Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2024 7:59:32 GMT
So the best thing Everton and Forest should do is keep spending and build up good squads but get relegated this season anyway and do not filet heir accounts until after they are relegated so they escape the PL 3 year rule. Then collect the parachute payments and buy better players, win promotion at the first attempt, filing their accounts before the end of season, so they do not break the EFL rules and are do not fall under the Pl rules until they do another 3 seasons in the PL = no more problems for another 4 years at least.
|
|
|
|
Post by West Acton on Sept 4, 2024 15:39:39 GMT
We should have kept fighting our fine imo
|
|
|
|
Post by gtleighsr3 on Sept 4, 2024 15:52:54 GMT
We cheated to early, now we get off and the league would relegate Luton instead as our punishment
|
|
|
|
Post by West Acton on Sept 4, 2024 19:00:15 GMT
Good I hope they get chased down
|
|
|
|
Post by hal9thou on Sept 4, 2024 19:14:38 GMT
So the best thing Everton and Forest should do is keep spending and build up good squads but get relegated this season anyway and do not filet heir accounts until after they are relegated so they escape the PL 3 year rule. Then collect the parachute payments and buy better players, win promotion at the first attempt, filing their accounts before the end of season, so they do not break the EFL rules and are do not fall under the Pl rules until they do another 3 seasons in the PL = no more problems for another 4 years at least. Amusing idea. Quite a few contingencies in there waiting to bite them on the arse, winning promotion at the first attempt being one of them, and the much talked of scrapping of chute payments in lieu of a fairer system - which almost happened last year - being another. For years now the chute regiment have had a massive, sustainable advantage as long as they've managed to get a promotion back up to the big table within the relevant period. We should have kept fighting our fine imo Spoke a lot about the way we handled that episode at the time. There was talk of a legal challenge on the premise that FFP was effectively an illegal restraint of trade. I presume the advice from m'learned friends was not to go down that route. |
|
|
|
Post by spongeparr on Sept 5, 2024 10:27:53 GMT
You can't compare our FFP to anyone else's. Rules were different and we broke them, simple as.
|
|
|
|
Post by hal9thou on Sept 5, 2024 11:05:02 GMT
You can't compare our FFP to anyone else's. Rules were different and we broke them, simple as.
I don't think anybody was.
Of course we clumsily broke the rules - at that point you could've got a coach and horses through FFP and many did - and we got sanctioned. I was interested in how to best ameliorate the sanction, and I've always kept an eye on the legal status of FFP here and in Europe. Sad but true.
|
|
|
|
Post by stainrodisalegend on Sept 5, 2024 12:07:25 GMT
We should have kept fighting our fine imo Problem is that the EFL were effectively both the prosecution and the judge. Plus we were guilty as hell. Presumably our legal advice was "agree to the fine or the punishment will be even worse". When you look at all the tricks we are using now to stay within FFP it beggars belief that the owners, who were spending serious amounts of money at the time, didn't put some of that investment towards decent accountants who could have come up with ruses like sponsorship deals, longer contracts etc. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2024 12:27:14 GMT
We should have kept fighting our fine imo Problem is that the EFL were effectively both the prosecution and the judge. Plus we were guilty as hell. Presumably our legal advice was "agree to the fine or the punishment will be even worse". When you look at all the tricks we are using now to stay within FFP it beggars belief that the owners, who were spending serious amounts of money at the time, didn't put some of that investment towards decent accountants who could have come up with ruses like sponsorship deals, longer contracts etc. "Funny" (not) thing is that TF is an accountant and failed to use numerous techniques to pump money in without being so badly out of line with FFP. Probably just naive and underestimating the EFL. Probably a clash of personalities and ego in the battle thereafter with the EFL wanting to make an example of us. Looking back we actually got away quite lightly compared to what we could have been fined. Even without that episode our FFP situation now would be no different. Our expenses exceed our income month after month so we will always be restricted by the current FFP rules until (if ever) we start making a profit. |
|
|
|
Post by hal9thou on Sept 5, 2024 12:47:29 GMT
We should have kept fighting our fine imo Plus we were guilty as hell. Presumably our legal advice was "agree to the fine or the punishment will be even worse". When you look at all the tricks we are using now to stay within FFP it beggars belief that the owners, who were spending serious amounts of money at the time, didn't put some of that investment towards decent accountants who could have come up with ruses like sponsorship deals, longer contracts etc. That plus restraint of trade, being inherently anti competitive and given to arbitrary judgements. The key issue was always not whether we broke FFP, nor why we were inexplicably not smart enough to get around it, but how solid the legal basis for applying it was in the first place. For anyone with time on their hands, this is an interesting examination of the quasi legal status of FFP. And this is the UK context re proposed regulation |
|
