I hate football sometimes

[Show Me The Money!]

Really f'ing pissed off with the fact that we have 2 financial cheats in the playoff final to go up to the prem. You don't even get the luxury of knowing they are going to get hammered most weeks and come back down again because they'll have banked a shit load of money in the process.

And to top it all the sports press and media will be Walking into their Starbucks because it's Frank bloody Lampard, especially if they do go up as well.

I don't actual give 2 his hoots about either Villa or FLDC so why am I so f'ing pissed off?

 

[myol'man]

The EFL FFP police will hammer the losers

[Pezo]

I think my order was:

WBA

Leeds

Derby

Villa

I really wanted to see Villa and Derby struggle under FFP (especially Villa) and see them doing the hard yards, I think I will get the worst option of Villa going up now.

Trying to put some positive spin on it Leeds fans are cocky as **** so nice to see them not going up and I suppose one of Derby and Villa won't be going up! 

[BS4 on Tour...]

The Derby chairman said they were “FFP compliant ....” - I don’t understand all the confusion around those regulations - clubs are either cheating or they are not - why all the statements and counter-statements etc etc - so, if Man City is found guilty, should their premier league champions title be taken from them and given to Liverpool?

Fed up of it all really, QPR, Bournemouth etc - found guilty but so what?!

[AppyDAZE]

10 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

The Derby chairman said they were “FFP compliant ....” - I don’t understand all the confusion around those regulations - clubs are either cheating or they are not - why all the statements and counter-statements etc etc - so, if Man City is found guilty, should their premier league champions title be taken from them and given to Liverpool?

Fed up of it all really, QPR, Bournemouth etc - found guilty but so what?!

Just goes to show what a total mess the whole thing is really,

In all honesty, there will never be financial fair play when it comes to pro football so I'm just enjoying the games. Cracker tonight. The final will be a cracker too, i;m sure

 

[Kodjias Wrist]

9 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

The Derby chairman said they were “FFP compliant ....” - I don’t understand all the confusion around those regulations - clubs are either cheating or they are not - why all the statements and counter-statements etc etc - so, if Man City is found guilty, should their premier league champions title be taken from them and given to Liverpool?

Fed up of it all really, QPR, Bournemouth etc - found guilty but so what?!

Didn't Fernandez threaten legal action. EFL shat themselves.

[Mr Popodopolous]

14 minutes ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

The Derby chairman said they were “FFP compliant ....” - I don’t understand all the confusion around those regulations - clubs are either cheating or they are not - why all the statements and counter-statements etc etc - so, if Man City is found guilty, should their premier league champions title be taken from them and given to Liverpool?

Fed up of it all really, QPR, Bournemouth etc - found guilty but so what?!

Oh dear, you should do a bit of reading about their 'compliance'.

Sell ground to owner or company controlled by him for £80m- about £39-40m above true asset as per their accounts. Should've been slung out the playoffs and Aston Villa too for projected accounts- they profited at our, Middlesbrough's, WBA's and yes even Leeds's.

I'd say yes- or more likely the period the breaches covered. Man City likely a historic breach and obfuscation- there's an asterix by their trophies in that period IMO- or a big question mark at least.

4 minutes ago, Kodjias Wrist said:

Didn't Fernandez threaten legal action. EFL shat themselves.

They tried stuff, QPR that is, but eventually got punished. If the legal action threat did that, then Birmingham wouldn't have been docked 9 points.

[BS4 on Tour...]

4 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Oh dear, you should do a bit of reading about their 'compliance'.

No need for ‘Oh dear’ - I wasn’t defending Derby - I simply quoted their Chairman - and then I stated my frustration at the subject and the confusion surrounding it .... I know you’ve positioned yourself as the FFP expert on here so I leave the ‘bit of reading’ to you and look forward to your future updates ....

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 minute ago, BS4 on Tour... said:

No need for ‘Oh dear’ - I wasn’t defending Derby - I simply quoted their Chairman - and then I stated my frustration at the subject and the confusion surrounding it .... I know you’ve positioned yourself as the FFP expert on here so I leave the ‘bit of reading’ to you and look forward to your future updates ....

Right sorry for the tone, mainly annoyed at this whole scenario- it's a pisstake.

[downendcity]

13 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They tried stuff, QPR that is, but eventually got punished. If the legal action threat did that, then Birmingham wouldn't have been docked 9 points.

I think QPR's argument was that having been relegated, paying the ffp fine in full would bankrupt the club.

Given the purpose of ffp, the EFL may well have ended up with on it's face if this had happened, so they negotiated a settlement whereby QPR paid a reduced fine and the owners agreed to write off a substantial amount of debt.

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, downendcity said:

I think QPR's argument was that having been relegated, paying the ffp fine in full would bankrupt the club.

Given the purpose of ffp, the EFL may well have ended up with on it's face if this had happened, so they negotiated a settlement whereby QPR paid a reduced fine and the owners agreed to write off a substantial amount of debt.

 

Or they realised that FFP is in effect a restraint of trade and are sniffing out who will roll over and have their bellies tickled, who will challenge, and who will pay - and doing deals - to turn a blind eye. 

[The Original OTIB]

3 minutes ago, 29AR said:

Or they realised that FFP is in effect a restraint of trade and are sniffing out who will roll over and have their bellies tickled, who will challenge, and who will pay - and doing deals - to turn a blind eye. 

A bit like HMRC.

[Mr Popodopolous]

3 minutes ago, 29AR said:

Or they realised that FFP is in effect a restraint of trade and are sniffing out who will roll over and have their bellies tickled, who will challenge, and who will pay - and doing deals - to turn a blind eye. 

The restraint of trade argument is an interesting one.

I've a feeling that European courts would in fact rule in favour of UEFA in an FFP battle. Now I know we are in UK, but to play in UEFA competitions you need some form of it, or at least you (theoretically) should adhere to it.

Given you can technically qualify from UEFA comps in the EFL- but especially with the Championship you can qualify via FA or League Cup- then at which level could it be struck down? Just Football League, UK or the whole thing?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, The Original OTIB said:

A bit like HMRC.

Perhaps; but I make less comment on them. If you take HMRC, MP and Lords make the rules and write them up; HMRC enforce them for them perhaps get caught out by incompetence of others. 

EFL are judge, jury and executioner. They are far more culpable. 

2 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

The restraint of trade argument is an interesting one.

I've a feeling that European courts would in fact rule in favour of UEFA in an FFP battle. Now I know we are in UK, but to play in UEFA competitions you need some form of it, or at least you (theoretically) should adhere to it.

Given you can technically qualify from UEFA comps in the EFL- but especially with the Championship you can qualify via FA or League Cup- then at which level could it be struck down? Just Football League, UK or the whole thing?

FYI; I think so too. I think it’s a domestic balls up. Restraint of trade has exemptions. But this would be a massive and long flight legal battle, the authorities don’t have the bottle whereas the clubs do. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

9 minutes ago, 29AR said:

Perhaps; but I make less comment on them. If you take HMRC, MP and Lords make the rules and write them up; HMRC enforce them for them perhaps get caught out by incompetence of others. 

EFL are judge, jury and executioner. They are far more culpable. 

FYI; I think so too. I think it’s a domestic balls up. Restraint of trade has exemptions. But this would be a massive and long flight legal battle, the authorities don’t have the bottle whereas the clubs do. 

It'd probably be too simplistic so therefore unworkable, but couldn't EFL- given it is a members body- just put it to the vote of clubs.

ie. "Our accounts show that Derby have dodged rules by gaining £40m profit- deduct or don't deduct"? Or "We contend that Aston Villa spending, spending, spending- £20-25m over and above their FFP deductions is a breach- points off!"

The way I would add it too is- and again may be unworkable- you don't accept this, we won 't play you. Follow the rules as voted for by owners, or go forth and multiply in a nutshell!

[Pickle Rick]

The whole FFP thing is bullshit and easily covered.

Is this not yet common knowledge?

The only teams that’ll falter are those who are skint.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Captain Hindsight said:

The whole FFP thing is bullshit and easily covered.

Is this not yet common knowledge?

The only teams that’ll falter are those who are skint.

How do you figure then?

Easily covered- explain it away. If their own rules were enforced correctly, Aston Villa and maybe Derby would have been docked points this season.

Why can't the League just kick out offenders- or offenders who don't accept the judgement?

[Pickle Rick]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

How do you figure then?

Easily covered- explain it away. If their own rules were enforced correctly, Aston Villa and maybe Derby would have been docked points this season.

Why can't the League just kick out offenders- or offenders who don't accept the judgement?

‘Sponsorship’ is one way.

Don't need to explain that really, surely.

[Mr Popodopolous]

2 minutes ago, Captain Hindsight said:

‘Sponsorship’ is one way.

Don't need to explain that really, surely.

Sponsorship from related parties needs to be if rules enforced correctly- say the going or market rate standard wise is £5m and they get £20m, you simply disregard £15m of income as per their own rules- so if standard commercial income £12m per year say and related party transaction takes it to £32m per year- but the going rate is £5m, then you give a commercial income of £17m in total and a line is drawn through the other £15m.

I'd say 'If you don't want to follow the same rules as everyone else, then piss off- play in the Conference or some other League". I'd be fairly zero tolerance me

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

It'd probably be too simplistic so therefore unworkable, but couldn't EFL- given it is a members body- just put it to the vote of clubs.

ie. "Our accounts show that Derby have dodged rules by gaining £40m profit- deduct or don't deduct"? Or "We contend that Aston Villa spending, spending, spending- £20-25m over and above their FFP deductions is a breach- points off!"

The way I would add it too is- and again may be unworkable- you don't accept this, we won 't play you. Follow the rules as voted for by owners, or go forth and multiply in a nutshell!

It’s a myriad of problems. Restraint of trade is permissible under EU law in respect of a level sporting field. But it’s in reality - in my opinion- going to need UEFA to grow cojones and fight the fight and a cascade effect from precedent 

I won’t lie. I would hate to be a certain person tonight. As an EFL board member; when two purported cheats fight out a a final worth such monies; whilst the main employer missed out by narrow margin... it’s a difficult balancing act. 

[Pickle Rick]

1 minute ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Sponsorship from related parties needs to be if rules enforced correctly- say the going or market rate standard wise is £5m and they get £20m, you simply disregard £15m of income as per their own rules.

I'd say 'If you don't want to follow the same rules as everyone else, then piss off- play in the Conference or some other League". I'd be fairly zero tolerance me

That may be your stance. It may also be mine.

But it doesn’t mean a club won’t get away with it.

UEFA & money don’t equal justice funnily enough.

[Mr Popodopolous]

7 minutes ago, 29AR said:

It’s a myriad of problems. Restraint of trade is permissible under EU law in respect of a level sporting field. But it’s in reality - in my opinion- going to need UEFA to grow cojones and fight the fight and a cascade effect from precedent 

 

I think so and you're right a lot of issues and by no means clear cut- this UEFA case v Man City could be the one.

I hope Man City do take it to European courts, then we all will know at long last where we all stand once and for all- if it's unlawful then it's been a waste of 10 years or so by UEFA, clubs and everyone else! However if they rule in favour then that surely opens the door for proper enforcement and punishment. Cascade effect from precedent is interesting, not a legal expert but precedent I think I know roughly.

Level sporting field under EU law...it could just supersede Restraint of trade but truthfully not least as UEFA keep kicking the can down the road, we just don't know for sure.

[Guest]

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I think so and you're right a lot of issues and by no means clear cut- this UEFA case v Man City could be the one.

I hope Man City do take it to European courts, then we all will know at long last where we all stand once and for all- if it's unlawful then it's been a waste of 10 years or so by UEFA, clubs and everyone else! However if they rule in favour then that surely opens the door for proper enforcement and punishment. Cascade effect from precedent is interesting, not a legal expert but precedent I think I know roughly.

Level sporting field under EU law...it could just supersede Restraint of trade but truthfully not least as UEFA keep kicking the can down the road, we just don't know for sure.

This would be bigger than Bosman undoubtedly. The fact the carpet gets pulled up bigger and bigger and the brooms wider stinks of... well that’s all would say.

All I’m going to type is at some point MA will be in a board meeting. I hope the rest of the board query to him how two heavy spenders are now able to fight for promotion.... 

[downendcity]

If clubs know the rules of a competition when they enter it, how can they later argue that the rules are unfair, a restraint of trade or some such bollox when they are later found to have breached those rules? If they don't like the rules, then bu99er off and play somewhere else.

The reason for intriguing ffp in the first place was to avoid clubs going bust (a la Pompey) , by committing themselves financially behind their means, so failing to properly adminster their financial rules, the EFL are almost condoning financial recklessness.

Secondly, it is farcical when the majority of clubs are, like us, managing prudently in order to stay within ffp limits, including selling key players in order to to do so, while others are effectively ignoring those same rules in order to gain an advantage in the race for promotion.

If the EFL were in charge of the Olympics then they would have let Ben Johnson keep his gold medal in Seoul! 

 

[RumRed]

Wage caps please. Only way to level the playing field.

[poland_exile]

why would it be in UEFA's interests to stop themselves trousering money. 

English football has brought this all on itself, and we've all played our part in that through our silent acceptance of it while the trade-off between romance and commerce occurred. 

Now we cry foul because we don't like it. And many doing so are the same ones who want SL to spunk money and do exactly the same as the clubs they criticize. 

AMF 

 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, downendcity said:

If clubs know the rules of a competition when they enter it, how can they later argue that the rules are unfair, a restraint of trade or some such bollox when they are later found to have breached those rules? If they don't like the rules, then bu99er off and play somewhere else.

The reason for intriguing ffp in the first place was to avoid clubs going bust (a la Pompey) , by committing themselves financially behind their means, so failing to properly adminster their financial rules, the EFL are almost condoning financial recklessness.

Secondly, it is farcical when the majority of clubs are, like us, managing prudently in order to stay within ffp limits, including selling key players in order to to do so, while others are effectively ignoring those same rules in order to gain an advantage in the race for promotion.

If the EFL were in charge of the Olympics then they would have let Ben Johnson keep his gold medal in Seoul! 

 

I think you basically speak to all the problems the EFL and UEFA above have. 

Restraint of trade is a terrible thing. That’s starting point one. It’s acceptable in some cases; starting point two; and fair sport is an exception we accept that.

But then and I’m playing devils advocate here and giving my own view point... league one and below is under a salary cap; championship is under FFP; Prem is under a law to itself except if you quality for a European competition; then subject to UEFA FFP... how on Earth is that a level playing field?

Then factor in all the different leagues outside of England.. you can see how lawyers are going to have a field day.

To put in to perspective; next year Macclesfield could be subject to SCMP, break all transfer records and win the league cup and qualify for Europe. How is that level vs Bristol city who have allowable losses over a 3 year period? 

How does the EFL make that fair competition? Now extend it wider; what regs do the serie b ; bundesliga 2; Ligue 2 etc have and operate in? 

All these restraints of trade are imo vulnerable - no comment on to what extent - until its a level playing field across all authorities across all divisions where there is an ability to qualify for a European comp. And that’s why, IMO, if you kick up enough of a fuss, it’s swept under the carpet. 

Im not going to lie, I hope the next BCFC board meeting focuses heavily on why DC and AV are in the play off  final and why not us if we followed their example? MR Ashton please respond. 

[ZiderEyed]

3 minutes ago, poland_exile said:

why would it be in UEFA's interests to stop themselves trousering money. 

English football has brought this all on itself, and we've all played our part in that through our silent acceptance of it while the trade-off between romance and commerce occurred. 

Now we cry foul because we don't like it. And many doing so are the same ones who want SL to spunk money and do exactly the same as the clubs they criticize. 

AMF 

 

******* spot on

[JasonM88]

Leeds are skint as well. Happy days. 

[Mr Popodopolous]

1 hour ago, poland_exile said:

why would it be in UEFA's interests to stop themselves trousering money. 

English football has brought this all on itself, and we've all played our part in that through our silent acceptance of it while the trade-off between romance and commerce occurred. 

Now we cry foul because we don't like it. And many doing so are the same ones who want SL to spunk money and do exactly the same as the clubs they criticize. 

AMF 

 

I agree...and I disagree.

Ultimately kn this country, I'd say the real crazy money- it started with Abramovich. Had Putin clamped down properly on the oligarchs in 2000, as he sort of looked like doing but didn't, well Abramovich wouldn't have brought Chelsea put it that way. I believe he set the ball rolling so far as the English game money hype goes.

Wealthy owners would still have existed, but nothing like as wealthy, even the last 10 years at this level, things have spiralled upwards out of control...

I agree though, this is the negative side of that trade-off. Undoubtedly so.

Yes and no. I'd say a key difference is us and others are doing it within the rules and frameworks. Or us and likeminded clu s doing our best to meet it anyway- clubs have been punished anyway.

These 2 finalists and likely Sheffield Wednesday are taking the piss, or have been big time. Yes we may spend more this summer but this is possible by selling the big 3, plus 2 squad players last summer, the restructuring and holding our discipline in the Jan window by not  seemingly making bigger bids for strikers.

Derby have some redeeming features such as sales of key playing assets last 3 seasons- by which I mean 2016/17-2018/19, lesser of 2 evils for me but part of me thinks 'This is crap- Vydra and Assombolonga in please..SL can finance by selling the ground to Peter Hargreaves but paying him the cost- oh and De Rossi on a free, Reece James on loan or and Zach Steffen on loan because why not!'