#SellBeforeWeDai Action/Inaction Group

[rabidbee]

fans getting a match abandoned is against the rules. how are you going to prove it. if a set of fans do it?

Yes, but the fans have done that off their own back without the club being involved - hence the constant messages from the club about staying off the pitch, etc... Fans probably should've been punished with a game or two behind closed doors. If the club were going to organise something like that it is going to take some sort of organisation and there will be a comms trail.

The fans could work it out themselves. The beauty of social media. I agree its a simplification but the precedent that is being set is a bit weird.

Not the same, I know, but this put me in mind of the Battle of Brammall Lane, when Warnock ordered two players to pull up ‘injured’ and forced the game to be abandoned, because they were already down to eight men and had no subs left (two of the subs had been sent off). The game was awarded to West Brom, who were winning - don’t think there was any further punishment. Guess it would be hard for the league to conclusively prove players weren’t injured.

[RoyalBlue]

Yes, but the fans have done that off their own back without the club being involved - hence the constant messages from the club about staying off the pitch, etc... Fans probably should've been punished with a game or two behind closed doors. If the club were going to organise something like that it is going to take some sort of organisation and there will be a comms trail.

The fans could work it out themselves. The beauty of social media. I agree its a simplification but the precedent that is being set is a bit weird.

Not the same, I know, but this put me in mind of the Battle of Brammall Lane, when Warnock ordered two players to pull up ‘injured’ and forced the game to be abandoned, because they were already down to eight men and had no subs left (two of the subs had been sent off). The game was awarded to West Brom, who were winning - don’t think there was any further punishment. Guess it would be hard for the league to conclusively prove players weren’t injured.

You are right. United, Warnock and co were punished by the FA but only for what occurred on the pitch and during and after the game. The FA couldn't produce any evidence that there was a deliberate attempt to get the game abandoned. https://www.theguardian.com/football/2002/apr/05/newsstory.sport9

What's more, getting his players to fly into dangerous challenges seemed to be out of the normal Warnock gameday book as Wally would doubtless attest to!

[Forbury Lion]

Yes, but the fans have done that off their own back without the club being involved - hence the constant messages from the club about staying off the pitch, etc... Fans probably should've been punished with a game or two behind closed doors. If the club were going to organise something like that it is going to take some sort of organisation and there will be a comms trail.

The fans could work it out themselves. The beauty of social media. I agree its a simplification but the precedent that is being set is a bit weird.

Not the same, I know, but this put me in mind of the Battle of Brammall Lane, when Warnock ordered two players to pull up ‘injured’ and forced the game to be abandoned, because they were already down to eight men and had no subs left (two of the subs had been sent off). The game was awarded to West Brom, who were winning - don’t think there was any further punishment. Guess it would be hard for the league to conclusively prove players weren’t injured.

Middlesbrough called of a Premier League game due to player illness and got a points deduction for not fulfilling the fixture, can't remember if it was replayed.
They were relegated, that season.
I think the issue was they didn't go down official channels and get permission to call it off.

Man Utd had a game called off for security reasons, that was out of their control although was as a result of a screw up by their security team who left a fake bomb in the stadium after a training exercise.

[Clyde1998]

Middlesbrough called of a Premier League game due to player illness and got a points deduction for not fulfilling the fixture, can't remember if it was replayed.
They were relegated, that season.
I think the issue was they didn't go down official channels and get permission to call it off.

The game was replayed and ended in a draw - they got a three-point deduction for failing to fulfil the fixture. Had they lost the original fixture, they would've ended up surviving on goal difference.

[Forbury Lion]

I listened to a recent episode of The Price of Football and Everton's appeal/points re-instatement, Apparently the EPL didn't have clear guidance regarding penalties that could be applied, so at the appeal they referred to the EFL guidance and as such applied that penalty which was lower. They also said that in future all FFP breaches should be punished by points deductions.

This does make sense if you look at a team like Man City, Their owners would happily overspend and then take a financial penalty in return for success, but a points deduction is something that could cost them success.

In our situation, It's different because the owner doesn't seem to care. If it was a fine, that would be to the club and presumably we won't pay so the situation will get worse and unlikely as it seems, the EFL could put us into administration by calling in that payment.

[Dirk Gently]

Not defending the whole points deduction system as I've been a critic of it for many, many years - but one argument that made fot it actually impacting an owner is that they decrease the value of the owner's asset if they want to sell it - e.g. a L2 club has a lower market value than a L1 club.

Of course, that ignores the scenario when an owner has just completely lost interest and doesn't give a monkey's...

[tmesis]

Not defending the whole points deduction system as I've been a critic of it for many, many years - but one argument that made fot it actually impacting an owner is that they decrease the value of the owner's asset if they want to sell it - e.g. a L2 club has a lower market value than a L1 club.

Of course, that ignores the scenario when an owner has just completely lost interest and doesn't give a monkey's...

As long as selling would bring in more than he thinks he'd get from liquidating, the threat of an increased chance of relegation might make him keener to do a deal before relegation.

If relegation would flip it to the point where he thinks he'd get more from liquidating than selling a League Two club, however, we could be completely shafted if we go down as a result of the deductions.


I do think that if there are going to be points deductions for breaches, then those penalties need to be outlined in black and white, so we can avoid the scenario at the moment, where it feels like the EFL are making it up as they go along.

[Forbury Lion]

Maybe the EFL should have the power to divert TV revenues to the tax man and/or player wages in situations such as those we've found ourselves in and then to get most clubs on board with that idea, further divert them to pay outstanding transfer fees owed to other EFL and non league clubs.

Might do more harm that good, but worth exploring.

[Dirk Gently]

Maybe the EFL should have the power to divert TV revenues to the tax man and/or player wages in situations such as those we've found ourselves in and then to get most clubs on board with that idea, further divert them to pay outstanding transfer fees owed to other EFL and non league clubs.

Might do more harm that good, but worth exploring.

TV revenues for EFL clubs are peanuts : £935 million for five years of EFL broadcast rights is £187 million a year, so even it was split equally across all 72 clubs (which it isn't!) that's only £2.5 million a year, which on a £6+ million wage bill won't scratch the surface.

I don't have a breakdown of the current share to hand, but L1 clubs get much less than Championship clubs, so the sums involved are even less significant.

Add in the fact that "holding money back just in case" of problems would possibly send other clubs to the wall, EFL clubs would never support this.

[PieEater]

Maybe the EFL should have the power to divert TV revenues to the tax man and/or player wages in situations such as those we've found ourselves in and then to get most clubs on board with that idea, further divert them to pay outstanding transfer fees owed to other EFL and non league clubs.

Might do more harm that good, but worth exploring.

TV revenues for EFL clubs are peanuts : £935 million for five years of EFL broadcast rights is £187 million a year, so even it was split equally across all 72 clubs (which it isn't!) that's only £2.5 million a year, which on a £6+ million wage bill won't scratch the surface.

I don't have a breakdown of the current share to hand, but L1 clubs get much less than Championship clubs, so the sums involved are even less significant.

Add in the fact that "holding money back just in case" of problems would possibly send other clubs to the wall, EFL clubs would never support this.

League One, teams receive £677,000 per season from the EFL and £645,000 from the Premier League, so £1.3m

[Sutekh]

Maybe the EFL should have the power to divert TV revenues to the tax man and/or player wages in situations such as those we've found ourselves in and then to get most clubs on board with that idea, further divert them to pay outstanding transfer fees owed to other EFL and non league clubs.

Might do more harm that good, but worth exploring.

TV revenues for EFL clubs are peanuts : £935 million for five years of EFL broadcast rights is £187 million a year, so even it was split equally across all 72 clubs (which it isn't!) that's only £2.5 million a year, which on a £6+ million wage bill won't scratch the surface.

I don't have a breakdown of the current share to hand, but L1 clubs get much less than Championship clubs, so the sums involved are even less significant.

Add in the fact that "holding money back just in case" of problems would possibly send other clubs to the wall, EFL clubs would never support this.

League One, teams receive £677,000 per season from the EFL and £645,000 from the Premier League, so £1.3m

And what does that become from the start of next season with the new TV deal?

[Clyde1998]

TV revenues for EFL clubs are peanuts : £935 million for five years of EFL broadcast rights is £187 million a year, so even it was split equally across all 72 clubs (which it isn't!) that's only £2.5 million a year, which on a £6+ million wage bill won't scratch the surface.

I don't have a breakdown of the current share to hand, but L1 clubs get much less than Championship clubs, so the sums involved are even less significant.

Add in the fact that "holding money back just in case" of problems would possibly send other clubs to the wall, EFL clubs would never support this.

League One, teams receive £677,000 per season from the EFL and £645,000 from the Premier League, so £1.3m

And what does that become from the start of next season with the new TV deal?

The EFL deal increases by around 50% - so it would be £1,015,500 from the EFL assuming the percentage distribution for each division is unchanged (based on the above figure).

Assuming the Premier League figure is unchanged, we'd get around £1.66m next season in League One.

[Greatwesternline]

Interesting to read that Fleetwood's owner is in prison for fraud.

Interesting in so much as like Reading, their owner would no longer pass and fit and proper persons test, but did pass one at the time of purchase.

[Snowflake Royal]

Interesting to read that Fleetwood's owner is in prison for fraud.

Interesting in so much as like Reading, their owner would no longer pass and Owners and Directors test, but did pass one at the time of purchase.

Auto correction.

[SouthDownsRoyal]

Dai before he Selles

[Reading4eva]

Interesting to read that Fleetwood's owner is in prison for fraud.

Interesting in so much as like Reading, their owner would no longer pass and fit and proper persons test, but did pass one at the time of purchase.

There's a difference here. He didn't put their club into mountains of debt beforehand and the fraud part sits with him. Fleetwood Town are separate.

They will go down, they might struggle in League Two but they will be self sufficient until its sold or he comes out the nick at which point he will try to sell.

Probably best Dai doesn't go into the slammer before he sells Reading as the W anchor was waving about 50's like it was Monopoly money.

We would be oxf*rd with a capital F. The man, unlike Pilley, doesn't realise for a business to be successful you have to manage it sensibly. And we are saying a convicted fraudster is more reliable than Dai. God help us.

After he sells us I couldn't care less what happens to the nobhead.

[WestYorksRoyal]

Interesting to read that Fleetwood's owner is in prison for fraud.

Interesting in so much as like Reading, their owner would no longer pass and fit and proper persons test, but did pass one at the time of purchase.

There's a difference here. He didn't put their club into mountains of debt beforehand and the fraud part sits with him. Fleetwood Town are separate.

They will go down, they might struggle in League Two but they will be self sufficient until its sold or he comes out the nick at which point he will try to sell.

Probably best Dai doesn't go into the slammer before he sells Reading. Afterwards I couldn't care less what happens to the nobhead

I believe embezzlement is a capital offence in China.

[Greatwesternline]

Interesting to read that Fleetwood's owner is in prison for fraud.

Interesting in so much as like Reading, their owner would no longer pass and fit and proper persons test, but did pass one at the time of purchase.

There's a difference here. He didn't put their club into mountains of debt beforehand and the fraud part sits with him. Fleetwood Town are separate.

They will go down, they might struggle in League Two but they will be self sufficient until its sold or he comes out the nick at which point he will try to sell.

Probably best Dai doesn't go into the slammer before he sells Reading as the W anchor was waving about 50's like it was Monopoly money.

We would be oxf*rd with a capital F. The man, unlike Pilley, doesn't realise for a business to be successful you have to manage it sensibly. And we are saying a convicted fraudster is more reliable than Dai. God help us.

After he sells us I couldn't care less what happens to the nobhead.

It's interesting for a few reasons. Its interesting for everyone clamouring for a "independent football regulator".

Under EFL rules, once you pass the Fit n Propa you have the club, and the EFL have shown via Fleetwood and Reading that they are loathed to subsequently ban them from club ownership, because they dont want to expel clubs from the league mid season.

An independent regulator may not have quite so many qualms about kicking a club out mid season. So if the independent regulator assesses the suitability of owners on an annual or continual basis, in the same way other government regulators do, you could well find a lot more clubs being struck off mid-season. The regulator wouldnt have to pay as much attention to the "integrity of the league".

[NathStPaul]

Interesting to read that Fleetwood's owner is in prison for fraud.

Interesting in so much as like Reading, their owner would no longer pass and fit and proper persons test, but did pass one at the time of purchase.

There's a difference here. He didn't put their club into mountains of debt beforehand and the fraud part sits with him. Fleetwood Town are separate.

They will go down, they might struggle in League Two but they will be self sufficient until its sold or he comes out the nick at which point he will try to sell.

Probably best Dai doesn't go into the slammer before he sells Reading as the W anchor was waving about 50's like it was Monopoly money.

We would be oxf*rd with a capital F. The man, unlike Pilley, doesn't realise for a business to be successful you have to manage it sensibly. And we are saying a convicted fraudster is more reliable than Dai. God help us.

After he sells us I couldn't care less what happens to the nobhead.

Why do you keep saying "us"? You support Bournemouth.

[Snowflake Royal]

Interesting to read that Fleetwood's owner is in prison for fraud.

Interesting in so much as like Reading, their owner would no longer pass and fit and proper persons test, but did pass one at the time of purchase.

There's a difference here. He didn't put their club into mountains of debt beforehand and the fraud part sits with him. Fleetwood Town are separate.

They will go down, they might struggle in League Two but they will be self sufficient until its sold or he comes out the nick at which point he will try to sell.

Probably best Dai doesn't go into the slammer before he sells Reading as the W anchor was waving about 50's like it was Monopoly money.

We would be oxf*rd with a capital F. The man, unlike Pilley, doesn't realise for a business to be successful you have to manage it sensibly. And we are saying a convicted fraudster is more reliable than Dai. God help us.

After he sells us I couldn't care less what happens to the nobhead.

It's interesting for a few reasons. Its interesting for everyone clamouring for a "independent football regulator".

Under EFL rules, once you pass the Fit n Propa you have the club, and the EFL have shown via Fleetwood and Reading that they are loathed to subsequently ban them from club ownership, because they dont want to expel clubs from the league mid season.

An independent regulator may not have quite so many qualms about kicking a club out mid season. So if the independent regulator assesses the suitability of owners on an annual or continual basis, in the same way other government regulators do, you could well find a lot more clubs being struck off mid-season. The regulator wouldnt have to pay as much attention to the "integrity of the league".

I mean this just isn’t true is it. The FL have pushed for Dai to be banned twice already and the Independent Commission with the final say on sanctions have refused both times.