1 minute ago, downendcity said:

They knew the rules and penalties, so should expect the appropriate punishment, but whoever was first to be hit was always going to make a fuss when points penalties were handed out.

The "worrying" comment in the article, is that Brum's penalties is an initial 6 point deduction, increased to 12 for an aggravated breach. It says that this will set a precedent for the smaller points penalty, which will be used as the standard for similar punishment in the future. In Brum's case the aggravation was because they were already subject to a transfer embargo and working to a plan agreed with the EFL to bring their finances into line with the sustainability criteria, that they spent double their income on wages last year is what caused the aggravated charge.

 However, if a club decides to go all out for promotion, overspends like mad on top players, busts the ffp limits by millions but when assessed has a 10 point lead at the top of the table, the 6 point deduction ( established by this precedent) will only penalise them slightly in the greater scheme of things. I would have thought/hoped that each case would be judged on it's merits, so the points penalty could reflect the scale of beach and the benefit the club gained by breaching.

 Nonetheless, it is hopefully a good sign that the EFL is prepared to apply a points deduction, which could make a huge difference to clubs that   throw financial caution to the wind in an attempt to buy promotion to the prem. 

  

Yeah, agree- it hopefully will set a precedent in that the bigger the loss/flouting, the bigger the advantage gained- the bigger the penalty.

Fully agree, they knew the rules and therefore have to take their medicine. EFL have to get this right, it sets a precedent moving forward...

The good news on that is their own rules or interpretations on websites of these, say that the EFL say nothing is off the table and they can set punishments as they deem fit- in theory at least it means the idea of demotion from top 2 to playoffs or if a bigger breach still. top 2 to 7th say can still happen and indeed top 6 to outside playoffs. Would say that 12 points would be fairer and a bigger deterrent but 

The grey area here though- and in legal terms it perhaps makes sense- is the switching from 3 year to 1 year assessment periods once a side has been punished for the duration i.e. Birmingham's increased losses in 16/17 won't count against them this year and their huge losses last year won't count against them this or next season...if it's true I don't know but Al Majir who writes about Birmingham finances seems pretty clued up so who knows.

Their 6 month results from their parent company in Hong Kong will be instructive as to whether they will be breaching it this season as well, even on the one year ruling- I'll keep an eye out for BSH Holdings.

QPR- the first big offenders who received a punishment under the old rules have released their financial results for last season...

The £20m exceptional item I assume is one aspect of their fine you can strip from the losses but- and even this is with parachute payments...they'll need to cut deep and fast next year unless they fluke a promotion to PL via playoffs this season. They have been offloading high earners this summer though which will help and the sacking of Holloway will have created a non-recurring cost.

Forgot to add in that post @Davefevs, @chinapig and @downendcity you may all be interested in the above.

18 minutes ago, archie andrews said:

 see you next Tuesday ring any bells?...…..

That is decent, workaround of the swear filter that!

Birmingham believe they are being singled out...to which I say don't through incompetence or arrogance, breach the rules by this much in such a short space of time.

https://www.skysports.com/football/news/11694/11636412/birmingham-unhappy-at-being-singled-out-by-efl-with-potential-12-point-deduction

Another piece of FFP news I read relating to Birmingham- and whether it will prove to be true time will tell, but this is something along the lines of what I said about enforcement and rolling punishments or otherwise.

The interesting twist in the tail is that once they have been punished for their 3 year breach, from here on in well the next couple of seasons i.e. this and next, they will only be assessed on single season results- i.e. £13m loss limits, so they are not punished again for their 2016/17 figures and especially these ones. Unsure what to make of that...

My reading of that basically is that instead of looking at £37m loss and loss in 16/17 and adding it to 18/19 say, then it'll be struck from the record and only in 2018/19 if they broke the rules of £13m will they be punished again and even more so for the cycle from 2017/18-2018/19, that huge loss last season and any this year provided they are compliant of £13m or less won't be counted.

3 minutes ago, hodge said:

Is it a strong WI team though? We read the first pitch wrong, they had the better conditions in the second and in general for the first 2 we were just shit...

Perhaps strong a bit premature but improving definitely. Stronger in home conditions maybe.

Looks like a consolation win on the cards, unless weather intervenes.

Putting aside undoubted disappointment about the defeat- a strong WI side good for Test cricket. Wonder if this is start of a revival for them there- I remember when we collapsed at Sabina Park in 2009, there were some very flat pitches after that one- this time? There were not. Seemed a bit braver in their approach.

On a tactical note, we finally got it right- first day we saw off the new ball, we dropped anchor for a while and went back to basics.  Test cricket- to take nothing away from WI, we were quite flashy and well overly attacking at times in the first 2 games, can't do that out here on their pitches that seem livelier than a few years ago.

Sheffield United results are in.

Lost £1,894,507 last season...they could have gone nuts this season in the transfer market if they wanted- could have hit Birmingham (well, Redknapp) levels of profligacy.  Given Brooks was sold for big cash and Leonard and Evans both yielded a profit then their losses this season shouldn't be huge either despite high profile signings.

6 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

Think Fam was pretty fired up in the away game....should be the same for the home game too.

So long as he channels it right, don't want him giving away sloppy fouls or trying too hard and say giving the ball away in dangerous positions- or worse still needless bookings/red cards!

6 hours ago, Red Right Hand said:

I just hope they don`t deduct them points the day before we play them. They`d be so fired  up.

Would be typical!

6 hours ago, Davefevs said:

Fam will be spitting if they do....or is it sweat?

Oh I forgot about that...let us hope Messrs Dean and Davis get the welcome and subsequently through the game, the reception (i.e. booing every time they touch the ball) that kinda thing!

It could be referencing the Mark Clemmit points deduction scoop but then again this guy seems pretty clued up on FFP and especially with Birmingham- it forms a thread but the first post the key one.

4 hours ago, Bristol Rob said:

If memory serves, Spurs made a bid, but it was about fifteen million short of their valuation.

Still turned down a legitimate bid for a saleable asset when breaching FFP that could have helped resolve it- perhaps classed as an aggravated breach.

Where it may diverge is that Birmingham were IIRC working under an EFL business plan- maybe still are- and so far as I can see, Aston Villa are not at this time and perhaps were not then, so harder to enforce in that instance.

1 hour ago, Davefevs said:

Isn’t there a possibility that they could also give a points deduction to next season too?

That'd be the aggravated breach- 9 points if proven according to that Times piece. In addition to any deduction this season.

I doubl Birmingham will be free of FFP issues in fact until 2020/21 at the earliest, so it's never been tested fully but in theory I suppose they would be open to rolling punishments until it is cleared. Whether that happens in practice is a different matter.

15 minutes ago, CotswoldRed said:

Get the feeling it's a decision that suits everyone. Brum won't be going up or down. Easy way out sanction. 

If they were in or near the relegation zone I don't think such a sanction would be imposed. Football authorities are very weak. 

A relegation would be punishment. 

A 12-15 point deduction could see them slide into the mire tbh.

@chinapig @Davefevs Punishment would fit the crime well and truly- great news eh!

12 minutes ago, ScottishRed said:

The next few weeks could get hugely interesting. Reading the article from The Times further up in this thread it is mooted that one of the reasons Brum kept hold of Che Adams was because they believe a potential points deduction this season could put them into a relegation fight! and was worth the risk of aggravated breach!

So, if true, Brum see a points deduction as a real threat.

Villa, on the other hand, seem to be carrying on regardless - are they maybe not in breach? Or, at least dont think they are?

Interesting times.

 

Yeah, that figures- they can always sell Adams in the summer I suppose, and goals of Adams get them over the line.

In terms of a points deduction, 12-15 points I believe is the most quoted figure. If it came to pass, that would definitely put them in amongst the relegation scrap- I think they would have enough to survive but they would be down there at the very least on the edges of it.

Aston Villa...it's an interesting one. From 2015/16 i.e. their last season in the PL to last season, I don't believe they breached. Narrow margins probably but still alright. However the crunch of £22m knocked off allowable losses (in PL you can lose £35m per season, in Championship it's £13m- total falls from £61m to £39m max losses plus academy expenditure etc) combined with their parachute payments dropping from £33m to £15m this year- that's £40m minus any surplus they had in 3 year FFP- say they still had £5m left to play with, then it's a shortfall of £35m additional income they needed to find from last season to this. However they can spend because they aren't technically in breach until March. That said come March, their breach will surely be very large and they need to be made an example of.

Definitely interesting times.

3 minutes ago, downendcity said:

 

I think most are now aware that the new rules allow a points penalty to be applied for clubs that breach and that this can be used to deny a club promotion. A few , including me, have indicated that it needs big club like villa to be hit this way if FFP is to really work going forward, on the assumption that Villa will finish in the promotion/play off places.

It might be ironic if Villa do fall foul of FFP but are well out of the play off picture. If that were the case, would then a big fine plus a transfer embargo hit them harder?

 

Could a points penalty be applied to Aston Villa next year perhaps?

Because chances are that if they were in breach for the 3 years to this season, they will be in breach for the 3 years to next season. Perhaps by more as this is the 3rd and final year of parachute payments.

Aggravated breach- keeping Chester and Grealish when they were bids for them seemingly? If Birmingham get punished on that, then so can Aston Villa possibly.

Fine. Maybe, maybe not- how would it be calculated with regards FFP? If it didn't count towards their FFP figure then it's questionable. Embargo though? Should already be in one IMO.

10 hours ago, ScottishRed said:

IF this happens it could be the defining moment for FFP in English football.

Somwhow I suspect it won’t be a points deduction punishment.

I also believe that Villa, who must also have issues, have spent in Jan comfortable in the knowledge that any punishment will be financial.

Otherwise their actions are bizarre.

There's no doubt it's a watershed moment.

Birmingham get docked a healthy number of points, plus embargoed and maybe fined? Big precedent. Lots of clubs should be wary moving forward...

@1960maaan That was under the old rules. This aforementioned Birmingham case, is the first serious test case under the old rules...if they don't get a points deduction, or a long term embargo at bare minimum- but really it should be points plus couple of windows embargo- we may as well scrap the whole thing.

Wigan's results are out.

Not quite sure how they did it but they had a pretty low loss last season despite the parachute payments ending, the solidarity payments being lower in League One as well as the TV cash down there also being lower and a reduced profit on transfers...so they're nowhere near FFP basically. Income fell by 73.38% and yet loss was as below- not so much.

Loss last year? £7,668,613 from a profit of £4.256,253 the prior season. It's all pretty much in the accounts on their site but still struggle to see how they balanced that and their losses were not bigger. Nowhere near FFP basically.

If this is true...it sets a huge precedent. Will affect Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday right now or should and quite a few clubs down the line. £7m seems a bit low too, £11m the most widely quoted overspend.

I think for a start they need to sell Adams and Jota quite a creator so he can also either get a big fee or wages and a good loan fee by another club.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/birmingham-city-could-face-new-charge-over-che-adams-xtd0dbnd8

Quote

 

Birmingham City could face new charge over Che Adams

matt hughes, sports news correspondent

Share

Save

Birmingham City’s decision to reject several bids for the striker Che Adams this week could lead to a second charge of committing an “aggravated breach” of the EFL’s profit and sustainability rules, which would trigger a second points deduction in as many seasons.

The Sky Bet Championship club are already facing being docked up to 15 points this season as a sanction for missing the EFL’s spending limits by £7 million over the three seasons from 2015 to 2018, with an independent disciplinary commission due to rule on the case this month. This has led to fears that the team, who are 12th in the table, 16 points off the bottom three, could be dragged into a relegation battle. Ironically, such concerns influenced their reasoning in rejecting offers from Burnley and Southampton for Adams, who has scored 15 league goals this season.

This may have been a serious miscalculation, however, as the club club need to raise considerable funds and/or make significant savings by the end of the season in order to comply with the EFL’s rules, with a failure to do so raising the prospect of a double punishment.

If it is proved that they rejected formal bids for Adams during the relevant accounting period — there have been reports of four offers of up to £12 million for the 22-year-old — the EFL may deem it to be an aggravated breach for deliberately ignoring the profit and sustainability rules, which could trigger an additional nine-point deduction, which would be applied next season.

Birmingham are contesting an aggravated breach charge for their signing last summer of the former Denmark Under-21 international Kristian Pedersen despite being under a transfer embargo.

 

Really hope Aston Villa get punished the worst- they seem to not even be paying lip service.

This January- just taken a look- they have:

• Brought Kalinic for £5.4m (a Croatia international keeper).
• Brought Guilbert for £4.5m from Ligue 1.
• Loaned in Mings, Hause and Tom Carroll.
• Kept Abraham.

Yes, they cancelled Moreira (half-season loan), Bolasie (half-season loan), loaned out Bree, Guilbert, Hogan (half season loans) and McCormack (went to one club, and then another) but their 3 year breach must be approaching huge levels.

@BTRFTG Will address your points fully later. To say on it briefly though it still seems a bit of a work in progress.

Quick update.

Birmingham surely now for the high jump. Selling Che Adams could have alleviated their 3 year loss quite a bit- 12 pts + 3 pts for an aggravated offence had been mooted? Would seem quite fair.

Aston Villa have made some cuts but I think a drop in the ocean set against their losses. Hope they're likewise going to get what they deserve this or next season. 15 points fair?

Sheffield Wednesday had a £15m hole apparently in the 3 seasons from 2015/16 to last season. They've hardly made swingeing cuts though they're in a bit or a better place than the other 2. Again a points deduction next season maybe?

Stoke if they don't go up this year, may have some issues next.

36 minutes ago, BTRFTG said:

The finances are all very interesting but does anybody know, real world, what the actual sanctions are for breaching FFP? There was talk of a fixed levy taken from TV monies but I'm not sure this has ever been sanctioned (why further push a club into debt if it risks their existence?) I know there have been a few transfer embargoes but are they that stringent? Seem to recall a few clubs who were constrained managing to take in players on loan if it was an emergency, they were over 6ft, bald or any other get-out they could summon up.

I believe it has been a work in progress but now they're getting somewhere.

They should have thought ahead really, the EFL etc- but then they are the EFL so what do you expect? Initially the punishment was pisspoor- a fine if you got promoted under the old rules and then you had to if you were the EFL fight for it and it got redistributed amongst the rest of the clubs. If you stayed down, a transfer embargo. Point is that was clearly inadequate.

The new 3 year rolling rules that began in 2015/16 mean that if you breach it you can get a points deduction for example, perhaps even get demoted from top 2 to top 6 or top 6 to out of playoffs.

In terms of transfer embargoes- they are pretty strict. Well Bolton's was anyway in 16/17 to last season. Birmingham's seems a bit too light but where they went wrong was signing a left back called Pedersen on a permanent deal when under embargo- that really pissed off the EFL and other clubs. They are the first big test case of this- hearing in February as they have put a horse and cart through the rules. Talk of up to a 15 point deduction for them, that is in this case 12 for the initial offence and 3 points for an aggravated breach (the aggravated breach as in signing Pedersen when they were under embargo).

Now the embargoes. They tend to mean the following:

• You cannot spend money on a player in the form of a transfer fee.
• You cannot pay an agents fee.
• You cannot pay a loan fee.
• You cannot register a player over a specified maximum wage (in Birmingham's case, it is possibly £10,000 per week).

This appears to be a soft embargo. A hard/full embargo means you cannot register players full stop.

At the same time, as well as punishment, the EFL don't want to cripple clubs or **** them over basically.

Bolton's was very strict at times- imagine being a Championship club unable to sign players on more than £4,500 per week! 

https://bolton.vitalfootball.co.uk/bolton-embargo-goalposts-moved/

This year will be the big test though- this is the first full 3 year cycle where you can argue discount a year for reasonable adjustment because rules changed from £5m loss in a season to sudden 3 year rolling (2015/16) and 2016/17-end of this season. Well a lot of clubs have surely flouted it to varying degrees. Birmingham's hearing in February will be very telling and should set a big precedent moving forward.

Accounts for this season, plus the prior 2 seasons will be assessed in March 2019.  EFL have all this info (ahead of Companies House in quite a few cases). Think full accounts for last season had to be submitted in December and accounts projected for this season by the clubs submitted in March 2019.

I'll have a go!

Purely focusing on us here and not the context, the rules the regs etc- we as with all regular Championship clubs can lose £39m over 3 seasons. We have fallen below this happily in the accounts between 2015/16 to last season, once the allowable costs- namely Infrastructure Expenditure, Youth Expenditure, Community Expenditure and Women's football expenditure all factored in.

BCFC Holdings Losses by season- before allowable expenditure:

• 2015/16- £14,798,070- Minus allowable expenditure of £2.7m.
• 2016/17- £6,346,035- Minus allowable expenditure of £4.5m.
• 2017/18- £25,164,281- Minus allowable expenditure of £4.7m

Total losses- £46,299,386- Minus allowable losses of £11.9m.

Total FFP adjusted losses therefore appear to be £34,399,386.

This is good because it means that 2015/16 losses are removed from the record and the starting point is therefore 2016/17 and that is before even taking into account the sales and cost reductions of this summer i.e. Hegeler, O'Neil, Steele all off the wage bill even though we got no fee.

Our current FFP position therefore would be based on the last 2 seasons and before taking into account this season, 2 year FFP losses of £22,310,316 which means we can lose if we wish up to £16.69m roughly this season in FFP terms (that's before the allowable expenditure).

I'm hoping after the big sales and some of the aforementioned players who departed without a fee but less wages that we may break even this season. If we break even this year and our allowable costs are say £4m, that would be a profit in FFP terms this season of £4m which would take our overall FFP losses for this and last season down to £16,464,281. Which would mean a good roll of the dice possible in 2019/20- by which I mean only sell if we want to and add some decent assets- not go nuts but add our decent assets.

If we are still at this level in 2020/21 and didn't  go on a wasteful spending spree next season or this January- sort of just spending because it's there- then we could have a big war chest in 2020/21, good scope to gamble if we wished.

As a little end note, not knocking the board or anything but last season had there been a guarantee it would have got us over the line, we could seemingly have added another £4.5m to the expenditure if other allowance based figures are broadly right- that's not on a fee that's total of wages, fee, signing on fee etc but we could have. The trade off would probably have been bigger cutbacks this season had the gamble not paid off and we may have been hamstrung moving forward for a year or 2.

Forgot to add- Transfer income or revenue gained by sell on fees offset operating losses. Quite important!

Adjusted Loss excluding Profit on Transfers or Sell on fee Revenue:

• 2015/16- £14,434,719 (Profit on disposal of Player Contracts £81,358). Other financial items took our overall losses to what they were which was £14,798,070..
• 2016/17- £18,515,320 (Profit on disposal of Player Contracts £13,603,739).  Other financial items took our overall losses to what they were of £6,346,035.
• 2017/18- £25,165,335 (Profit on disposal of Player Contracts £296,625). Other items took the losses to what they were of £25,164,281.

Basically our operating loss averaged out as it appears on the accounts is £19.37m per season. FFP exclusions over the 3 years appear to average a shade under £4m so we need an average of £2.37m per season of Profit on disposal of Player Contracts or a reduced wage bill or other expenditure by similar margins just to stay within FFP. This summer though should provide a huge boost moving forward.

Reduced amortisation also helps with this overall improvement in financial position- because I believe when a player is sold, their amortisation is therefore off the books. Same when they leave as a free agent. (That goes for Djuric, Hegeler, Magnússon, Engvall- but not Reid or Bryan as the latter were academy so zero amortisation cost. Flint kept renewing so there maybe some there too).

Not City or even Championship related, but I saw this online- here is a club I never assumed would slip into possible FFP issues- if indeed these projected accounts for last season (accounts overdue) but particularly moving forward for them, this and next, in the right ballpark.

RIP Emiliano Sala and David Ibbotson.