Rob26

https://www.efl.com/news/2023/april/efl-statement-peterborough-united so is this a suspended punishment which requires an additional breach to be activated, or are they saying they are docked 3 points in december?, the first option makes more sense to me

I tend to think that they won't be as lucky as they were with the club transfer fee with the loss of earnings claim from the player, as them things are setup to protect players more than protect clubs from players (I am assuming, like tribunals are) at least with the transfer fee they had the angle that both clubs agreed to release his registration, so they lost a transfer fee they could have got by keeping him on the books. and the reduction in fee, that seems in line with what they would expect to get if they sold him after he flopped (or recovered through loans for 5 years) with the player its a direct loss of earnings on a contract which must of been signed, the first claim kinda cements this one I feel.

maybe but think they plenty of vultures in this sport for them 10% + short term loans

imagine thinking your clever and that you can set precedent and dodge a transfer, and as a result you effectively flush 40m down the drain plus legal costs spent :laugh:, when if they bit the bullet they may have only flushed 25m down the toilet if sold him or loaned him out :laugh: I really don't get why they thought they would win this one, if they did, then imagine how many other clubs would have been pulling the same get out clause, I think it was always doomed to fail just to avoid that house of cards falling down for everyone else during a time of covid where people were already down money wise

must be over the contract I reckon, as I think it must of been a contract that was agreed if he signed for them, so the ruling means they have to pay the contract, but saying they have to pay 25m out is the click bait way of describing it for the news sites, I think it probs get cut down on appeal if the transfer fee did tho, but the sum is similar to the transfer fee so make only come down by 8 or so mil, but then maybe not as I think these forms of arbitration may favour players more than clubs, epically when they are using a technicality in a force majeure situation of covid to try and rob a player of the best contract of his life. If I was leeds what I would argue is what ever wages he has got in that five year period that he should be under contract with leeds should come from his settlement, as really he should still be under contract and they have lost the chance to sell the player on too, or loan him out and recover some wages etc. that's fair in my mind, as he is getting his contract and also a free transfer, but then that is down to how leeds tried to get out of this deal in the first place. I think that principle is part of our law so may well of been taken into account in the 25m tho already :laugh:

you not think he will just refinance it then problem solved?

i hate leeds, but their attempt at a get out on that transfer was laughable saying the deadline for promotion had been passed by the season getting extended :laugh:, worth a try I suppose, but think of the knock on effect it would of had on every other players contract and transfer that had end of season date based clauses when the season was extended due to covid, loads of claims would of no doubt followed it with clubs wanting to reverse it. Guess the lesson learnt is not to loan players with obligations to buy unless you definitely want to buy them. 40m down the drain, and I think at least 30m if the appeal is some what successful :laugh: and the player got a free transfer due to them trying to get out the deal, so they didn't even have any scope to pull back several millions with a sale to someone else :laugh:, imagine making bank from a free transfer and then getting a 25m contract paid out in full to you also :laugh:

I don't think its broken, they are just owners who choose to run at a loss, a few clubs have shown you can make money, but its hard work and means you are not going to be competitive for the champions league places, bar the odd over performing exception once in a while. Lets face it alot of the billionaires who buy clubs do not have the skills, experience or patience to do it the slow burn way that the success stories from our league have had. but if this is to change the goverment or sport need to control everyone's spending and force them to come close to breaking even, I would personally over 10 years or more slowly roll back the amount all clubs are allowed to lose. some of these owners its pocket money to lose £100-200m a year, the governments missing a trick not letting them donate their money into our sport and country as long as the clubs debt or liabilities are not increased. I always feel they should be a mechanism that can be used for owners to buy players and put money in an account to cover any wages etc so these purchases can be excluded from FFP, and lets face it they are plenty of billionaires who would rather do this than put lawyers on the case looking for FFP loopholes what put them at risk if they turn out not to be loop holes and punishments are taken by the team and their fans also, and more money put into our game must be for the better for all the clubs as it trickles down, just put rules in place to push everyone to solvency as a whole, a bit closer every year so in 10 or 20 years time clubs are not losing money any more due to over spending

get rid of parachute payments, give a payment for going up, its meant so clubs can compete with the premier league, not to make the EFL uncompetitive. every relegated club currently gets around £94m over 3 years, give them 40m+ promotion bonus and no further payments if relegated etc. they could also have a increased spending allowed via cash donations (not loans) for owners who want to invest to level up. This would save over the 3 years £162m across the 3nr clubs relegated each season (if they did not get promoted) the premier league could actually make it an obligation that all clubs need to have a set wage drop clause included in the contract on relegation. I think its a responsible clause clubs should be putting in contracts anyways, this takes away the need for parachute payments, as if owe money for transfer fees they can sell players and not a big issue if all clubs need these clauses. any player who wants no part of this who is too big will no doubt insist on a relegation release clause for a set transfer fee so they are not stuck on the lower wage. make the rest of the league get more money by giving the league positions more money in the championship and below and then spread the rest of the premier league parachute payments out through the league to boost it further. If you do not make it a promotion bonus then savings from parachute payments should be passed on back into the league to be evenly distributed. So if a team goes down and goes back up first attempt like Burnley then they have been paid £44m, but there is savings on the follow on £50m that could be spread around the league. That's a nice surplus that someone must be keeping hold of. you could do that within a seasons notice for promoted teams, and for teams getting relegated already in the premier league you could allow them to have the parachute payments open to them only for 3-5 years (based on how long their contracts are they have liabilities on that the parachute payments were meant to protect I think 3 to 5 years covers this). https://www.removepaywall.com/article/current read for free

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65103808 Peterborough United: Ground owners go into receivership over £6.6m debt

https://fanbanter.co.uk/chaos-at-wigan-as-players-speak-out-go-on-strike-fixture-at-risk-and-owners-lies-slammed/ not good :laugh:

mad how they allow it in them leagues but not the championship, should be allowed across all of football i think, but has to be donations only with no liabilities to the clubs,

https://www.htafc.com/news/2023/march/club-statement-ownership/ huddersfield avoid administration

I also think there should be some way owners can pump in unlimited money of their personal cash into a club and this boosts their FFP, but does not add to any debt the club owes. like maybe you have to pump it into a special account monitored by the league, buy a player for 20m, with 5m of wages liability, but only got 5m left of your FFP budget for example, then you need to place 20m in this account that you cannot touch until the final costs for the player have occurred. So when you sell the player you can get back what you haven't spent and a refund of any transfer fee paid that is recovered through the sale, or you simply let the club have the revenue to boost FFP too but have to write it off. I'm sure could be simplified, but would like to see a way people can invest massive amounts into clubs so the clubs benefit and that will trickle down to everyone else too on future deals, but also need to make sure if they do allow it that no liabilities are placed on the club for any of these deals that take clubs out of FFP. The payments for the players can come direct from this bank account automatically, and to release money back from the pot to the owner they would need to get it authorised from the league. I think it would result in a massive amount of money coming in for clubs too, but if you allow it you have to make sure the club stays solvent and benefits from the purchases as a donation rather than increasing the clubs liabilities which if the owners have losses on their outside businesses or grow bored and don't want to put any more money in causes massive cashflow squeezes that can place clubs in situations where they have to be sold or go into administration. Having that money on the books to cover anything over FFP would make them more attractive purchases to the vultures looking to take over. Sure a better system could be made, but they are billions off the books at some of the massive clubs that I think the owners do want to put in. I would let them put it in but place them under more intensive scrutiny and pay everything up front where they cannot get that money back unless the spend is not realised.

I think the way FFP is for all leagues there should be slowly rolling back the allowed losses so every club eventually has to break even, even if it was just half a million a season for the championship for the first few years then up it to a million a year allowance removed, it would give everyone time to move to a system where it forces the clubs to be fully sustainable on their own. or at least make it so clubs lose a lot less, if that means some extra money needs to be handed down the leagues then I think that should be the case. doubt they will do it but feel like its the right thing to do, and does not have to be put on everyone quickly, do it over the long term so clubs can adjust to their spending. would be bad for us, but think we would eventually get there.

makes no sense to me and think the have come out since I originally posted that and said its wide of the mark, I think may be click bait reporting more than anything, as think its a bit of a leap going from cutting costs (which I imagine is par for the course with their situation to manage cash flow) to going into administration. for the cost of a couple million your risking devaluing the club by say tens of millions if dont go up due to your own fault, so not sure why you would risk that at all. at least you would just loan some money till next season or longer and leave the debt for the next owner to take over. not convinced their take over is happening, its dragging on and the owner does not come across as 100% credible. but would think someone else be interested with them almost being in the premier league

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-11873261/Sheffield-United-introduce-extraordinary-cost-cutting-measures-avoid-going-administration.html

https://www.footballinsider247.com/huddersfield-town-administration-update-as-takeover-talks-go-on-sources/

yeah I don't think they going to get the transfer reversed, but the insurance pay out is an interesting one, but hard to see what the terms of their insurance were to be if they were covered without notifying them or not. bet they inform the insurance of a new player the minute the ink is dry on the contracts now though :laugh: I do tend to think with them not informing the insurer of the new player how they expect to get paid out, but need to see the terms and conditions of the insurance how fast they need to inform them when a player signs to be in breach of the insurance conditions. but if says they need to inform them in a non specific amount of time and then they informed them when he went missing, that is potentially a little bit of a grey area, but think a case can be made that no one is insured until they are notified about them, epically if other documents or correspondence says no one is insured until they are added to the policy. I think if I was betting I'd back the insurance company, enough years has passed and if they had a case you think insurance under writers would have settled by now to keep costs down

is that the claim against the insurers where they are trying to get a payout for sala but never told informed them of the purchase before the death so they argue he is not covered?

boro fan here, found your site by googling about FFP and just signed up to say this is an amazing topic with loads great information and discussion about FFP, really interesting stuff you got here I'm glad the EFL seem to have ramped things up a bit more since the last rule squeeze keep up the good work