Jump to content
IGNORED

Birmingham City Transfer Embargo / Points Deduction (Merged)

It’sSmiittthhh

By It’sSmiittthhh
in Football Chat

Recommended Posts

The Bard

The Bard

Posted
Posted
On 10/07/2018 at 22:26, Davefevs said:

 

Thanks.  Just goes to show (again) the irrelevance of net spend or transfer fees in the context of FFP.  That’s £24m for 14 players, they still need to fund the other half of the squad.

In 16/17, their whole staff budget was £22m, turnover / income was £17m, and they posted £16m losses.  Can’t imagine turnover went up much in a disastrous 17/18 season, and wage bill likely to be £35-40m.

You can see why they might be in big trouble financially too!

The amount of money quoted for Liam Walsh there is obscene....

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lrrr

Lrrr

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, The Bard said:

The amount of money quoted for Liam Walsh there is obscene....

10k a week for an academy player a premier league team deemed to have good potential? Wasn't Tammy on like double that before his newest contract?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyb

jimmyb

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Leveller said:

They’ve just released a statement to say the EFL currently won’t agree to let them sign anyone. No sign of any end to the embargo then.

I’ve heard over the last week Sheffield Wednesday are in the same position though there seems to be some dispute over it.

A sign the rules are working?

How many others are close to the line?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
49 minutes ago, jimmyb said:

I’ve heard over the last week Sheffield Wednesday are in the same position though there seems to be some dispute over it.

A sign the rules are working?

How many others are close to the line?

Sign the rules are starting to have an effect maybe.

It's possible- possible- that there could be an announcement of embargo for a number of sides.

As the EFL are due to make an announcement Wednesday. 

Fantasy theory...Forest turn out to have breached FFP over prior 3 seasons and as such all the players signed this summer?

Unable to play as they're embargoed and further inspection of their accounts showed this- what a boost that'd be for Saturday!! :fear:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrahamC

GrahamC

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, jimmyb said:

I’ve heard over the last week Sheffield Wednesday are in the same position though there seems to be some dispute over it.

A sign the rules are working?

How many others are close to the line?

Wednesday definitely in the same boat, sold Hunt to us & got Jordan Rhodes temporarily off their wage bill to Norwich but haven’t signed a single player.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
jimmyb

jimmyb

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Wednesday definitely in the same boat, sold Hunt to us & got Jordan Rhodes temporarily off their wage bill to Norwich but haven’t signed a single player.

Apparently as they know the league won’t register them, so not point wasting the money. 

Got to be other clubs in the same boat hasn’t there? 

And brings into perspective our policy of cutting our cloth properly and not chasing progress at a price we can’t sustain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Bard

The Bard

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, hodge said:

10k a week for an academy player a premier league team deemed to have good potential? Wasn't Tammy on like double that before his newest contract?

He played 3 games for them I think.  It cost them over £1million.  For an unproven kid.  

They all have good potential...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lrrr

Lrrr

Posted
Posted
Just now, The Bard said:

He played 3 games for them I think.  It cost them over £1million.  For an unproven kid.  

They all have good potential...

How much do you think we paid to have Kent on loan? Would wager he's on more than Walsh was for that

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, The Bard said:

No doubt.  I think we're not going down that road again... 

Certainly hope not.  I really dislike the Liverpool loan model.  Of course the Chelsea one with Tammy may not have been much different, just that he was more than good enough to play every week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted

It's been lifted...to a point.

The takeaways:

  • Pedersen is now eligible.
  • They cannot pay a fee for a new player (assume that means loan fee also).
  • There is a wage cap on the amount they can offer to a new player.
  • They can sign though up to 5 players- assuming these conditions are met.

Seems they were under a 'soft' embargo, however if further investigation over the coming months confirms they breached then they will face further punishment- especially as the EFL stated they were 'exceptionally disappointed' they signed Pedersen. Can only assume it's largely because they were actively trying to move players on but unable to that they are getting a bit of a stay of execution with this. They also must adhere to an EFL business plan.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Nest Egg

The Nest Egg

Posted
Posted

Hope the EFL aim to create a precedent with this and give Birmingham a significant punishment. I don't like the club at all, so obviously that makes me biased and probably prone to demanding an excessive punishment. However, owners such as theirs can't just play games with the 'soft embargoes' as if they are above them. Time will tell if they actually have the balls to hit them with a points deduction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ScottishRed

ScottishRed

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Newquay-Red said:

Hope the EFL aim to create a precedent with this and give Birmingham a significant punishment. I don't like the club at all, so obviously that makes me biased and probably prone to demanding an excessive punishment. However, owners such as theirs can't just play games with the 'soft embargoes' as if they are above them. Time will tell if they actually have the balls to hit them with a points deduction.

I agree that this would appear to be an opportunity for the EFL to set a precedent - the question however, as you rightly point out, is will they have balls to do it?

I will believe it when I see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
downendcity

downendcity

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Newquay-Red said:

Hope the EFL aim to create a precedent with this and give Birmingham a significant punishment. I don't like the club at all, so obviously that makes me biased and probably prone to demanding an excessive punishment. However, owners such as theirs can't just play games with the 'soft embargoes' as if they are above them. Time will tell if they actually have the balls to hit them with a points deduction.

This is crucial.

It's not so much for Birmingham's offence or that breaching FFP will help Brum to promotion, as this looks fairly likely. However, there is the real prospect that Birmingham's near neighbours are dicing with the upper limits of FFP and they will almost certainly be competing at the top end of the table.

If Villa do breach and are in the promotion hunt later in the season, then if Brum are given a "slap on the wrist" ( suspended points deduction or a hefty fine)  then you can bet that Villa will point to that if they are given a severe points deduction that denies them promotion, to justify an appeal and the threat of protracted legal proceedings is something the EFL will want to avoid..

As I've said a number of times before, hitting offending clubs hard sends out the right message, i.e. that clubs like ours, that are going about things the right way, will not be p****d all over when the "big" clubs stick two fingers up to  the EFL and ignore the financial parameters to which the rest of the division is working, in order to gain an advantage. 

Unless the EFL grasp the nettle and dish out meaningful and painful penalties, then the rest of the clubs might as well tell them to stuff FFP. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cityal

cityal

Posted
Posted

Breaching FFP is cheating plain and simple.  Football needs to make an example of clubs that breach these regulations. If a team were found guilty of an organised doping programme they would face severe sanctions, yet seemingly this kind of "financial doping" has thus far gone unpunished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Lanterne Rouge

Lanterne Rouge

Posted
Posted

IMO Birmingham are exactly the sort of club that the EFL would hope would be the first to fall foul of this. A `big name` fallen on hard times that don`t have the financial clout to fight any decision to the extent a club like, say, Villa would and one with no real hopes of promotion. It could be the ideal scenario for them to flex their muscles - after all, no-one really likes Birmingham and we all know they`ve been a financial and footballing basket case for years - and most fans would say it serves them right for years of mismanagement.

Bring it on I say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
robin_unreliant

robin_unreliant

Posted
Posted

How the heck are Villa getting away with what they've spent then? Brum don't seem to have splashed out anything like their excesses. I know Villa have parachute payments but it just looks wrong. A points penalty would be well deserved in their case.

Isn' it designed to prevent clubs buying promotion in an unsustainable way? Villa are surely trying to do exactly that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Davefevs

Davefevs

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, robin_unreliant said:

How the heck are Villa getting away with what they've spent then? Brum don't seem to have splashed out anything like their excesses. I know Villa have parachute payments but it just looks wrong. A points penalty would be well deserved in their case.

Isn' it designed to prevent clubs buying promotion in an unsustainable way? Villa are surely trying to do exactly that.

Villa’s issues over the summer were more cash flow issues than FFP, but they will be treading a tightrope come March / April when they submit their projected accounts....unless of course they flog a player in January like Grealish for £25m.

It is a risky plan, because if I was the club trying to buy him, and knowing of Villa’s predicament, I wouldn’t be offering top dollar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr Popodopolous

Mr Popodopolous

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Villa’s issues over the summer were more cash flow issues than FFP, but they will be treading a tightrope come March / April when they submit their projected accounts....unless of course they flog a player in January like Grealish for £25m.

It is a risky plan, because if I was the club trying to buy him, and knowing of Villa’s predicament, I wouldn’t be offering top dollar.

Yep- January window their last chance to rectify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...