Date: 3rd June 2019 at 7:00am
Written by:

With Aston Villa securing their return to the Premier League following our successful Championship Play-Off Final victory over Derby County last Monday, this week has again seen the media harp on about Financial Fair Play and the various speculative punishments we may face.

We all knew we were close to the line given the spending in the last three seasons, but despite the ‘we’re doomed’ approach of the red tops last summer, the safer money was on if we had breached – it was probably only by a small amount so the prospect of a points deduction was always an extreme outlook.

Having already provided the EFL with our provisional figures for the 2018/19 campaign everything went quiet for a bit until Steve Gibson shot his load towards the end of the campaign as Middlesbrough missed out on promotion and his wibbling seems to show no sign of abating.

Villa will be a target for his ire as well given our recent off pitch steps in May.

Cheers, Steve Gibson Is Crying Again – Major Changes Behind The Scenes At Aston Villa

It certainly seems like we are prepared to do the Stadium shenanigans to solve our final FFP figures and that decision may tell us a lot. Given our promotion to the Premier League I initially expected we wouldn’t, and that the steps taken were a fall back if we failed to get promoted. But if we do, it’ll be done for a reason and it’s perfectly within the rules, regardless of what some chairman feel.

With the likes of the Daily Mail and Talksport banging on again last week about a points deduction it’s understandable as to why plenty of fans were concerned.

The EFL had already announced, either prior to or just after their QPR success and precedent that the rules were now aligned between the Premier League and the EFL so promotion was no longer an escape to punishment – and that is ultimately what the wibbling in the recent reports leant on.

That’s not quite the case, as although I assumed it meant full punishment was backed, it appears the actual regulations pertaining to promotion are strictly limited to enforcing a fine – with thanks to Dave J (Yorkshire AVFC).

A points deduction, even as a request (if one can even be made) does not seem to be on the cards in the actual regulations. The only way a sanction can now get that high when attaining promotion is via a default to ‘pay the fine’ scenario akin to punishment for administration etc where the Premier League have to make a stand.

Quite a lively oversight in my humble and having worked so hard to get their punishment precedent and get the Birmingham points deduction on the cards, oh, the EFL will be kicking themselves.

Shame that really.

I’m not sure if it ever truly became a hashtag, but ‘pay the fine’ was closer to reality than we thought!

For those wanting the specifics with Birmingham – I believe they were known to have breached in 2017/18 so the provisional 2018/19 figures for me were required pre-punishment purely to establish how much of a breach had taken place. We clearly, on that score, didn’t breach in 2017/18 or we’d have also been hit with a points deduction – so with promotion secured, whatever our 2018/19 numbers say it’s totally irrelevant on that front.

The EFL’s threat of denying promotion seems to only exist if you breach the regulations 12 months ahead of gaining promotion – which is nice.

Can I say I’m right 100%, no.

But I’m not reading it any other way having now changed my earlier assumptions about their ‘agreement’.

Maybe some in the media can actually take a proper look at things instead of just going with clickbait nonsense as they regurgitate worst-case scenario’s that don’t actually appear to exist?

Our Scottish Cafu Appears To Send His Villa Goodbyes – He Bombs Out On His Own Terms

Click for the forum

12 Replies to “We’re Aston Villa, We’ll Just Pay The FFPing Fine But It Would Be Nice If The Media Did Their Job & Investigated”

  • No offence, but as a fan of a club who has been complied you should be docked points if you have breached and you should be under a soft embargo too.

    However that won’t my Plan B as to what SHOULD happen is there should be a punishment waiting for you…doesn’t matter if it is 1 year or 10 years, clubs going up should be in no doubt that the EFL will punish and punish hard when they return.

    Based on the formula used to punish Birmingham, somewhere between 11-21 points. That should be in place for whenever you return to EFL- if it isn’t enforced in PL that is.

    • It appears that’s not how it worked and we didn’t breach in 2017/18 (ala Blues) and our provisional figures for 2018/19 haven’t yet given rise to a pending fine either. If we have, it’ll be a fine.

      The whole punishment waiting scenario was exactly what the EFL worked hard to be rid of with QPR leading to Blues, and it’s exactly what the agreement with the Prem was supposed to take care of, in terms of the escape via promotion route, but they clearly didn’t think it through it seems.

      • Don’t see how you’ve passed personally- unless there is an exceptional item in the accounts which the EFL will not accept.

        If and when you return, the EFL could be well within rights to impose a penalty IF you have breached, provided the EPL provide none of course.

        They thought it through to a point, but then any organisation by Shaun Harvey you cannot trust…the problem is the EPL pay lip-service to FFP it would appear, not STCC but the standard FFP. If UEFA ban Man City it may focus minds.

        If the EFL had a serious case about you breaching then I think the points should have been docked in April- that was the whole point of projected accounts being submitted in March!

        Incidentally, your own expert Dave Jordan- who is an excellent read as it goes- thinks you’re £30m over in the 3 years until May 2019. My own view is it is £25m or so, anyway that number it’s worth a deduction between 11-21 points depending on intent to comply, aggravated breaches, a point off for admitting guilt etc as per the EFL sanctioning tariffs.

        Minimum of 12 points, possibly down to 11 and then the other 10 to be haggled over!

        What evidence have you to the contrary that EFL couldn’t apply a sanction? It’d be easy! Offer clubs a vote, and if you refuse it or go legal then EFL refuse you a golden share for when you return. I’d play real hardball if I had an influence.

        • Seems to hinge – given our own expectations of what the breach in total may be – on doing the stadium shenanigans, which are bizarelly within the rules. Can’t retrospectively act though, given the presumed agreement between Prem/EFL the sanction comes the following season, in Birmingham’s case for 2017/18 breach (2018/19 figures only confirmed size of breach). In our case we passed 2016/17/18 numbers, to our breach would come 2018/19, and the only punishment now available (following promotion) is a fine – and that draws the line on it. Once the fine is paid, that’s the punishment dealt with.

          That’s the bit I can’t believe they missed given all their work and wibbling. Yorkshire AVFC went through the regs again the other day and I changed some of my assumptions after a chat with him, now we’ve gained promotion they can only sanction a fine and the Prem would presumably treat them as a creditor akin to HMRC and only then, if we refused to pay the fine (think along the lines of administration), then and only then would any higher sanction direct from the Prem come into play.

          Prem nor EFL can vote in the manner you suggest, it could be done at the annual meeting but like all laws, they aren’t retrospective so would only apply for the coming season.

          The EFL are actually harsher than the Prem on FFP in fairness, which is why the punishment on promotion for breach in final year is such an oversight from them.

          Again though, we are back to the 12 month lag…so we don’t have a ‘breach’ issue until we come to March’s provisional figures for 2018/19, and they are still yet to be finalised and updated.

          • I don’t think it impossible that on a return to the EFL you could get a points deduction- ghold it in reserve. Given how late in the day the Stadium thing was, I can’t see the EFL passing it- Derby’s seems to have been done sooner, revalued sooner etc.

            The EFL are harsher, but not swift enough- I don’t have a huge amount of faith in them. I think if you have breached then either a points penalty 2019/20 in PL OR one waiting on return to Championship would be totally fair. I would say the same about any side who have escaped meaningful punishment in this respect- even my own.

            A fine can be useful but only if it counts towards FFP figures- I would say if you have overspent by £25-30m then a fitting fine would be whatever the overspend was- with obligations still to comply- i.e. £13m + £13m + £35m would be one possible solution- but it doesn’t appear to count towards FFP calculations so it is therefore laughable.

            If that is the way a club wants it, I would put on the table at an AGM a vote to refuse registration to the EFL on return to a club in that position. I don’t mess about- or either an EFL hearing to be accepted or said question mark over golden share on return. As far as I am concerned if clubs don’t want to abide by the letter and spirit of the laws, they can go- had QPR been seriously threatened with no golden share in summer 2015, then that would have prevented this situation.

            EFL rules actually have or had provision for in-season points deductions. Why they didn’t apply it is anyone’s guess! Again worries about legal action played a part I am sure, but if voted for by a clear majority in an emergency EFL meeting.

            At one stage, the EFL had provision to punish historic breaches. If that is still the case- unless the regulation itself now historic- then yes there would be scope to dock points on a return. I mean you are still purportedly under a soft embargo at this time- that may change once you’re officially confirmed in PL though, had you stayed down I think you would quite possibly have faced a hefty points penalty as it goes.

            • Whilst it’s plausible to have a delayed punishment, that isn’t what the EFL have gone for and it’s certainly not what they envisaged with their tie up with the Premier League. The driver here seems to have been (if it was an almighty oversight on their part) that they were more interested in removing the ability for clubs to delay the paying of the fine for a breach in a year they were promoted ala Leicester and Bournemouth? from memory. If not a cock up they weren’t interested in points punishment on ‘escape’. They just wanted the fine and the fine brings an end to the punishment.

              It also wouldn’t make sense logically, would the delayed punishment have a time limitation – 5/10/50 years? What about the legal aspects of punishing a club for a breach 50 yrs prior? You say and instant 12 month return, then you’re opening up unfairness purely on the basis of a Championship side has gained an advantage by breaching but escaping, and then sidestepping all punishment completely having had a leg up to survive in the Prem. Granted, I do think that would pass a member vote as plenty would think they would get lucky, but it only takes a club with clout to kick up a fuss, and then we’re back to limbo with a constant rewriting of the punishment rules every couple of years and it would be more chaos.

              As long as the stadium shenanigans are done this financial year, it’s within the rules, and as long as it’s within the good faith remit of linked deals and the commercial price paid that’s not outwith the bands of what a non-linked entity would’ve coughed up, the EFL cannot deny it.

              The Companies House paperwork for that deal only started coming through at the end of last month, so we’ve presumably already made our move and decisions, so it’ll be an update to our provisional figures already supplied when we finalise them.

              I’d say harsher and swifter, look at their efforts to get points punishment on the board after the lengthy QPR action and the speed to which Birmingham were slapped. Again the key point is punishment is naturally delayed by 12 months because of the nature of the beast, their breach was known 2017/18 so punishment was always this season but for the 3yr assessment, the EFL needed the final years figures. Birmingham could be running a gambit of a second punishment next year depending on the loss in 2016/17 and then steps taken towards compliance in 2019/20.

              As we saw from QPR’s punishment, and Birmingham’s, (unless we’ve both got his assumption wrong) the reason the fine isn’t FFP included is purely as an effort to not so much punish the club, but punish the owner who sanctioned the breach. I can sort of see the sense in that given the thought behind FFP is to protect clubs themselves from wayward owners – and I completely agree that isn’t actually how it works in reality and there are far better ways to ensure a club isn’t left in paddle creek when an owner decides to shut their wallet.

              Denying the registration would then be a restriction of trade and massively legally problematic. I also doubt you’d get either the Prem/EFL member clubs to agree enough to get it through, purely because it could bite them. Let alone, and we all know the EFL love some clubs more than others (I know Villa are included) because of the TV money pull from broadcasters, and other member clubs massively benefit from how screwed the broadcasting deal is, so would they really vote out Villa, Leeds etc and cut off their own noses? Not a chance mate for me.

              Especially as the rules are clear, and the only way you’re not abiding by them is by refusing the fine/arguing the points deduction in the EFL to which it applies.

              If QPR hadn’t argued, we wouldn’t be in this position, that legal wrangling needed to take place to provide clarity. I can see where you’re coming from, but it’s not going to happen. This could all be solved ultimately by being truly fair – each club owner can spend whatever the hell they like on their business but if they take the spend approach, they put that exact same sum into an EFL controlled Trust that also has an obligation to pay in monthly exactly the level of debt (whether real or notional) their injection into the club gains, so if owner pulls the plug – they do their sale deal, but the EFL can effectively wipe the debt scale clean using their own money to reset the balance sheet, so the club itself doesn’t lose out as can often be the case.

              The in-season element if true, I guess can apply moving forward because we’ve got our first proper 3 yr period now out of the way, so the EFL constantly knows 2 yrs of the 3 period so once provisional figures are known – maybe that when a true denial of promotion can come into play, and they are just happy to let this season be the aberration? Maybe all clubs signed onto that when voting for the new improved regs the other year knowing that somebody may get lucky on the back of it? Goes to the 12 month lag, there was naturally a lag whilst awaiting the 3 yr, now we have the 3 yr set maybe it will be more speedy when the March assessments come in?

              Had we stayed down, we’d definitely have been shafted in my humble to some degree, what degree is unknown. Soft embargo is basically code for we take a second look, Sheff W have been under one all season and it didn’t stop them buying in August or Jan. The new FFP regs supercede the old regs though don’t forget, that why I think it was important for the EFL to get the first 3 yr period out of the way as there’s no need to historically punish then…the previous regs also had no link with the Prem.

              As for second post – if I haven’t already bored you to death! lol – I’ve addressed that above re lag.

              • Interesting take on what is “truly fair”.

                To me, truly fair is imposition of the same rules and penalties on all regardless of status. Whether the rules themselves should go down the road you suggest is one thing but that is a matter for the future.

                As of now, what is truly fair is if the EPL impose points as their EFL agreement suggests is possible- or you get one on return if indeed you return.

                Genuinely, why should a club who has flouted be allowed to return to EFL if not abiding by regs? My take is “If you (by which I mean any club) try to avoid punishment and obfuscate and duck the rules etc, I don’t want you in our League”. In the same way that UEFA can in extremis ban clubs from CL (very unevenly applied to date admittedly)- play to the same rules or go to the Conference IMO.

                Here’s the thing right- on 3 year submitted projected accounts? Clubs themselves submit accounts- if there is a case of “creative accounting” which saw you pass- that compounds the original offence and should lead to a bigger punishment still. I think clubs should have a vote on suspension from EFL of clubs in your position, provided you have breached and get off the hook.

                If the Villa Park sale was passed, why you still under a soft embargo? Having said that one possibility is maybe you, Derby and Sheff Wed- unlike Birmingham who brought Pedersen- complied under period of soft embargo and that stopped it escalating? Shouldn’t be a get out in my view but the EFL are the EFL.

                I also have a feeling that had Tony Xia remained in full charge you would have been a lot more restrained in the market and not tried to evade/duck the regs- as an Aston Villa fan you will be better placed on that than me lol!

                From what I recall, EFL in-season was meant to apply actually in 2017/18- all 3 of those who went up passed though there were doubts about Wolves and superagent- definitely should have applied this season though- simple. If anything, Birmingham should’ve got their 9 points in 2017/18.

                It could be a system of Soft embargo, hard embargo, EFL hearing in order- and fines for very small breaches. Personally I think a Governing body should go in hard and escalate from there on all clubs with a Fair Play Deficit regardless of size or scope of breach but that’s just me. If it means 4-5 in-season deductions, so be it- don’t flout the regs my message from that!

                How could it bite them to suspend the golden share in a democratic vote? If you got a unanimous vote of Championship clubs that is their legit right no? EFL a members association. To me if you don’t follow the rules, you can’t play in the League- think Bundesliga Licensing System. Maybe all Championship clubs should have to obtain a license each season?

                UEFA trying to re-open PSG case, look like reopening Man City. IF Man City get a CL ban- as they should- then you certainly could be punished for past offences. I also think clubs should take the EFL to the CAS in Lausanne to gain access to clubs FFP submissions- this happened with UEFA in 2018 and CAS granted access and UEFA went away to think again as they were looking like handing down unequal punishment.

                • All about perspective…if points aren’t on the board as it seems, that’s not Villa’s failure we’ve complied, that applied to every side in the division this season so there’s no fairness issue, it was open to all and status is irrelevant here.

                  And the point remains – limit a next season punishment wouldn’t be fair on those who escape that limitation, equally wouldn’t be fair to face it in 50 years.

                  Again, it’s not in the rules so it’s not unfair. We didn’t breach in 2017/18 otherwise points would’ve been confirmed. It’s yet to be proven we breached in 2018/19 – so at this stage there’s no flouting of anything. On a fact based notion, we are compliant as sanction hasn’t followed and we know the EFL will sanction as proven by QPR/Blues so your claim of a side ducking the rules is opinion and it’s not within the rules as voted for by the member clubs to expel, so again compliance and no complaint.

                  If there was creative accounting at play, why did Derby offer Middlesbrough (twice) the chance to privately view their set on top of the submitted set, confident that both the submitted and maybe more detailed private set (including information or explanation not specifically required by the EFL in submit guidelines? If they match, any creativity is open to all clubs, within the rules and allowed – ergo no breach again and no issue.

                  We play to the rules, as do other clubs – strictly speaking Steve Gibson is already massively in breach of those rules with his media games, as is Steve Lansdown with his comments about Leeds – but you aren’t seeing people calling for their sanction despite some massive contradictions to me – so why the assumption that our overall losses, when non FFP attributable deductions aren’t made, similarly leave us free and clear?

                  Soft embargo is pointless speak for take a second look or may breach at best. Sheffield Wednesday were believed to be under a soft embargo all season long (I believe Dejphon Chansiri (sp) has confirmed as much at a fan meeting) and they still signed players in both windows, so the press bleating out about soft embargoes means nothing – as sadly these days the press usually do without bothering to check.

                  It’s also irrelevant about a soft embargo this summer as the share certificate has passed and we’re not under the EFL jurisdiction any more in any event. Either way the EFL haven’t sanctioned us yet and they’ll know far more than media heads shouting the loudest.

                  If Xia remained, we’d have been in administration at best and FFP would’ve been the least of our problems. A belief that we’d have been more restrained in the market, sorry chap and no offence meant, but that’s your lack of knowledge about Villa. The eggs in the highly paid loan signings basket after spending massive on players with no idea how to use them to get back to the Prem at all costs came under Xia’s watch because he cared most about perception and being the big man with his inane tweeting until things went tits up. He thought he could spend his way back and he put us in this position ultimately.

                  Wolves were never an FFP issue despite what the press burbled. That was relationship with Mendes more than anything, but kept being fuelled by idiotic chairman/CEO’s playing the poor me game (and sadly Villa were in the camp much to my disgust). EFL investigated for a second time and there was no breach.

                  No mate on the in season thing, you can’t apply like that because the true confirmed final account figures depending on all clubs’ official end of year doesn’t come until after the end of the season, so there will always be a ‘next season’ element but unlike the Birmingham situation where the punishment came towards the end of the campaign, now the 3 yr period is established for all, I think they’ll switch to the punishment kicks in for August in future years.

                  It may be a legal requirement to deny share certificate if members clubs voted for it, but do you genuinely think anyone would. Most in L1/2 look to survive, put that on the table it becomes an alternative to adminstration for financial breaches. Champ clubs won’t. Prem clubs certainly won’t. So you’d divide the Prem and EFL even more, and then we get into the realms of making a mockery of the promotion process from the non-league level upwards where losers suddenly gain promotion as we fill gaps – welcome the legal claims of league finish should override Play-Offs in such instances and the like? Never going to happen and never going to be voted for.

                  All clubs obtain their licence via the share certificate, different names, same outcome. It’s like all players have to registered etc.

                  Nope, PSG and Man C issues are current, just because they are taking a second look doesn’t bring retrospective into play because there’s already an inherent retrospective nature on CL football – it’ll make no difference.

                  And no on CAS re accounts, you’ve then got clubs overseeing clubs rather than a more independent (admittedly useless) EFL or Prem doing the same. You’re taking all the bleating in the press based on rumour and supposition way too seriously. Derby offered to open accounts as above, Boro didn’t accept and then whinged like little children about it. The biggest question in those circumstances is if Boro refused exactly what they’d demanded – why exactly are they still bleating?

                  • Hahahaa, complied- how exactly?? Your own excellent Dave Jordan has analysis that has you £30m above the limit- I make it £25m, either way it is enough for a major deduction.

                    Yes it would. It would be fair- PSG and Man City- well certainly Man City issues are NOT present. They are from 2013/2014 and possibly sooner but definitely 5 or 6 years ago. Under the changed rules it would certainly be fair if you got your 3 year punishment applied in the CL.

                    I agree- to 2017/18 you were compliant, those 3 seasons. Nobody has stated otherwise- it is the in-season you appear to likely be over. IF those projected accounts showed you above, then you should have been docked points by end of season just gone- EFL rules allow for this. If you were not compliant but inserted a very questionable exceptional item, to me it is an aggravated breach, for exacerbating an original offence.

                    Think Derby’s transaction was very questionable personally- to put it mildly. Related party, big profit…possible FFP breach. Such profits should be struck from the FFP calculations- feeling that UEFA if they oversaw it might. UEFA have some stringent rules on RPTs.

                    Think Middlesbrough keeping powder dry personally- hope so.

                    Haha, how on earth is an assumed £25-30m overspend sticking to the rules? A lot of City fans were actually not so happy with SL’s comments. Gibson merely wants equal treatment for clubs- I applaud his move though possibly threatening legal action not the smartest so far.

                    Doesn’t matter on the rules about expulsion- though I have changed stance to suspension of membership- if clubs at an EGM demand this option, perhaps suspension while a thorough investigation occurs.

                    EFL are still investigating surely. Soft embargo is like a holding pattern for investigation- which is fine when they’re in the division itself. It is indicative that there is/was a question mark at least over your compliance or you wouldn’t have been under a soft embargo.

                    You think EFL have exonerated you? Doubt it- why was Debbie Jevans of EFL purportedly in discussions or trying to push for a points deduction if they’ve cleared you? Personally I don’t see why a share should be transferred until such a time as an investigation is completed.

                    Tony Xia, looking in from the outside admittedly, just seemed less arrogant than your new owners. Seems you were in financial trouble but if you check the regs you will see FFI (Future Financial Information) to be submitted, combined with Projected Accounts by the club would surely have you in breach. Clubs have to submit accounts for season just gone, Projected Accounts for the existing season and FFI. I think the latter covers the 2 seasons after the existing one but would have to double check.

                    I remember arguing at the time i.e. when complaints to EFL on other sites that Wolves were not in breach of FFP- close but not in breach. For various reasons- their profit in 2015/16, the fact that Monaco B and Atletico B players wages may not be as high as assumed- a question over Mendes maybe, that relationship but in terms of FFP, nope not a problem.

                    You can- provided the projected accounts submitted by a club are pretty accurate and most importantly honest. For arguments sake had your projected accounts in March 2019 showed you £25m over the limit, then points should have been deducted based on this- it was submitted by the clubs themselves so if the club themselves are submitting substantially and significantly incorrect accounts I think there are bigger issues than mere FFP!

                    Certainly by 1st March 2019, given that clubs cannot make any transfers until sometime in May. Th costs won’t change substantively- it could of course be possible that you put for example a Grealish sale £25m in projected accounts, which would be further compounding an offence tbh.

                    Your move only came about in May 2019 I believe as a Plan B in the event of playoff defeat, so that would have directly contradicted the projected accounts in March 2019 most likely, so don’t see how it could be applicable in the accounting period- clear contradiction between the 2.

                    It would be the only way to deter flagrant creative accounting- suspension at minimum, pending investigation. Nope, seems fair enough- give it to the next highest compliant side- for me any club flagrantly breaching the regs should be denied promotion. Cheats shouldn’t prosper, you see.

                    A license that should be up for question if legal challenge occurs I feel- as per the clubs themselves boycotting the offending club as opposed to the stupid EFL.

                    PSG and Man City issues are from 2013/14- chances are Man City ironically maybe compliant in their own right now. It is retrospective as they came to UEFA settlement agreements at the time, but when new evidence comes into play, issues should be reopened.

                    Think EFL useless, EPL self-interested tossers. Middlesbrough playing a long game I feel. Don’t take Morris at face value- I don’t. We have his word for one, we don’t know the context. Perhaps it was an offer to view accounts in return for an undertaking of no further action. Perhaps it was a mocking offer “Hey Gibson- want to view these accounts- all compliant and there’s nothing you can do” Rules but not spirit, the unspoken part.

                    I think you’ll find there is precedent though. Last August AC Milan were in the CAS and facing a European ban. Their lawyers pulled an impressive move- they submitted a request to the CAS for them to view the Submissions from Man City, PSG and more recently Inter Milan to form part of their defence. Their legal argument was substantively unequal treatment basically. UEFA backed down or at least went away to think again- because they knew that there would be a big hole in their argument, and them going away to think again meant no accounts produced but had they not they would have had to produce- there’s nothing to hide so why worry eh??

                    I think clubs actually overseeing clubs is not the worst idea- EFL is a members association after all. It isn’t the best idea either though- maybe the FA?? Would ensure better alignment and harmonisation of EFL-EPL regs too.

                    • In a rush so hope you can follow.

                      Yup I’ve read Yorkshire’s stuff and on forum we came to our own 25/30 band as well, but it’s speculative because we don’t know exactly what in that can be rightly removed as non FFP issues. Dave would acknowledge that himself but until there’s a sanction we’ve complied – it’s innocent until guilt, not guilt until proven innocent. The EFL know if we’ve provisionally breached in the final 2018/19 campaign and nothing has been done. So until something’s done we’ve complied is my point.

                      Thought Man C ban was related to youth purchases?

                      Again though no, a breach in a single year on allowable losses with owner injection is one thing, a breach over the full 3yr period is another – single year can be rectified over the 3yr period. If (as we do) we all presume we passed 2016/17-2017/18 then only we can’t be punished on provisional figures if we’ve indicated we will be compliant by the time we get the full end of year finalised. That’s why punishment follows the following season – again Birmingham finalised their breach in 2017/18 so received punishment in 2018/19 when the full 3yr period was known (provisional final year). Whatever steps they took in final year may have mitigated wider punishment, but the 2017/18 element was a fact.

                      If we were in the same boat we’d have been done, but it’s slightly different as any breach (we presume) would relate to 2018/19 only. So provisional figures (state of play with indication of further moves) is well open to be played with an exceptional item within the rules is within the rules that the EFL have already sanctioned, if it is the Stadium move.

                      Can’t punish clubs for working within the rules that have been ratified and then subsequently re-ratified with deals passed by the EFL as being within the spirit as well. FFP provisional cover linked deals and lean on market values, that can be proven and Derby have presumably complied with those stipulations, so again within rules.

                      Lansdown, Gibson it’s all deflection they have access to the same rules as everyone and again Gibson re Derby is sabre-rattling, they offered what he wanted he’s now moaning he didn’t take them up in effect. Why the deflection? Not against using the rules to their favour when it suits them, so why the double standard?

                      Again you’ve misunderstood what I said, hopefully made clearer above. I know the EFL are still investigating, we’ll be pulling final accounts together so until they get them the game is open – but again, no punishment yet means we’ve complied so far. If a punishment follows, it follows and it’ll be within the rules. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t.

                      Jeavons came via the Daily Mail or Talksport originally (others then picked up and rehashed) and they won’t know what the EFL are or aren’t doing, those reports – that led to all of this in the first place re lack of tie up as assumed between EFL and Prem. I never saw a single quote and it always leant heavily on Gibson’s words for the bulk of the story – that does not make an accurate news report for me. Gibson got his EFL member clubs vote – even Boro voted against it!

                      Jeavons knows the rules exactly and the tie up with the Prem exactly – she’s not going to be doing her day job through the tabloids mate.

                      Xia – I’m amazed we didn’t breach in 2017/18 myself, we were going up the wall. I can’t understand the love in from some when it comes to him.

                      Re Wolves, most took the tabloid wage figures as gospel and then forgot any transfers paid we’re always on a 12 month lag owing to the loan nature of the deals and then made assumptions. I remember the red tops last summer banging on about 50m/80m breaches for us and points deduction this season as the bigger speculated figures/more doom make a better headline.

                      Again re-provisional, it would depend on the additional information, if the provisional figures are likely to change in the final set you simply can’t punish on a ‘what if’ basis. If the final accounts then show a provisional breach didn’t happen, does a club get the points back post-season. Do they get an extra point by way of compensation and apology? If it changes the table do sides promoted or safe from relegation get told ‘we were wrong’.

                      It’d be a can of worms.

                      Transfer window opened May 16 I believe, and just because our Companies House info came to light at the end of the month, it doesn’t mean there isn’t further paperwork in their system yet to come out that would show any moves are well within the accounting period. But do agree, my first thought was Plan B, but not necessarily so it seems.

                      I agree, but again you want to punish suspected cheating. Until the facts are known all sides are in the clear. The EFL made a big play about denying promotion if necessary, we’ve already got our Prem certificate, so shouldn’t that tell you something?

                      Again re City, if it’s historic, the old rules will apply naturally.

                      As said Boro’s action have put them against fellow member clubs, they had the vote they wanted, they voted against it and naturally lost. Gibson keep wibbling and it seems even Boro don’t agree with him. I draw my own conclusions on that. And re Derby the offer was made, you’re correct we don’t know the context – but the offer was made and rejected and Boro lost the vote. That’s ultimately where it ends, but Gibson is hardly treating fellow EFL clubs in ‘utmost faith’ is he?

                      Submissions in terms of figures, or simply argument?

                      Yup soft embargo, as said, it’s take a second look basically and shouldn’t be read into.

  • To clear up my comment on the fine.

    What I meant was:

    Assumed Overspend- £25-30m

    Therefore Assumed legit fine- £25-30m (IMO)

    If it counts towards FFP and has to come out of club coffers it is nonetheless a pretty useful deterrent. Otherwise it is pointless.

    The £13m + £13m + £35m represents allowed losses in the 2 divisions- 2 Championship, 1 PL.

    12 month lag- how does that fit with Projected Accounts for this season, submitted March 1st 2019?

  • Forgot to add, on Soft Embargo I believe that was Sheffield Wednesday’s position Summer 2018, and parts of January 2019- soft embargo still allows loanees and free transfers in certain circs- key thing that money does not take place and EFL oversee the transfer activity while under this. Birmingham signing Pedersen for £2m or so while in this position, it was stupid in the extreme. I assume other clubs under soft embargoes have not done this.

Your Comment