Points Deduction AGAIN

[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.

Don't believe this for a second.

You might want to start believing it.

[NathStPaul]

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.

You might want to start believing it.

No ta.

[kwik-silva]

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.

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.

Did he? From the EFL Rules:

It is also acceptable to state that the parent club will still be responsible for his wages providing the Transferee Club pays bonuses or reasonable travelling expenses, or in the event of the player not playing, then the Club signing the Player on loan will reimburse the parent Club for all the wages.

Sounds it would be valid if we had to pay their respective clubs their wages back when they don't play

[Jagermesiter1871]

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?

But the EFL reviewed and sanctioned all these signings, it's why they took so long. Why would they approve them if they broke the business plan?

[YorkshireRoyal99]

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.

It might be why he said he doesn't know if the embargo will be lifted next season, although I'd suspect it would just be a case of 6 points deducted, which was the condition should we fail to meet our business plan, so I'm not sure what there is to agree on, unless it is something more severe.

[Chairman Mao]

Business plan includes revenue
Its likely we've missed our revenue target
As opposed to spending too much
As all that has been green lit

[Chairman Mao]

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.

It's literally the only reason possible that he plays each week ahead of walker

[NathStPaul]

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.

It's literally the only reason possible that he plays each week ahead of walker

Good point, good point.

[Snowflake Royal]

Skimming through this and people asking how ae could have breached the business plan on things like wages given FL approval...

Has anyone considered we may have fiddled the numbers or been dishonest and caught out?

Inflated costs also possible.

Or administrative error.

We've arranged a couple of extra deals based on injuries... maybe issues around that.


This is very frustrating and disappointing and a sad sign we're still not well run despite everything.

This should have been avoidable. And to have it just after the club met with STAR and assured them all was well is doubly disappointing.


S

[Snowflake Royal]

Don't believe this for a second.

It's literally the only reason possible that he plays each week ahead of walker

Good point, good point.

How often have we seen managers regularly pick experience over inexperience over the years even when experience is performing badly?

It's virtually every single failure of a manager we've had. And question marks with many of the successful ones at times.

It's more plausible that Ince just doesn't rate NGW and is getting it wrong than there is some sinister conspiracy forcing us to play Rahman. And even when Rahman is out, Ince often doesn’t play NGW, so it's clearly nothing to do with Rahman's contract.


H

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Skimming through this and people asking how ae could have breached the business plan on things like wages given FL approval...

Has anyone considered we may have fiddled the numbers or been dishonest and caught out?

Inflated costs also possible.

Or administrative error.

We've arranged a couple of extra deals based on injuries... maybe issues around that.


This is very frustrating and disappointing and a sad sign we're still not well run despite everything.

This should have been avoidable. And to have it just after the club met with STAR and assured them all was well is doubly disappointing.


S

Can't see how it would be around deals around injured players (Tetek) being moved out as the EFL agreed to that. Could very much be we've fiddled with some figures potentially, it will all come out in the wash eventually.

Anyway, seems like -6 on our total, 7 points clear is still a good buffer, above a few teams, better placed than last season, a positive home record so now it's just a case of get to 50 points as quickly as possible again, a bit more to do but nothing that still can't be done between now and the end of the season.

[Snowflake Royal]

Skimming through this and people asking how ae could have breached the business plan on things like wages given FL approval...

Has anyone considered we may have fiddled the numbers or been dishonest and caught out?

Inflated costs also possible.

Or administrative error.

We've arranged a couple of extra deals based on injuries... maybe issues around that.


This is very frustrating and disappointing and a sad sign we're still not well run despite everything.

This should have been avoidable. And to have it just after the club met with STAR and assured them all was well is doubly disappointing.


S

Can't see how it would be around deals around injured players (Tetek) being moved out as the EFL agreed to that. Could very much be we've fiddled with some figures potentially, it will all come out in the wash eventually.

Anyway, seems like -6 on our total, 7 points clear is still a good buffer, above a few teams, better placed than last season, a positive home record so now it's just a case of get to 50 points as quickly as possible again, a bit more to do but nothing that still can't be done between now and the end of the season.

Perhaps because we've misrepresented or got wrong their injury or medical info. Or insurance cover picking up their wages because of injury. Or cost of treatment.

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Skimming through this and people asking how ae could have breached the business plan on things like wages given FL approval...

Has anyone considered we may have fiddled the numbers or been dishonest and caught out?

Inflated costs also possible.

Or administrative error.

We've arranged a couple of extra deals based on injuries... maybe issues around that.


This is very frustrating and disappointing and a sad sign we're still not well run despite everything.

This should have been avoidable. And to have it just after the club met with STAR and assured them all was well is doubly disappointing.


S

Can't see how it would be around deals around injured players (Tetek) being moved out as the EFL agreed to that. Could very much be we've fiddled with some figures potentially, it will all come out in the wash eventually.

Anyway, seems like -6 on our total, 7 points clear is still a good buffer, above a few teams, better placed than last season, a positive home record so now it's just a case of get to 50 points as quickly as possible again, a bit more to do but nothing that still can't be done between now and the end of the season.

Perhaps because we've misrepresented or got wrong their injury or medical info. Or insurance cover picking up their wages because of injury. Or cost of treatment.

True then - I'd imagine it's unlikely though but it could have happened, the truth will be revealed. Again though, it's the reaction on the field now and just ensure we stay in the league this season.

[Brogue]

Skimming through this and people asking how ae could have breached the business plan on things like wages given FL approval...

Has anyone considered we may have fiddled the numbers or been dishonest and caught out?

Inflated costs also possible.

Or administrative error.

We've arranged a couple of extra deals based on injuries... maybe issues around that.


This is very frustrating and disappointing and a sad sign we're still not well run despite everything.

This should have been avoidable. And to have it just after the club met with STAR and assured them all was well is doubly disappointing.


S

I would have taken this into consideration if Bowen were not at the club. but i just don't see Bowen as the sort to mislead in such ways

[Mr Angry]

FFS!

Seriously???????

If this is true (and I have virtually no serious doubts about the validity of the story) then the Club need to issue a statement and come clean about exactly what - and who - has fukced up.

It is totally unacceptable for the Club to be run like this.

[Snowflake Royal]

Skimming through this and people asking how ae could have breached the business plan on things like wages given FL approval...

Has anyone considered we may have fiddled the numbers or been dishonest and caught out?

Inflated costs also possible.

Or administrative error.

We've arranged a couple of extra deals based on injuries... maybe issues around that.


This is very frustrating and disappointing and a sad sign we're still not well run despite everything.

This should have been avoidable. And to have it just after the club met with STAR and assured them all was well is doubly disappointing.


S

I would have taken this into consideration if Bowen were not at the club. but i just don't see Bowen as the sort to mislead in such ways

He was here previously when we were an absolute gods (lol dogs) dinner.

Ultimately, he ain't in charge. Dai and some invisible sock puppet ceo are

[YorkshireRoyal99]

Skimming through this and people asking how ae could have breached the business plan on things like wages given FL approval...

Has anyone considered we may have fiddled the numbers or been dishonest and caught out?

Inflated costs also possible.

Or administrative error.

We've arranged a couple of extra deals based on injuries... maybe issues around that.


This is very frustrating and disappointing and a sad sign we're still not well run despite everything.

This should have been avoidable. And to have it just after the club met with STAR and assured them all was well is doubly disappointing.


S

I would have taken this into consideration if Bowen were not at the club. but i just don't see Bowen as the sort to mislead in such ways

Would it not depend on what responsibilities Bowen had at the club? After all, he's "Head of Football Operations" and, whilst finance is a pretty big factor in that, he won't have control over all the finances obviously either. It also doesn't mean he hasn't been mislead in a wrong diagnosis of an injury, in the unlikely event that caused the breach.

[Hound]

It’s possible we’ve over spent on broadly non footballing matters (maybe all these support staff we’ve been hiring) but would surely have been run past the EFL first

In terms of revenue can’t imagine we wildly over forecast considering we were expecting a shite season anyway

[Snowflake Royal]

It’s possible we’ve over spent on broadly non footballing matters (maybe all these support staff we’ve been hiring) but would surely have been run past the EFL first

In terms of revenue can’t imagine we wildly over forecast considering we were expecting a shite season anyway

Plus the bonus cup £1m.

On recent performance we'd have been mad to forecast pretty much any cup income.

[Orion1871]

I wonder what the EFL will invent next season to try and relegate us.