Jump to content
IGNORED

Reading FC Transfer Embargo


davidoldfart

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, prankerd said:

Why is it? If he looks after himself hes a gtd starter is he not? Im pretty sure i dont get paid if i dont turn up to work! Training and keeping fit is the minimum of a footballer anyway :laugh:

It depends what you do for a living. For me it'll be like only being paid for presenting to clients, not getting paid for creating documents etc. I'd not be too happy if it's my boss who picks if I present (and thus get paid) or not. 

Anyway it's more likely you'd just do a basic salary, and then additional bonus for appearing.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, prankerd said:

Why is it? If he looks after himself hes a gtd starter is he not? Im pretty sure i dont get paid if i dont turn up to work! Training and keeping fit is the minimum of a footballer anyway :laugh:

Thing is he will be turning up for work, the match day is only a few hours of their entire working week. 

Nobody works for free, these "pay as you play" deals are a myth. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Super said:

Why do we care so much about other teams finances? Let them get on with it.

Because there’s a set of financial rules in place, the consequence of which, for the majority of clubs ( like us) that set out to comply, was to compromise on field competitiveness by making cutbacks and/or selling players i order to comply.

However, with hindsight, it is now clear that a number of clubs chose not to take the same steps, knowing they would breach the financial limits, in order  to maximise their on field competitiveness, thereby giving them the best chance of securing promotion and realising the financial rewards of premier league football.

Every club that has properly played by the rules should care deeply about clubs that have tried to gain an advantage by cheating the rest.

Unfortunately, the EFL incompetence in managing it’s own rules, means that it increasingly appears that clubs that have transgressed are “getting away with it”.

Reading’s “embargo" now appears almost laughable. Yes, we all understand that a club loaning out players can, and often do, pay a portion of the players wages. If a club is in an otherwise healthy position then I guess no one would have any issue with that. However, for a player on £150k per week ( as Drinkwater is allegedly on ) I am pretty sure the loanee club would normally pay a loan fee. If the embargo prevents Reading from paying fees,   immediately there seems to be fudging the system in order to get around it.  

Also, surely there has to be some jeopardy involved with breaking rules, so a transfer embargo should be a punishment and place the offending club in a detrimental position. Reading are driving a coach and horses through this, as they are amassing loan players arguably better than most clubs in the division can afford in normal circumstances, so appear to be suffering no detriment at all as a result. 

When the likes  of Derby, Villa, Wednesday and , surprise, surprise, Reading, embarked on stadium sales in order to avoid a breach of ffp, it was discovered that they did not break the ffp rules, thanks to the EFL cocking up the drafting of the new rules. My suspicion is that a similar”oversight”  by the EFL means that their own rules do not prevent a club under embargo loaning in players, even those whose wages exceed £8,500 per week, as long as the parent club are covering the excess above £8,500.

I’d be interested to know how much of Kalas, Dasilva and Palmer’s wages were being covered by Chelsea during their loan spells and whether we paid them a loan fee.

  • Like 1
  • Flames 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reality is the whole EFL clubs paying (loan fees and wages) to develop youngsters for Prem clubs is at an end as we're all broke. So clubs like Chelsea have a choice, foot the bill and send a player to a local club to play regular good standard of football or join 36 other players hoping to line up for the U23s in a friendly each week. They've obviously sent players to reading to put them in the shop window to sell them on asap, has to be better than having them not playing causing disruption.

Reading is an appealing place for London based players, easy commute, no need to move away from your house or family.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ashton_fan said:

Southampton went into administration because they could not repay their mortgage on the new statdium, nothing to do with the EFL.

As for Derby there's a whole thread about lack of suitable punishment. Although they are a big club they are up for sale and financially very weak so unlikely to threat the EFL with an expensive legal case.

The problem with EFL's FFP is that there are lots of grey areas (like stadium ownership), that's why court cases keep popping up.

Again you are wrong, the efl forced it on Southampton as they tried to put their parent company (the one who owned the ground) into administration in order to avoid a points deduction,

Derby is still going through the processes expect a points deduction once the accounts have been reviewed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

Again you are wrong, the efl forced it on Southampton as they tried to put their parent company (the one who owned the ground) into administration in order to avoid a points deduction,

Derby is still going through the processes expect a points deduction once the accounts have been reviewed

Southampton situation sounds interesting, will have to read it later.

The Derby situation feels more complex than you say as I have a gut feeling that they are trying to exclude certain companies from P&S Assessment for 2019 and beyond. Sevco 5112 is or was the Club Parent and also included such companies as Club DCFC Limited, Derby County FC Academy Limited and Stadia DCFC Limited.

In Accounts to June 2018 and maybe June 2017, Derby appeared to have included the Revenue in the Club Accounts but the costs in the Sevco 5112.

Further, those 4 companies I listed, Sevco 5112 and the other 3 all have a First Gazette notice that arrived last Tuesday.

In addition, I wonder if non Submission leading to winding up could be a way to try and obscure the Rent due on Pride Park. Club were due to pay £1.1m per season but there was also something about Rent due in Club DCFC and Stadia DCFC.

If it's in addition to the Club Accounts rental payments, that would come up in the Consolidated but not necessarily the Club. Independent Valuers said Annual Rent should be £4.16m per season in any event. 

Derby case could run and run as I see the EFL digging in.

Oh yeah Derby also claim that there might be an extra Profit on Pride Park. Was £40m in 2018, speculation puts this at up to an extra £30m.

Questions as to whether the EFL's preferred Amortisation method has been adhered to as well.

Put it this way, until resolved they've reached their Signings limit and the contracts for Jagielka and Baldock, running until January as they are, may not be able to be renewed. EFL have to show no clemency, give no quarter.

As for Reading, the sooner they're charged the better. EFL Regs are quite clear.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Because there’s a set of financial rules in place, the consequence of which, for the majority of clubs ( like us) that set out to comply, was to compromise on field competitiveness by making cutbacks and/or selling players i order to comply.

However, with hindsight, it is now clear that a number of clubs chose not to take the same steps, knowing they would breach the financial limits, in order  to maximise their on field competitiveness, thereby giving them the best chance of securing promotion and realising the financial rewards of premier league football.

Every club that has properly played by the rules should care deeply about clubs that have tried to gain an advantage by cheating the rest.

Unfortunately, the EFL incompetence in managing it’s own rules, means that it increasingly appears that clubs that have transgressed are “getting away with it”.

Reading’s “embargo" now appears almost laughable. Yes, we all understand that a club loaning out players can, and often do, pay a portion of the players wages. If a club is in an otherwise healthy position then I guess no one would have any issue with that. However, for a player on £150k per week ( as Drinkwater is allegedly on ) I am pretty sure the loanee club would normally pay a loan fee. If the embargo prevents Reading from paying fees,   immediately there seems to be fudging the system in order to get around it.  

Also, surely there has to be some jeopardy involved with breaking rules, so a transfer embargo should be a punishment and place the offending club in a detrimental position. Reading are driving a coach and horses through this, as they are amassing loan players arguably better than most clubs in the division can afford in normal circumstances, so appear to be suffering no detriment at all as a result. 

When the likes  of Derby, Villa, Wednesday and , surprise, surprise, Reading, embarked on stadium sales in order to avoid a breach of ffp, it was discovered that they did not break the ffp rules, thanks to the EFL cocking up the drafting of the new rules. My suspicion is that a similar”oversight”  by the EFL means that their own rules do not prevent a club under embargo loaning in players, even those whose wages exceed £8,500 per week, as long as the parent club are covering the excess above £8,500.

I’d be interested to know how much of Kalas, Dasilva and Palmer’s wages were being covered by Chelsea during their loan spells and whether we paid them a loan fee.

Worse than that in some ways, Reading's list of attempted loopholes is extensive. At least Sheffield Wednesday got relegated in the end eh.

1) The Stadium Sale in 2018/19.

2) As well as Land around the Stadium.

3) Plus the old Training Ground.

4) Aluko loan fee for £3m from the Owner's Chinese Club.

Where an odd divergence kicks in with this case, is that in 2017/18 Reading sold or Transferred the Stadium to the new parent Company (Renhe Sports Management Limited). Profit on Disposal etc.

They have therefore 'sold' the Ground in 2017/18 to the new Parent and then sold on- 'flipped' maybe, at a Profit a year on to a Chinese company owned by the Owner. I could be wrong but it's possible that both count/counted towards FFP. I'm sure that Reading would argue the case.

They also appear not to bother with small details such as informing the Land Registry! Even Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday registered their ones.

Cake and eat it on a significant scale it would seem, yet they may still have breached Upper Loss Limits, incredible!!

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ashton_fan said:

Southampton went into administration because they could not repay their mortgage on the new statdium, nothing to do with the EFL.

As for Derby there's a whole thread about lack of suitable punishment. Although they are a big club they are up for sale and financially very weak so unlikely to threat the EFL with an expensive legal case.

The problem with EFL's FFP is that there are lots of grey areas (like stadium ownership), that's why court cases keep popping up.

Chansiri is wealthy but EFL didn't back down there as such. They were under multiple embargoes and eventually got relegated off the back of a deduction, Embargoes over time likely weakened them. Sheffield Wednesday big club too.

Good thing then that a big Grey area has been clarified. Profit or Loss on disposal of Tangible Fixed Assets now no longer included in FFP calcs effective 2021/22.

With the UEFA Regs this has always been the case and was the case in the EFL until the Regs changed from 1 year to 3 year Rule from 2016/17.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Worse than that in some ways, Reading's list of attempted loopholes is extensive. At least Sheffield Wednesday got relegated in the end eh.

1) The Stadium Sale in 2018/19.

2) As well as Land around the Stadium.

3) Plus the old Training Ground.

4) Aluko loan fee for £3m from the Owner's Chinese Club.

Where an odd divergence kicks in with this case, is that in 2017/18 Reading sold or Transferred the Stadium to the new parent Company (Renhe Sports Management Limited). Profit on Disposal etc.

They have therefore 'sold' the Ground in 2017/18 to the new Parent and then sold on- 'flipped' maybe, at a Profit a year on to a Chinese company owned by the Owner. I could be wrong but it's possible that both count/counted towards FFP. I'm sure that Reading would argue the case.

They also appear not to bother with small details such as informing the Land Registry! Even Aston Villa, Derby and Sheffield Wednesday registered their ones.

Cake and eat it on a significant scale it would seem, yet they may still have breached Upper Loss Limits, incredible!!

Much as though we detest the “get out of jail free card” the stadium sale idea was, we now accept that the football club could offset any profit from such a sale against losses for ffp purposes.

However, I am struggling to understand how, if that first sale was to a third party company ( even if one owned by the football club’s owner) and that company subsequently sold again ( flipped) to another of the owner’s companies, the profit from that subsequent sale can be used by the football club for ffp purposes.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • The title was changed to Reading FC Transfer Embargo
1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Much as though we detest the “get out of jail free card” the stadium sale idea was, we now accept that the football club could offset any profit from such a sale against losses for ffp purposes.

However, I am struggling to understand how, if that first sale was to a third party company ( even if one owned by the football club’s owner) and that company subsequently sold again ( flipped) to another of the owner’s companies, the profit from that subsequent sale can be used by the football club for ffp purposes.

It's a mystery and no mistake. Disgrace if both could count so maybe it's 2 + 2=5 for me,

My rather possibly incorrect interpretation at this stage was something like: 1) Club 'sell' Ground to new Parent- it's the Club results for FFP/P&S in 2017/18. 2) New Parent- well Parent company is often the Reporting entity for P&S, Stadium sold etc, and it is also inclusive of the other transactions that I listed in 2018/19- the Club results in isolation that year were a £30m loss IIRC and the Consolidated/Parent Results in 2017/18 were a £29m loss or similar.

Would be automatically included in the Accounting bit by dint of consolidation but whether it could or would be carried into the FFP calcs, well certainly shouldn't be I agree! That original 'Sale'/ Transfer to Parent slipped right under the radar, have read that Reading as I say use Renhe for the FFP purposes but no clear public indication either way as to whether it was also the entity for 2017/18 FFP assessment.

Some of this is a side issue in some ways though, the signings and the 2017/18 and 2018/19 even though it could prove important again in due course- a key priority is either now IMO that Reading are charged with breaching to 2021- as the EFL Embargo site seems to suggest, or that a suitable Points Penalty is agreed/imposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more note, seems that they don't explicitly acknowledge the existence of FFP/P&S or the risk of failing it with the consequences that can result in their Accounts which is another bit of new ground.

It's pedantic maybe but...⬇️

image.png.bcc76fd959b12a670fb5c8b2ca06a10a.png

Both for Club and Consolidated, the 2018, 2019 and 2020 Accounts have this bit. Note the wording...

"The Club has staff whose roles include ensuring that the Club monitors the evolution of the rules and ensures compliance with them". No wording about potential for FFP sanctions, no reference to FFP whatsoever actually. Only two examples it picks out are TV deals and the Transfer market.

Now I believe that their past CEO- Nigel Howe- was indeed more about compliance, but he's since been replaced. He did state that their only remaining way out was Player Sales last Spring ie in 2020...he's not been CEO there since Summer 2020. Read into that what you will.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, davidoldfart said:

Having lost £93m over 3 seasons Reading are under EFL transfer embargo which means they can only sign Free agents or loans (half season) and pay no transfer or loan fees . 

How come they get Danny Drinkwater from Chelsea for a seasons loan !!!!!!! The guy is on the best part of £100k a week .

Think Derby get away with murder - Reading really take the biscuit .

I missed the signings of Huntley and Palmer. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Davefevs said:

They are nicknamed the Biscuitmen!

Gone to QPR hasn’t he?

I guess EFL could refuse to register them, like they did with Brum’s Pederson.

Im long of the belief that if you loan someone (say over the age 23) that you should pay their full contract costs. U23s should be about development and perhaps a percentage should be paid, e.g. 25%.  Would make clubs think twice about hoarding.

Yes sorry another team QPR last year stating they were skint ref Andre grey also paying Charlie Austins wages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, RobintheRed Red said:

Yes just realised another team pleading poverty last year.

Because ffp works over 3 accounting periods

They may well of been skint last year but it was also the last year of their massive fine from the efl as well as alot of highly paid players leaving

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Monkeh said:

Because ffp works over 3 accounting periods

They may well of been skint last year but it was also the last year of their massive fine from the efl as well as alot of highly paid players leaving

 

They sold Eze, big money. Some higher earners likely left, as for Osayi-Samuel he was due to leave ie his choice on a free, but them and Fenerbahce brought the deal forward. Profit unexpectedly gained. Ryan Manning too, sold as an academy product, helps.

FFP fine in 10 yearly instalments, believe that it still has some time to go but dunno whether it counts towards FFP as such.

They also went through a phase of signing only free transfers and low cost fees- helps to keep that crucial amortisation calculation down, now some more headroom will exist. They can mix and match wages and amortisation I expect to an extent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

They sold Eze, big money. Some higher earners likely left, as for Osayi-Samuel he was due to leave ie his choice on a free, but them and Fenerbahce brought the deal forward. Profit unexpectedly gained. Ryan Manning too, sold as an academy product, helps.

FFP fine in 10 yearly instalments, believe that it still has some time to go but dunno whether it counts towards FFP as such.

They also went through a phase of signing only free transfers and low cost fees- helps to keep that crucial amortisation calculation down, now some more headroom will exist. They can mix and match wages and amortisation I expect to an extent.

Wasn’t that all a bit of a fudge?

When they were relegated the EFL brought them to account for breaching the financial rules during their promotion and penalised them with a big fine - the only punishment allowed at the time. IIRC, QPR then argued that such a fine would bankrupt the club , as a result of which, IIRC, the fine was reduced and they were allowed to pay it over 10 years. The irony is that one of the reasons for introducing financial rules was to avoid a club throwing money at promotion, only to go bust following relegation!

As now seems a common occurrence with the EFL. clubs “come to an agreement” so that the punishment for breaching financial rules ends up being relatively little punishment in the greater scheme of things.

Wednesday must be wondering how they ended up with a points deduction when they see the way other clubs have been, and are being, punished

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, downendcity said:

Wasn’t that all a bit of a fudge?

When they were relegated the EFL brought them to account for breaching the financial rules during their promotion and penalised them with a big fine - the only punishment allowed at the time. IIRC, QPR then argued that such a fine would bankrupt the club , as a result of which, IIRC, the fine was reduced and they were allowed to pay it over 10 years. The irony is that one of the reasons for introducing financial rules was to avoid a club throwing money at promotion, only to go bust following relegation!

As now seems a common occurrence with the EFL. clubs “come to an agreement” so that the punishment for breaching financial rules ends up being relatively little punishment in the greater scheme of things.

Wednesday must be wondering how they ended up with a points deduction when they see the way other clubs have been, and are being, punished

It was something that saved face for both parties in a sense. Bit of a fudge seems right- Kieran Maguire wrote a piece on it at the time.

http://priceoffootball.com/qpr-ffp-fine-everything-counts-in-large-amounts/

Mike Thornton, who used to blog and Tweet about football finance when Leeds were at this level- he wasn't impressed at all when it emerged!

https://twitter.com/Mike_J_Thornton/status/1022879356950130689

As you say, such a fine paid at once might have bankrupted them and the fine was down to £17m/10 and a January 2019 Embargo.

Can do- if the Agreement is a tough penalty then it has its uses in saving legal costs etc- for example last week, Percy said that the EFL reportedly believe that Derby's punishment should be9 points, with a further 3 suspended and an EFL Business Plan. Presumably the last two are linked- as in if they don't comply with the Business Plan in 2021/22, 9 becomes 12.

In some ways yes, but Sheffield Wednesday were initially docked 12- and it was halved, due to some failings on the part of the EFL back in Summer 2018. Such transactions cannot be backdated but the EFL or more to the point the EFL CEO at the time seemed either to be unbothered or unaware. By the letter of the law however, their excess spend to 2018 was £17-18m...£15m and above= a 12 point deduction.

Birmingham are another interesting case study- and I think that their case on the face of it most resembles that of Reading.

Excess losses to Summer 2018- Yes. Reading it feels clear have made excess losses to Summer 2021.

Birmingham submitted their updated Projections in early July 2018 and were under a strict Embargo- ie a full embargo, no ins no nothing. Possibly they were reliant on Butland and Gray sell on cash to see them over the line and all parties maybe were waiting on that- it was a hoped for gain basically, but reportedly were still making bids for players when under the Hard Embargo. By August 2nd 2018 there was an EFL statement and by 14th August they were fomally charged. They were only cleared to add players once some things had been agreed with the EFL.

Reading have neither been charged (as far as we know), nor have they come to a definitive agreement (as far as we know) but were cleared to make their 6 signings in any case. Certainly no formal EFL Statement yet. The closest that we have come was reference to "Constructive talks" and similar, and then on the EFL site it still refers to a Breach of Profit and Sustainability Regulations.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 01/09/2021 at 14:29, Monkeh said:

Again you are wrong, the efl forced it on Southampton as they tried to put their parent company (the one who owned the ground) into administration in order to avoid a points deduction,

Derby is still going through the processes expect a points deduction once the accounts have been reviewed

Hope so they been screwing the system for ages morris thold chairman knows all the tricks .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Small update on Reading, contained within the below article.

https://www.getreading.co.uk/sport/football/transfer-news/reading-fc-sign-free-agents-21479251

They basically cannot but more interesting is that it suggests that their situation is very complicated.

1) Did they 'sell' the freshly built training ground ahead of 30th June 2021?

2) Agreement in place but not complete until post year end? Although Sheffield Wednesday weren't allowed to backdate. Besides which Fixed Asset profits are excluded from FFP.

3) Are they trying to classify the new Training Ground as an Investment Property to try and get round it?

4)Are they attempting to backdate the profit on Olise? Can't include it twice though and would leave a probable hole this year!!

5) They mentioned financial info in their statement. Could they be refusing to release the 2021 numbers to the EFL now and telling them to wait for CH release? Though this goes against several past cases and precedents set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should also add on this- I wonder if the complex issue could be what was discussed on here before between me and @downendcity

I think they've breached to 2021 in any event but wonder if the issue that is apparently highly complex could be tied to the Profit on disposal from club to new top company (Reading to Renhe in 2017/18 followed by the big disposal in 2018/19.

Quite rightly the EFL could be arguing that Reading cannot include both in their calculations, while I expect the Clubs argument might be along the lines of:

1) You said nothing in 2018 and 2019 about the issue.

2) In 2017/18 we were using the club Accounts for FFP whereas thereafter it is of course the consolidated.

3) Therefore both profits are applicable for inclusion within FFP.

4) We won't agree to any kind of punitive punishment as a result.

A cynical person or sceptical one at least might wonder if they were just giving the impression of constructive talks to the EFL in order to buy time in able to add a few players? False hope, false pretences basically!

It's having cake and eating it to an absurd level...

Club-Consolidated-Consolidated

Because in 2017/18 it went to the Parent/Consolidated a Profit would only appear in the Club ones.

Whereas only the Profit on Property directly owned by the Club would appear in their Accounts for 2018/19.

Whereas any Profit on the 2nd Stadium Sale and Leaseback goes in Renhe Sports Management in 2018/19. There might be one other differentials too, possibly land around the Stadium the other ie owned by Company X included within Renhe but not Club.

What do you both think too@Davefevs @Hxj the Reading situation is a real mystery isn't it.

Edited by Mr Popodopolous
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

Should also add on this- I wonder if the complex issue could be what was discussed on here before between me and @downendcity

I think they've breached to 2021 in any event but wonder if the issue that is apparently highly complex could be tied to the Profit on disposal from club to new top company (Reading to Renhe in 2017/18 followed by the big disposal in 2018/19.

Quite rightly the EFL could be arguing that Reading cannot include both in their calculations, while I expect the Clubs argument might be along the lines of:

1) You said nothing in 2018 and 2019 about the issue.

2) In 2017/18 we were using the club Accounts for FFP whereas thereafter it is of course the consolidated.

3) Therefore both profits are applicable for inclusion within FFP.

4) We won't agree to any kind of punitive punishment as a result.

A cynical person or sceptical one at least might wonder if they were just giving the impression of constructive talks to the EFL in order to buy time in able to add a few players? False hope, false pretences basically!

It's having cake and eating it to an absurd level...

Club-Consolidated-Consolidated

Because in 2017/18 it went to the Parent/Consolidated a Profit would only appear in the Club ones.

Whereas only the Profit on Property directly owned by the Club would appear in their Accounts for 2018/19.

Whereas any Profit on the 2nd Stadium Sale and Leaseback goes in Renhe Sports Management in 2018/19. There might be one other differentials too, possibly land around the Stadium the other ie owned by Company X included within Renhe but not Club.

What do you both think too@Davefevs @Hxj the Reading situation is a real mystery isn't it.

Perhaps, when Reading "sold" their stadium to another of their owner's other companies, they included a "sell on" clause similar to those included in player sales, so that they benefit from the profit on future sales of the stadium. 

:)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Hxj said:

I do enjoy a good conspiracy theory - but www.dcfcfans.co.uk is much better for this!

As I have said before and I will keep saying, nothing with regards to the EFL treatment of Reading concerns me at this time.

A good conspiracy theory can be fun.

I'll defer on this but the local paper article did suggest some issues that were really complex. I'm speculating as to what they could be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'll defer on this but the local paper article did suggest some issues that were really complex

They did - but remember Reading are on a transfer embargo for a 'Breach of Profit and Sustainability Rules' - nothing more complex or sophisticated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hxj said:

They did - but remember Reading are on a transfer embargo for a 'Breach of Profit and Sustainability Rules' - nothing more complex or sophisticated.

I have a slight worry they won't be charged or reach a Points Settlement. Here is why.

The article referred to 'EFL ensuring not repeating past mistakes' or something like that. Sounds plausible at least that they might be working with Reading as opposed to pursuing charges or a deduction.

I hope I'm wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not how I see it at all.

As I understand it SWFC, in particular, and DCFC were huge culture shocks to the EFL.  In effect they lost control of the process.  Activists were better at accessing the public information records than they were, clubs were going out of their way to mislead the EFL etc etc.

It is only going one way forward.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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