by Fezza » 05 Apr 2023 11:01
by Stranded » 05 Apr 2023 11:06
Fezza Selling Puscas probably seemed certain at the time the plan was formulated. Pisa were playing very well and seemed certain to go up.
Moore was injured during his spell at Stoke and that probably killed that opportunity.
by Sutekh » 05 Apr 2023 11:09
StrandedFezza Selling Puscas probably seemed certain at the time the plan was formulated. Pisa were playing very well and seemed certain to go up.
Moore was injured during his spell at Stoke and that probably killed that opportunity.
But those reasons are why it was foolhardy to have player sales as a specific means to raise funds - they should have gone for something like "we will raise X in additional revenue either through player trading or other sales" - to leave ourselves open to the whims of injury and failed promotion seasons is pretty negligent - even if it did mean the punishment was spread over 2 years rather than 1.
In retrospect, we probably could have survived a 9 point deduction last year and had less onerous restrictions this.
by Elm Park Kid » 05 Apr 2023 11:25
by Hound » 05 Apr 2023 11:47
by Hound » 05 Apr 2023 11:51
by NathStPaul » 05 Apr 2023 11:54
Hound Along those lines, aren’t wba meant to be in serious trouble if they don’t go up? Will be watching that one with interest, esp with Ron at the helm
by Snowflake Royal » 05 Apr 2023 12:16
Hound Our wage bill is already considerably smaller than every other team I believe. And that with the millstone of Moore and to a lesser extent Joao, ejaria and co
Any less and it would have been those crocks plus youth team players. The EFL must also have known we’d struggle to sell players when they created the plan
It was a business plan designed to see us get relegated as Ince said earlier in the year
Yes in hindsight we may not have signed Dann, Bouzanis etc, but injuries elsewhere and they may have had to have been mainstays
We broke the plan hence we get the extra 6 points. But suggestions we should have got 12 (3 more than Derby??) and the fact that teams can break the rules far more than we did without punishment (as long as you succeed and get promoted) will never sit right with me. Basically bullying a club who had some idiot ceo and clueless owner come in and spend a large if not ridiculous amount of money in an attempt to compete with parachute payments 4 years ago. It sucks
by Hound » 05 Apr 2023 12:20
Snowflake RoyalHound Our wage bill is already considerably smaller than every other team I believe. And that with the millstone of Moore and to a lesser extent Joao, ejaria and co
Any less and it would have been those crocks plus youth team players. The EFL must also have known we’d struggle to sell players when they created the plan
It was a business plan designed to see us get relegated as Ince said earlier in the year
Yes in hindsight we may not have signed Dann, Bouzanis etc, but injuries elsewhere and they may have had to have been mainstays
We broke the plan hence we get the extra 6 points. But suggestions we should have got 12 (3 more than Derby??) and the fact that teams can break the rules far more than we did without punishment (as long as you succeed and get promoted) will never sit right with me. Basically bullying a club who had some idiot ceo and clueless owner come in and spend a large if not ridiculous amount of money in an attempt to compete with parachute payments 4 years ago. It sucks
It was a business plan to see us not breach the rules..if we hadn't overspent so badly, it wouldn't have been so low.
The message is don't cheat. It's all on Dai. We knew the rules. We ignored them.
Oh its so unfair. Is it oxf*rd.
by Snowflake Royal » 05 Apr 2023 12:25
HoundSnowflake RoyalHound Our wage bill is already considerably smaller than every other team I believe. And that with the millstone of Moore and to a lesser extent Joao, ejaria and co
Any less and it would have been those crocks plus youth team players. The EFL must also have known we’d struggle to sell players when they created the plan
It was a business plan designed to see us get relegated as Ince said earlier in the year
Yes in hindsight we may not have signed Dann, Bouzanis etc, but injuries elsewhere and they may have had to have been mainstays
We broke the plan hence we get the extra 6 points. But suggestions we should have got 12 (3 more than Derby??) and the fact that teams can break the rules far more than we did without punishment (as long as you succeed and get promoted) will never sit right with me. Basically bullying a club who had some idiot ceo and clueless owner come in and spend a large if not ridiculous amount of money in an attempt to compete with parachute payments 4 years ago. It sucks
It was a business plan to see us not breach the rules..if we hadn't overspent so badly, it wouldn't have been so low.
The message is don't cheat. It's all on Dai. We knew the rules. We ignored them.
Oh its so unfair. Is it oxf*rd.
Yep 100% agree. If every other club is treated the same way if they cheat, including promoted clubs and they shut the loopholes
by Hound » 05 Apr 2023 12:27
by Snowflake Royal » 05 Apr 2023 12:30
Hound Can they not just give points deductions of say 15 for promoted clubs that cheat if they come back down?
by Coppells Lost Coat » 05 Apr 2023 12:42
Snowflake RoyalHound Can they not just give points deductions of say 15 for promoted clubs that cheat if they come back down?
Do the clubs even need to provide evidence to allow a decision to be made?
You could have a penalty waiting to apply for a decade in those circumstances. Pretty unworkable imo.
I'd like to see promotions prevented, and teams not allowed back in the FL for the serious offenders, but it would be carnage.
by Snowflake Royal » 05 Apr 2023 12:43
Coppells Lost CoatSnowflake RoyalHound Can they not just give points deductions of say 15 for promoted clubs that cheat if they come back down?
Do the clubs even need to provide evidence to allow a decision to be made?
You could have a penalty waiting to apply for a decade in those circumstances. Pretty unworkable imo.
I'd like to see promotions prevented, and teams not allowed back in the FL for the serious offenders, but it would be carnage.
I would like to see once promotion has been secured for their books to be looked at and if they have seriously breached for a transfer embargo put on them for the upcoming window. It would mean PL and EFL to work together on actually making the leagues fairer.
Also would be a good deterrent for the clubs.
by Hound » 05 Apr 2023 12:48
by Coppells Lost Coat » 05 Apr 2023 12:48
Hound It was an agreed business plan. Post Covid tbe EFL or the regulators must surely have discussed the ability for us to sell players in that market
Again I don’t know the ins and outs but weren’t some clubs (cough Stoke) allowed to write off a ton of loss due to player deprecation due to Covid? Did we exhaust this option?
And if it was either sell these players or have an even more restrictive wage budget, then it’s not exactly a desirable choice anyway.
I can see why in that circumstance we felt we had to go for the sell player route, given we thought Puscas was likely to be sold. Suppose could ask without the hindsight of Puscas not gojng, what would we have done? Accepted playing the kids, relegation even more likely or still gamble thag someone will take Puscas, Ejaria, Joao, Moore etc
Let’s not pretend we were given any good option here. Like I said, it was designed to get us relegated. Which I haven’t a huge issue with if the same treatment is dished out to all clubs who break ffp now without fcuk loads of loopholes etc
by Snowflake Royal » 05 Apr 2023 12:50
StrandedFezza Selling Puscas probably seemed certain at the time the plan was formulated. Pisa were playing very well and seemed certain to go up.
Moore was injured during his spell at Stoke and that probably killed that opportunity.
But those reasons are why it was foolhardy to have player sales as a specific means to raise funds - they should have gone for something like "we will raise X in additional revenue either through player trading or other sales" - to leave ourselves open to the whims of injury and failed promotion seasons is pretty negligent - even if it did mean the punishment was spread over 2 years rather than 1.
In retrospect, we probably could have survived a 9 point deduction last year and had less onerous restrictions this.
by Stranded » 05 Apr 2023 12:51
by fred sharpes nose » 05 Apr 2023 18:50
by AthleticoSpizz » 05 Apr 2023 19:15
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 88 guests