initially would have been too much for what we've done.

As mentioned, it's not just the points deductions it's the rest, the business plans, transfer embargo's etc that have all lasted a long period of time. I don't think any of Sheff Wednesday, Derby or Birmingham have had a transfer embargo for as many seasons as what we have, have they?

[Hound]

Spotted that Birminghams wage bill for this last season was 31m. They lost 25m last season overall on top of previous losses of 18m and about 6m the season before (which included Bellingham’s sale)

Expect they are sailing close to the wind again in FFP though prob just squeezing under

Bit of a mess though.
Lucky that Bellingham came through

[Stranded]

At this point, I almost don't care what the deduction is, just that if it is coming, it comes.

The expectation of one, is almost as damaging, and in some ways could be more damaging than the actual penalty itself.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Spotted that Birminghams wage bill for this last season was 31m. They lost 25m last season overall on top of previous losses of 18m and about 6m the season before (which included Bellingham’s sale)

Expect they are sailing close to the wind again in FFP though prob just squeezing under

Bit of a mess though.
Lucky that Bellingham came through

If they've got any sort of sell on clause on Bellingham and he moves for the type of money people expect him to then that will act as another (big) sale and will keep them under I imagine.

[Millsy]

Daily routine:

Wake up, switch on Sky Sports fearing the scrolling yellow bar of doom announcing our 6 point penalty. Not there.

Go on HNA? for the latest and most up to date and detailed analyis of the situation.

Groundhog Day

[Sutekh]

Spotted that Birminghams wage bill for this last season was 31m. They lost 25m last season overall on top of previous losses of 18m and about 6m the season before (which included Bellingham’s sale)

Expect they are sailing close to the wind again in FFP though prob just squeezing under

Bit of a mess though.
Lucky that Bellingham came through

They’ve also apparently got issues with FL over their appointment of unapproved people to the management of the club.

[tidus_mi2]

Well we've gone past 5pm so see you all tomorrow for another game of will we or won't we get a point deduction.

[Brogue]

Boooooooooo