So you're happy with clubs totally taking the piss and running unlimited losses to chase the dragon
If they are able to support this through other sources yes. Stoke are not going bankrupt - they are bankrolled.
I worked for a company that regularly lost hundreds of millions a year
They do anyway.
FFP is horribly outdated and is designed to safeguard the elite clubs' status within European football. Equally, the majority of clubs who have access to competent lawyers/accountants are able to find loopholes within the rules so they need to be reformed on a wide-scale anyway.
There are 2 problems with that
1. What if the owner who was previously happy to write off huge sums is either no longer willing or no longer able
2. What about the clubs who don't have access to a benevolent tycoon-they either have to risk bankruptcy themselves to keep up or accept being stuck in the basement leagues
If the Coates' gambling empire collapses Stoke will cease to exist
There are no problems
1. The club goes bankrupt
2. Thats life in the real world and always has been and always will be
If you take off the rules completely you're turning it into a tycoon super league. Which some people might enjoy, I just think it's the least entertaining competition imaginable
Er we will go bankrupt in your scenario and we tick every box on these rules?
Yes and that would be a slight problem wouldn't it?
It's very much a Schrödinger's cat scenario though isn't it?
You're also talking about an entirely different set of regulations that need to be improved upon, which is the Fit and Proper Owners Test - which again is about as airtight as using a wotsit to bolt a gate.
In this country most seem happy with the top flight being a battle of various foreign tycoons and the Championship being B-tier tycoons trying to spend their way in. I just find that unappetising.
Well it means the rules are pointless and every business in the world the same problem exists - I don't see the point you are trying to make
I see it as a problem to encourage conditions that make it more likely for clubs to disappear. They are not run anything close to conventional businesses
Why? Its always been the same and I know you will drone on about Germany but oddly the same teams always seem to be on top
How many have disappeared in the last 50 years?
There are no problems
1. The club goes bankrupt
2. Thats life in the real world and always has been and always will be
So why were Derby given an extension? After all their's was only to resubmit parts of the accounts, not all of them and the original fault was the clubs for massaging the figures. Something like that should have been simple to rectify and the only reason it could be taking longer is cos the actual figures don't tell the story they want. Well, tough shit.
In this country most seem happy with the top flight being a battle of various foreign tycoons and the Championship being B-tier tycoons trying to spend their way in. I just find that unappetising.
We are talking a hypothetical where there are no regulations regarding spending and comparing pre-2000s to now is pretty meaningless
Have we always had people like Abramovich in the game? The 2.Liga is a who's who of former elite German clubs
Actually it isnt just resubmitting parts of the accounts. Each year to some degree must be re-audited in full, because changing a few calculations each year leads to an investigation of and a reassessment of whether the club is a going concern for at least 12 months from now. That reassessment is also affected by considerations such as to how Covid affects going concern, the potential for penalties & embargo by EFL that the club will have to meet, whether the financial support or new finance is available going forward. That will take time.
In fact providing new finance or continuing support from banks etc might take quite a bit of time given the struggles there have been trying to sell the club
In addition to change the record at Companies House is a legal process that takes time and is not cheap. Indeed Companies House may have their own investigation in to the conduct of the directors. Not to mention investigation of the auditors by the relevant professional body - are the same auditors being used? - a change might extend time periods simply because of the amount of work that would require, are staff available to do the work?
I can to some degree understand the delays, the pressure will be on the EFL once the financials are corrected and brought up to date. It is very much in the EFL's interest to get this right (legals that follow etc could cost the EFL a lot) so allowing more time isnt really a big deal so long as the EFL are content that things are being dealt with.
This is a high profile case and the auditors & EFL will want to get it right this time
oddly the same teams at the top here are the same before the tycoons arrived aren’t they?
Fair enough but the overall thing to take from it is:
Derby tried to pull the wool over people's eyes and are now being given more time.
Other clubs managed to do it by the deadline and haven't been asked to resubmit. So why should Derby be allowed leeway? Rules are that you submit accurate accounts by a certain date. They have failed to provide accurate accounts by that date and so have not complied with the rules.
The fault is with Derby. If they don't want to be sanctioned or punished don't try and bend the rules beyond breaking point in the first place.
That's not going to change though and frankly I think we're at the point of no return with regards to that.
Too much money has been pumped into the game to change it anytime soon IMO and the potential risks new and tighter regulations could pose to the game far out way the benefits.
If too much pressure is put on owners to tighten the purse strings and reduce spending to the point where they can no longer even attempt at being competitive who's to say that they won't up and leave and find another club in another country?
If the PL for instance no longer has the ability to attract the best players then it sets off a frightening domino effect that will undoubtedly be felt throughout the pyramid - the biggest of which (apart from a reduced pool of willing owners) will be that TV deals will be slashed.
Chelsea/ Man City? for many years they were below us in the pecking orderoddly the same teams at the top here are the same before the tycoons arrived aren’t they?
Man City and Chelsea weren't top teams nor were Leicester in regular European contention
But not in the 80sMan City we’re a huge team in the 70’s - Bell, Sumerbee, Lee and Chelsea were a big glamour team then as well - Osgood, bonetti, Hudson
what are you on about?
I agree with what you're saying I just find things as they stand very unpalateable but I accept I'm in the minority on it
Fair enough but the overall thing to take from it is:
Derby tried to pull the wool over people's eyes and are now being given more time.
agree on the first but a few more weeks isnt going to make any difference to any outcome
Other clubs managed to do it by the deadline and haven't been asked to resubmit. So why should Derby be allowed leeway? Rules are that you submit accurate accounts by a certain date. They have failed to provide accurate accounts by that date and so have not complied with the rules.
you are making the assumption that the financials of every other club are compliant, i have my doubts. They just havent been investigated yet, or to put another way not been caught yet. Derby clearly broke the rules but as outlined above it isnt just the EFL that will be looking in to their affairs and the affairs of the directors. I forgot to include HMRC
The fault is with Derby. If they don't want to be sanctioned or punished don't try and bend the rules beyond breaking point in the first place. Agreed but they have and it now needs to be seen to be dealt with properly.
Dogger 4 to 6 , becoming slight or moderate, then rough , occasionally poor at firstChelsea 73-84 best position 16th in top flight often in div 2
Man City 78-90 once in top half of top flight often in div 2
City and Chelsea were top teams in the mid to late sixties and early seventies. Both clubs overspent and went down the pyramid.Man City and Chelsea weren't top teams nor were Leicester in regular European contention
Man City we’re a huge team in the 70’s - Bell, Sumerbee, Lee and Chelsea were a big glamour team then as well - Osgood, bonetti, Hudson
what are you on about?
Man City we’re a huge team in the 70’s - Bell, Sumerbee, Lee and Chelsea were a big glamour team then as well - Osgood, bonetti, Hudson
what are you on about?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?