FFP charges? | Page 128 | Vital Football

FFP charges?

seasider red said:
I've said in a previous post that I can't see any reason why anyone other than the Sky 6 would vote for rules like this, and I still can't, surely there must be dodgy brown envelope dealings behind the scenes to persuade the turkeys that voting for Christmas is everyone's best interests
Click to expand...
I think it's more likely that it was sold to them in a certain, positive way and they didn't forsee the way it was going to pan out in the long term
 
Pope John XXIII said:
I think it's more likely that it was sold to them in a certain, positive way and they didn't forsee the way it was going to pan out in the long term
Click to expand...
I expect realistically that is the correct answer, but it's still difficult to understand why. In the main PL clubs are run by successful, shrewd businessmen would they really be so gullible as to stand for that BS without some sort of incentive. Or is the incentive that there is an inferred threat from the Sky 6 to go off to their beloved super league leaving the 14 with a possibly sub standard product that wouldn't attract the same attention & therefore lower TV revenues. Either way itis disturbing & needs to be explained
 
seasider red said:
I expect realistically that is the correct answer, but it's still difficult to understand why. In the main PL clubs are run by successful, shrewd businessmen would they really be so gullible as to stand for that BS without some sort of incentive. Or is the incentive that there is an inferred threat from the Sky 6 to go off to their beloved super league leaving the 14 with a possibly sub standard product that wouldn't attract the same attention & therefore lower TV revenues. Either way itis disturbing & needs to be explained
Click to expand...
Protecting your highest revenue earners if you are a tv based league makes perfect sense to me, especially if you have good reason to believe that there is a good chance that they will leave and set up on their own if you don't keep them sweet. The Premier League is corrupt, there is no doubt about it, the problem for clubs like us is there is no alternative but to put up or shut up.
 
jbacsta said:
Protecting your highest revenue earners if you are a tv based league makes perfect sense to me, especially if you have good reason to believe that there is a good chance that they will leave and set up on their own if you don't keep them sweet. The Premier League is corrupt, there is no doubt about it, the problem for clubs like us is there is no alternative but to put up or shut up.
Click to expand...
You see, I think thats where a club like ours, but if we can align now with Everton, Leicester and the others, can force change. Prior to these rules, middling clubs like Chelsea and City were nowhere near the traditional 'big 5' - United, Liverpool, Everton, Spurs and Arsenal.

Abramovich is wealthier than EM, but EM can and wants to do a similar thing. For City, read Newcastle. Putting up and shutting up isn't the answer. It needs rocking and changing. Why on earth wouldn't the PL want a few more powerhouses in this league to make it stronger?

I really hope we are appealing this decision. If not, then we likely deserve where we will end up in the future. At best, a middling no-mans land like Palace and Wolves
 
Can anyone clarify something for me?

The efl signed off on accounts that prem league then said no…

But they are happy to enforce efl losses?

Surely that’s not right?
 
jbacsta said:
Protecting your highest revenue earners if you are a tv based league makes perfect sense to me, especially if you have good reason to believe that there is a good chance that they will leave and set up on their own if you don't keep them sweet. The Premier League is corrupt, there is no doubt about it, the problem for clubs like us is there is no alternative but to put up or shut up.
Click to expand...
Not sure protecting highest earner is the answer, although I do not know why the clubs did vote for this. When Leics won the title did tv subscriptions collapse. I doubt it. Supporters of big 6 probably subscribed following year plus Leics in droves. Not sure if this is fact but is a suspicion. Someone outside of big six winning is good for the product. Having a clear underdog brings in the neutrals. They were bounced into something but not sure what the sweetener was.
 
radfordinlondon said:
some of us are pretty angry over this but we should also consider solutions.

it occurs to me that the issues with the football pyramid echo those of society. too much hovered up by too few.

perhaps that is a way in to balancing out the system? should the top 6 pay more than everyone else back into the pyramid on the basis they get the most money. I reckon they should and it could help to stop the gap getting any wider.
Click to expand...

Just expel the Top 6 from the national game (allow them to join their pathetic Euro Super League - they are a cancer) and don't allow anyone playing for them to play for England and just have a proper competitive league that isn't fixed or scripted.
 
Southern red said:
Can anyone clarify something for me?

The efl signed off on accounts that prem league then said no…

But they are happy to enforce efl losses?

Surely that’s not right?
Click to expand...
That seems to be the case.
The problem appears to be - we can only appeal if we have 'new' evidence. They have already rejected that point of mitigation
If we appeal - the IC/EPL will add back the 2 points removed for our 'co-operation'
I don't think we will appeal, but I think something is happening in the background to try to get this overturned by the courts
 
Geedo61 said:
That seems to be the case.
The problem appears to be - we can only appeal if we have 'new' evidence. They have already rejected that point of mitigation
If we appeal - the IC/EPL will add back the 2 points removed for our 'co-operation'
I don't think we will appeal, but I think something is happening in the background to try to get this overturned by the courts
Click to expand...
The silence from the club is deafening isn't it, that's an interesting thought about the courts as I can't see EM giving this up without a fight
 
Geedo61 said:
That seems to be the case.
The problem appears to be - we can only appeal if we have 'new' evidence. They have already rejected that point of mitigation
If we appeal - the IC/EPL will add back the 2 points removed for our 'co-operation'
I don't think we will appeal, but I think something is happening in the background to try to get this overturned by the courts
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
You are not able to put forward any new evidence/information in the appeal.
It is essentially just appointing a new commission to review the initial case.
 
Last edited:
Strett said:
Incorrect.
You are not able to put forward any new evidence/information in the appeal.
It is essentially just appointing a new commission to review the initial case.
Click to expand...
I need to check - but I think you are wrong. I believe, looking at the Everton appeal, they introduced new supporting evidence
 
Geedo61 said:
I need to check - but I think you are wrong. I believe, looking at the Everton appeal, they introduced new supporting evidence
Click to expand...
Just read through part of the report.
Everton introduced 'additional supporting evidence' - whatever that means
 
Geedo61 said:
That seems to be the case.
The problem appears to be - we can only appeal if we have 'new' evidence. They have already rejected that point of mitigation
If we appeal - the IC/EPL will add back the 2 points removed for our 'co-operation'
I don't think we will appeal, but I think something is happening in the background to try to get this overturned by the courts
Click to expand...
I’m disappointed if we don’t appeal this, but maybe we’re doing something to have this seasons financial rulings sweetened so we’re not in another position having to sell players in order to compete?
The legal angle is also what I am hoping EM is acting on
 
Geedo61 said:
That seems to be the case.
The problem appears to be - we can only appeal if we have 'new' evidence. They have already rejected that point of mitigation
If we appeal - the IC/EPL will add back the 2 points removed for our 'co-operation'
I don't think we will appeal, but I think something is happening in the background to try to get this overturned by the courts
Click to expand...
The two points added back on is scare mongering from Everton.
 
Polly 433 said:
The two points added back on is scare mongering from Everton.
Click to expand...
Do you think so?
They are quite clear in their report that they have reduced our deduction by 2 points as we have been very co-operative.
If we appeal - then by definition we have stopped being co-operative.
It is not unreasonable to think that they would then re-impose those 2 points.
Too risky for me
 
Geedo61 said:
Do you think so?
They are quite clear in their report that they have reduced our deduction by 2 points as we have been very co-operative.
If we appeal - then by definition we have stopped being co-operative.
It is not unreasonable to think that they would then re-impose those 2 points.
Too risky for me
Click to expand...

I disagree. we can cooperate and still ask that the decision be checked. not sure that automatically gives us another 2pts deduction. if anything, it would add grist to our mill.
 
radfordinlondon said:
I disagree. we can cooperate and still ask that the decision be checked. not sure that automatically gives us another 2pts deduction. if anything, it would add grist to our mill.
Click to expand...
I just think - we are 1 point behind Luton - every extra point we are deducted makes it harder for us to survive.
Why take the risk?
 
Geedo61 said:
I just think - we are 1 point behind Luton - every extra point we are deducted makes it harder for us to survive.
Why take the risk?
Click to expand...

1. fundamentally the decision isn't a fair one since it sets different standards for mitigation.

2. we may get pts back and that maybe the difference between relegation or not.

3. we can withdraw the appeal at a later date but cannot miss the deadline to appeal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.