i bet it won't happen to man city though. or any P.L. team to be truthful.
Monk is doing a really good job there considering what he is up against
Good
I hope its only the tip of the iceberg
Bolton
Fat Franks outfit
Swansea
All reportedly going down the pan!
Wonder if they're all mocking Leeds now.
Bunch of shirt fronts!
Good news for Brum in the sense that it won't spoil next season and that they've now lost there slight chance of a playoff spot anyway. Good news for us too perhaps as they'll not have as much riding on the game against us as they would have done.
comment by Shaun M - F**k off to the football league (U9955)
posted 42 minutes ago
Good news for Brum in the sense that it won't spoil next season and that they've now lost there slight chance of a playoff spot anyway. Good news for us too perhaps as they'll not have as much riding on the game against us as they would have done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are now nearer relegation than they were getting in the playoffs, so they have more to play for.
We play them in 2 weeks, after Millwoe.
Brum are now in the relegation zone and wiv their remaining fixtures I don't see too many points coming their way.
Brum are 18th with 41 points, 4 clear of 22nd placed Rotherham. They ain't going up or down.
They certainly ain't going up but I wouldn't be surprised if they went down. Their next tree games are against West Brom, Leeds and Sheff Utd.
comment by RRthedrum (U7933)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
They certainly ain't going up but I wouldn't be surprised if they went down. Their next tree games are against West Brom, Leeds and Sheff Utd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see them going down, they'll get 6 points from those games, 2 wins and a defeat to us
Find it remarkable that they’ve had a points deduction, yet there are clubs like City who have spent over a BILLION in the last decade, who receive no punishment at all.
Not really hayemaker
Birmingham got done for going over FFP and then decided to break the rules and sign a player.
Think their wage bill is 190% of the turnover, can see a big crash coming in the championship, maybe people will see now why our owner doesn’t spend millions
comment by LIW - RAD = BATES WITH A SMILE (U8453)
posted 3 hours, 53 minutes ago
Not really hayemaker
Birmingham got done for going over FFP and then decided to break the rules and sign a player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't get punished for signing Pedersen, it seems the FL's rules weren't up to scratch on that.
But I think the disciplinary panel were interpreting the rule over strictly, common sense doesn't seem to have been applied, they knew they weren't acting in good faith:
________________
The transfer of Kristian Pedersen
19.On 2 May 2018 Mr Lloyd, the then senior finance officer of the Club, received an email from the financial controller of the EFL raising a number of further queries on the P&S submission the Club had made on 29 March. At the end of that email it was stated:“As discussed on the phone, as the Club is reliant on future player transfers in order to fulfil the P&S requirement, the Club will be placed under a registration
embargo until the Club’s year end so that the final P&S result following any transfer profits can be confirmed.” Mr Lloyd replied to that email on 11 May, but made no reference to the registration embargo.
20.On 8 June 2018 the Club entered into a transfer contract with FC Union Berlin and Kristian Pedersen. On 29 June the then Club Secretary, Julia Shelton, applied to the EFL for registration of the transfer, enclosing the relevant documents. On 3 Jul y Mr Karran emailed Mr Lloyd and Mr Moore referring to a discussion the previous day with Ms Shelton in relation to the embargo which had been placed on the Club by email of 2 May. On 13 July the Club was informed that the registration embargo would remain in force. On 1 August the Club was informed that it would, subject to certain conditions, be permitted to register Kristian Pedersen, notwithstanding the view of the EFL that the application had been lodged whilst the Club was under an embargo and was required to meet the requirements of the P&S Rules. In its letter dated 14 August the EFL made clear that when the registration application was submitted it was reasonably foreseeable to the Club that the final P&S result would confirm a result in excess of the permitted threshold.
21.Shaun Harvey, the chief executive, explained in his evidence why he took the view that the EFL should register the transfer despite its view that the Club had deliberately ignored the registration embargo in place. In 6 years he had not seen a case in which a club had ignored a registration embargo, but the actions of the Club had placed the EFL in a very difficult position.
22.The Club submits that the argument for EFL that the signing of Kristian Pedersen should be treated as an aggravating factor in considering sanction is misconceived and unfair. The asserted misconception arises under the relevant rule 4.3 which reads:‘Without prejudice to the right of The League to refer any breach of rules to the Disciplinary Commission in accordance with section 8 of the Regulations, where any Club is in breach of any requirement of these Rules relating to the provision of information, the Executive may refuse any application by that Club to register any Player or any new contract of an existing Player of that Club.’
This rule gives a discretion to the EFL to refuse an application by the Club to register a particular player in certain circumstances. It does not impose any prohibition on a club entering into contracts for the transfer of a player. It is argued that in its letter dated 1 August 2018 the EFL did not suggest that to proceed with the registration application was impermissible. In all these circumstances it is unfair for the signing or registration of Mr Pedersen to be relied upon as a factor aggravating the Club’s breach.
23. It is correct that rule 4.3, if it applied, did not impose any restriction on the Club entering into transfer contracts, but only reserved the power to the EFL to refuse registration. However that subtlety was not a factor in the Club’s decision making. In his statement Mr Ren stated:
“...I did not believe that I was breaching any embargo in doing the transfer deal with FC Union Berlin or signing a contract with the player. The terms of the embargo were never fully set out in any document from the EFL before the interim breach letter dated 13 July 2018, but I had understood it to be a provisional embargo on regi stering players to play at the Club. If the EFL had refused to register Pedersen as our own player, I would have looked to release him to another club.”
Mr Ren’s statement did not explain the basis of his understanding, but in his oral evidence he accepted that Mr Lloyd had informed him by email that the Club could not sign new players. Mr Lloyd had dealt with a number of registration embargos in his time at the Club, so he would have fully understood the importance of an embargo and ensured that notice was communicated to those responsible for the signing of new players. However the internal management emails relating to this issue have not been produced by the Club, so it is not in a position to dispute the clear inference that the Club had been advised by Mr Lloyd that new players could not be signed. The Club did not take any steps to communicate its intentions to the EFL, despite knowing that the EFL would probably raise an objection to any further signings whilst the Club was likely to breach the upper loss threshold. Mr Ren’s evidence was that the signing of Pedersen was important for the Club and it was hoped that the Club could get the embargo lifted.
24.It is clear from Mr Ren’s evidence and the documents that the Club knew that in entering into the transfer contracts it was running the risk that registration would be refused for the reason which had been given in the email of 2 May. It had been unable to make the forecasted player sales profits of £8.3 million, although it continued to assure the EFL that it would do so. Those profits were highly material to the P&S calculation which had been submitted on 29 March. It was on 10 July that the Club submitted a revised forecast from which it became clear that the aggregated loss would exceed the aggregate threshold in 2017/18 by at least £7 million.
[...]
37.The Commission is not persuaded that the signing of Pedersen was actually a breach of the applicable rule and this conduct will not be treated as an aggravating factor in this case. However the EFL was correct to state in its letter dated 1 August that the Club’s conduct had not fully embraced the objectives of the P&S Rules. It is evident from the correspondence that the officials of the EFL had been extremely helpful in providing clear guidance as to the effect of the rules on the Club’s finances and transactions, and it is regrettable that the Club did not consult the EFL before signing contracts and proceeded despite the increasingly obvious fact that the Club would fail to keep its expenditure below the permissible limits in the period ending 30 June 2018. The EFL is entitled to assume that a Club will fully comply with any notice given under the rules, but to avoid any lack of clarity in future cases it would be desirable for notice of a decision to refuse registration of players until a club has complied with certain conditions to clearly identify the relevant rule and the effect of the decision.
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c79763f8e2174f4fb87200a371abf5fa/190322---efl-v-bcfc---decision---final.pdf
It does raise an interesting point.
If the EFL had placed an embargo on the club, why did it accept the player registration?
comment by JonnyLosAngeles (My Dad was made in Leeds) (U9756)
posted 21 minutes ago
It does raise an interesting point.
If the EFL had placed an embargo on the club, why did it accept the player registration?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea, it doesn't really explain why Harvey felt he was placed in difficult circumstances.
comment by Sol WGUAFC (U2745)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by JonnyLosAngeles (My Dad was made in Leeds) (U9756)
posted 21 minutes ago
It does raise an interesting point.
If the EFL had placed an embargo on the club, why did it accept the player registration?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea, it doesn't really explain why Harvey felt he was placed in difficult circumstances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It put Harvey in difficult circumstances because he didn't know whether or not to apply the rules strictly because it wasn't Leeds.
One concern is that it might make Brum a more dangerous opponent if they engage a 'siege mentality' like we did during the -15 season.
Good luck Brum...hope you stay up.
Bluenose Glsgow style.
comment by LIW - RAD = BATES WITH A SMILE (U8453)
posted 23 hours, 38 minutes ago
Not really hayemaker
Birmingham got done for going over FFP and then decided to break the rules and sign a player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP was introduced to level the playing field, and make it fairer for everyone.
Don’t understand how City can spend over £500million in 3 years and not be breaking a single rule.
comment by The Hayemaker (U14625)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
comment by LIW - RAD = BATES WITH A SMILE (U8453)
posted 23 hours, 38 minutes ago
Not really hayemaker
Birmingham got done for going over FFP and then decided to break the rules and sign a player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP was introduced to level the playing field, and make it fairer for everyone.
Don’t understand how City can spend over £500million in 3 years and not be breaking a single rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
are they not being investigated atm
comment by JonnyLosAngeles (My Dad was made in Leeds) (U9756)
posted 21 hours, 13 minutes ago
It does raise an interesting point.
If the EFL had placed an embargo on the club, why did it accept the player registration?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree
EFL need looking into, as do PSG and Man City
Hayemaker
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.mancity.com/news/club-news/club-news/2018/september/manchester-city-annual-report-1718%3famp=1
They are making profits
comment by LIW - RAD = BATES WITH A SMILE (U8453)
posted 54 minutes ago
Hayemaker
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.mancity.com/news/club-news/club-news/2018/september/manchester-city-annual-report-1718%3famp=1
They are making profits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No way that club is making enough to warrant that spending. They don’t even fill their ground.
Definitely some fraud going on at that club.
Page 1 of 1
First
Previous
1
Next
Latest
Sign in if you want to comment
Brum 9 points deducted
Page 1 of 1
posted on 22/3/19
i bet it won't happen to man city though. or any P.L. team to be truthful.
posted on 22/3/19
Monk is doing a really good job there considering what he is up against
posted on 22/3/19
Good
I hope its only the tip of the iceberg
Bolton
Fat Franks outfit
Swansea
All reportedly going down the pan!
Wonder if they're all mocking Leeds now.
Bunch of shirt fronts!
posted on 22/3/19
Good news for Brum in the sense that it won't spoil next season and that they've now lost there slight chance of a playoff spot anyway. Good news for us too perhaps as they'll not have as much riding on the game against us as they would have done.
posted on 22/3/19
comment by Shaun M - F**k off to the football league (U9955)
posted 42 minutes ago
Good news for Brum in the sense that it won't spoil next season and that they've now lost there slight chance of a playoff spot anyway. Good news for us too perhaps as they'll not have as much riding on the game against us as they would have done.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They are now nearer relegation than they were getting in the playoffs, so they have more to play for.
posted on 22/3/19
We play them in 2 weeks, after Millwoe.
posted on 22/3/19
Brum are now in the relegation zone and wiv their remaining fixtures I don't see too many points coming their way.
posted on 23/3/19
Brum are 18th with 41 points, 4 clear of 22nd placed Rotherham. They ain't going up or down.
posted on 23/3/19
They certainly ain't going up but I wouldn't be surprised if they went down. Their next tree games are against West Brom, Leeds and Sheff Utd.
posted on 23/3/19
comment by RRthedrum (U7933)
posted 1 hour, 46 minutes ago
They certainly ain't going up but I wouldn't be surprised if they went down. Their next tree games are against West Brom, Leeds and Sheff Utd.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
I don't see them going down, they'll get 6 points from those games, 2 wins and a defeat to us
posted on 23/3/19
Find it remarkable that they’ve had a points deduction, yet there are clubs like City who have spent over a BILLION in the last decade, who receive no punishment at all.
posted on 23/3/19
Not really hayemaker
Birmingham got done for going over FFP and then decided to break the rules and sign a player.
posted on 23/3/19
Think their wage bill is 190% of the turnover, can see a big crash coming in the championship, maybe people will see now why our owner doesn’t spend millions
posted on 23/3/19
about time it is not us
posted on 23/3/19
comment by LIW - RAD = BATES WITH A SMILE (U8453)
posted 3 hours, 53 minutes ago
Not really hayemaker
Birmingham got done for going over FFP and then decided to break the rules and sign a player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They didn't get punished for signing Pedersen, it seems the FL's rules weren't up to scratch on that.
But I think the disciplinary panel were interpreting the rule over strictly, common sense doesn't seem to have been applied, they knew they weren't acting in good faith:
________________
The transfer of Kristian Pedersen
19.On 2 May 2018 Mr Lloyd, the then senior finance officer of the Club, received an email from the financial controller of the EFL raising a number of further queries on the P&S submission the Club had made on 29 March. At the end of that email it was stated:“As discussed on the phone, as the Club is reliant on future player transfers in order to fulfil the P&S requirement, the Club will be placed under a registration
embargo until the Club’s year end so that the final P&S result following any transfer profits can be confirmed.” Mr Lloyd replied to that email on 11 May, but made no reference to the registration embargo.
20.On 8 June 2018 the Club entered into a transfer contract with FC Union Berlin and Kristian Pedersen. On 29 June the then Club Secretary, Julia Shelton, applied to the EFL for registration of the transfer, enclosing the relevant documents. On 3 Jul y Mr Karran emailed Mr Lloyd and Mr Moore referring to a discussion the previous day with Ms Shelton in relation to the embargo which had been placed on the Club by email of 2 May. On 13 July the Club was informed that the registration embargo would remain in force. On 1 August the Club was informed that it would, subject to certain conditions, be permitted to register Kristian Pedersen, notwithstanding the view of the EFL that the application had been lodged whilst the Club was under an embargo and was required to meet the requirements of the P&S Rules. In its letter dated 14 August the EFL made clear that when the registration application was submitted it was reasonably foreseeable to the Club that the final P&S result would confirm a result in excess of the permitted threshold.
21.Shaun Harvey, the chief executive, explained in his evidence why he took the view that the EFL should register the transfer despite its view that the Club had deliberately ignored the registration embargo in place. In 6 years he had not seen a case in which a club had ignored a registration embargo, but the actions of the Club had placed the EFL in a very difficult position.
22.The Club submits that the argument for EFL that the signing of Kristian Pedersen should be treated as an aggravating factor in considering sanction is misconceived and unfair. The asserted misconception arises under the relevant rule 4.3 which reads:‘Without prejudice to the right of The League to refer any breach of rules to the Disciplinary Commission in accordance with section 8 of the Regulations, where any Club is in breach of any requirement of these Rules relating to the provision of information, the Executive may refuse any application by that Club to register any Player or any new contract of an existing Player of that Club.’
This rule gives a discretion to the EFL to refuse an application by the Club to register a particular player in certain circumstances. It does not impose any prohibition on a club entering into contracts for the transfer of a player. It is argued that in its letter dated 1 August 2018 the EFL did not suggest that to proceed with the registration application was impermissible. In all these circumstances it is unfair for the signing or registration of Mr Pedersen to be relied upon as a factor aggravating the Club’s breach.
23. It is correct that rule 4.3, if it applied, did not impose any restriction on the Club entering into transfer contracts, but only reserved the power to the EFL to refuse registration. However that subtlety was not a factor in the Club’s decision making. In his statement Mr Ren stated:
“...I did not believe that I was breaching any embargo in doing the transfer deal with FC Union Berlin or signing a contract with the player. The terms of the embargo were never fully set out in any document from the EFL before the interim breach letter dated 13 July 2018, but I had understood it to be a provisional embargo on regi stering players to play at the Club. If the EFL had refused to register Pedersen as our own player, I would have looked to release him to another club.”
Mr Ren’s statement did not explain the basis of his understanding, but in his oral evidence he accepted that Mr Lloyd had informed him by email that the Club could not sign new players. Mr Lloyd had dealt with a number of registration embargos in his time at the Club, so he would have fully understood the importance of an embargo and ensured that notice was communicated to those responsible for the signing of new players. However the internal management emails relating to this issue have not been produced by the Club, so it is not in a position to dispute the clear inference that the Club had been advised by Mr Lloyd that new players could not be signed. The Club did not take any steps to communicate its intentions to the EFL, despite knowing that the EFL would probably raise an objection to any further signings whilst the Club was likely to breach the upper loss threshold. Mr Ren’s evidence was that the signing of Pedersen was important for the Club and it was hoped that the Club could get the embargo lifted.
24.It is clear from Mr Ren’s evidence and the documents that the Club knew that in entering into the transfer contracts it was running the risk that registration would be refused for the reason which had been given in the email of 2 May. It had been unable to make the forecasted player sales profits of £8.3 million, although it continued to assure the EFL that it would do so. Those profits were highly material to the P&S calculation which had been submitted on 29 March. It was on 10 July that the Club submitted a revised forecast from which it became clear that the aggregated loss would exceed the aggregate threshold in 2017/18 by at least £7 million.
[...]
37.The Commission is not persuaded that the signing of Pedersen was actually a breach of the applicable rule and this conduct will not be treated as an aggravating factor in this case. However the EFL was correct to state in its letter dated 1 August that the Club’s conduct had not fully embraced the objectives of the P&S Rules. It is evident from the correspondence that the officials of the EFL had been extremely helpful in providing clear guidance as to the effect of the rules on the Club’s finances and transactions, and it is regrettable that the Club did not consult the EFL before signing contracts and proceeded despite the increasingly obvious fact that the Club would fail to keep its expenditure below the permissible limits in the period ending 30 June 2018. The EFL is entitled to assume that a Club will fully comply with any notice given under the rules, but to avoid any lack of clarity in future cases it would be desirable for notice of a decision to refuse registration of players until a club has complied with certain conditions to clearly identify the relevant rule and the effect of the decision.
https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c79763f8e2174f4fb87200a371abf5fa/190322---efl-v-bcfc---decision---final.pdf
posted on 23/3/19
It does raise an interesting point.
If the EFL had placed an embargo on the club, why did it accept the player registration?
posted on 23/3/19
comment by JonnyLosAngeles (My Dad was made in Leeds) (U9756)
posted 21 minutes ago
It does raise an interesting point.
If the EFL had placed an embargo on the club, why did it accept the player registration?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea, it doesn't really explain why Harvey felt he was placed in difficult circumstances.
posted on 23/3/19
comment by Sol WGUAFC (U2745)
posted 31 minutes ago
comment by JonnyLosAngeles (My Dad was made in Leeds) (U9756)
posted 21 minutes ago
It does raise an interesting point.
If the EFL had placed an embargo on the club, why did it accept the player registration?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No idea, it doesn't really explain why Harvey felt he was placed in difficult circumstances.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
It put Harvey in difficult circumstances because he didn't know whether or not to apply the rules strictly because it wasn't Leeds.
posted on 23/3/19
One concern is that it might make Brum a more dangerous opponent if they engage a 'siege mentality' like we did during the -15 season.
posted on 23/3/19
Good luck Brum...hope you stay up.
Bluenose Glsgow style.
posted on 24/3/19
comment by LIW - RAD = BATES WITH A SMILE (U8453)
posted 23 hours, 38 minutes ago
Not really hayemaker
Birmingham got done for going over FFP and then decided to break the rules and sign a player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP was introduced to level the playing field, and make it fairer for everyone.
Don’t understand how City can spend over £500million in 3 years and not be breaking a single rule.
posted on 24/3/19
comment by The Hayemaker (U14625)
posted 1 hour, 43 minutes ago
comment by LIW - RAD = BATES WITH A SMILE (U8453)
posted 23 hours, 38 minutes ago
Not really hayemaker
Birmingham got done for going over FFP and then decided to break the rules and sign a player.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
FFP was introduced to level the playing field, and make it fairer for everyone.
Don’t understand how City can spend over £500million in 3 years and not be breaking a single rule.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
are they not being investigated atm
posted on 24/3/19
comment by JonnyLosAngeles (My Dad was made in Leeds) (U9756)
posted 21 hours, 13 minutes ago
It does raise an interesting point.
If the EFL had placed an embargo on the club, why did it accept the player registration?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Agree
EFL need looking into, as do PSG and Man City
posted on 24/3/19
Hayemaker
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.mancity.com/news/club-news/club-news/2018/september/manchester-city-annual-report-1718%3famp=1
They are making profits
posted on 24/3/19
comment by LIW - RAD = BATES WITH A SMILE (U8453)
posted 54 minutes ago
Hayemaker
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.mancity.com/news/club-news/club-news/2018/september/manchester-city-annual-report-1718%3famp=1
They are making profits
----------------------------------------------------------------------
No way that club is making enough to warrant that spending. They don’t even fill their ground.
Definitely some fraud going on at that club.
Page 1 of 1