| Brum 20:19 - Mar 6 with 4059 views | kingo |
EFL have confirmed no punishment for them despite them breaking the rules again. They claimed they didn’t get full value for players they had to sell and the EFL accepted that. Unbelievable. |  |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |  |
| Brum on 21:44 - Mar 6 with 3926 views | RangersDave |
Rules for 1 and all, except if you play in W12 and wear blue and white hoops.
Seems to me that there is our 'deal' and there is the other deals that have happened or are happening since that makes a mock of the rules and common sense.
If i didnt know better i'd wonder if 'Arry' hadnt coached the governing body on getting bank accounts for their dogs (nudge nudge, wink wink) |  |
| |
| Brum on 22:16 - Mar 6 with 3840 views | kingo |
Certainly seems that since they have lined their pockets with our millions, they have become more lenient. Just watch Wednesday, Derby and Forest get their wrists slapped. | |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
| Brum on 22:24 - Mar 6 with 3807 views | rsonist |
If my understanding is correct the EFL objected to them refusing bids for Che Adams in January 2019 while they were under the agreed business plan and charged them two weeks after the season ended. But they did then sell him a few weeks later for twice as much as was originally offered instead, hence kneecapping the charge.
You'd think they're due a third sanction for spending £7m of that windfall on the Croatia u21 captain but it's probably a staggered / incentivised fee I'm guessing. And Bellingham's going for £25m+ this summer anyway.
Enjoyed the "Mr King" stuff in the Athletic report today anyway. |  | | |
| Brum on 08:39 - Mar 7 with 3496 views | kingo |
| Brum on 22:24 - Mar 6 by rsonist |
If my understanding is correct the EFL objected to them refusing bids for Che Adams in January 2019 while they were under the agreed business plan and charged them two weeks after the season ended. But they did then sell him a few weeks later for twice as much as was originally offered instead, hence kneecapping the charge.
You'd think they're due a third sanction for spending £7m of that windfall on the Croatia u21 captain but it's probably a staggered / incentivised fee I'm guessing. And Bellingham's going for £25m+ this summer anyway.
Enjoyed the "Mr King" stuff in the Athletic report today anyway. |
The report I read indicated that they had not adhered to their spending plan as they had had to sell players, including Che Adams, for less than what they thought they were worth and that the Independent Panel ( probably made up of ex Blues players) agreed. | |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
| Brum on 09:43 - Mar 7 with 3401 views | DejR_vu |
Another strong message to everyone else taking the p1ss.
All this talk of us being in great position when FFP bites everyone else; everyone else seem to be sniggering and doing what they like. |  |
| |
| Brum on 10:02 - Mar 7 with 3369 views | terryb |
Except that it wasn't the EFL that have let Brum off!
It was an independant triunal panel that found in favour of Birmingham following the club's appeal to the EFL charge.
I suppose that the EFL could now take it to the courts instead of implementing the tribunal decision, but what would be the point? The cost & time of a hearing would rule that out! | | | |
| Brum on 10:11 - Mar 7 with 3353 views | kingo |
| Brum on 10:02 - Mar 7 by terryb |
Except that it wasn't the EFL that have let Brum off!
It was an independant triunal panel that found in favour of Birmingham following the club's appeal to the EFL charge.
I suppose that the EFL could now take it to the courts instead of implementing the tribunal decision, but what would be the point? The cost & time of a hearing would rule that out! |
I wonder who appoints these so called independent
panels ? Last one I saw named were ex footballers and a solicitor.
I also wonder if Birmingham’s defence had anything to do with Leeds offering £20m for Adams just after he had been sold to Southampton for £15m. | |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
| Brum on 11:00 - Mar 7 with 3284 views | rsonist |
| Brum on 08:39 - Mar 7 by kingo |
The report I read indicated that they had not adhered to their spending plan as they had had to sell players, including Che Adams, for less than what they thought they were worth and that the Independent Panel ( probably made up of ex Blues players) agreed. |
Do you have a link for that? I couldn't find one. | | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Brum on 11:57 - Mar 7 with 3178 views | kingo |
| Brum on 11:00 - Mar 7 by rsonist |
Do you have a link for that? I couldn't find one. |
I don’t but it was from the Birmingham Mail, available online. Just checked it again and that is what it says. [Post edited 7 Mar 2020 12:03]
| |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
| Brum on 12:05 - Mar 7 with 3158 views | Lblock |
But we did so well out of our deal with the EFL.....
Bollox to it.
The game is fcukd no matter what.
We should've been demoted over Faurlin
Keep stamoing on the smaller clubs till "football" means six clubs from England playing six from the other "top, top European leagues" behind closed doors due to deadly outbreaks of the sniffles -- all available at £300.00 a match behind a Murdoch paywall
Fcuk it... I'm off to Twickers!!! |  |
| Cherish and enjoy life.... this ain't no dress rehearsal |
| |
| Brum on 12:08 - Mar 7 with 3150 views | DavieQPR |
We have had to sell players for less than their worth and release players on frees for years to comply with FFP rules. |  | | |
| Brum on 12:10 - Mar 7 with 3143 views | DWQPR |
And once again it shows the effects that FFP has on clubs. Look at the players we have had to offload for smaller fees than we could have gotten had we not been hamstrung by these idiotic rules, Smithies, Luongo, Freeman immediately spring to mind. | |
| |
| Brum on 12:23 - Mar 7 with 3128 views | kingo |
Latest is a statement from the EFL to say it is considering an appeal against Independent Disciplinary Commission decision. | |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
| Brum on 12:53 - Mar 7 with 3079 views | rsonist |
| Brum on 11:57 - Mar 7 by kingo |
I don’t but it was from the Birmingham Mail, available online. Just checked it again and that is what it says. [Post edited 7 Mar 2020 12:03]
|
Yeah so it's what I said. It's not that the independent commission valued Adams at more than £15m and therefore the sale itself to be below market rate - the adjudication pertained to the lower bids received and rejected six months earlier.
Essentially this was about BCFC's right to negotiate their dealings while under the agreed business plan. The EFL (already aggrieved by the Pedersen signing earlier) wanted a firesale, BCFC argued (rightly) they should be able to get the best possible deal for their assets and have the right to decide whether midseason sales are in their sporting interests given relegation would also effect carrying out the business plan.
Being honest, if it were us we'd consider the EFL charge punitive and malicious too. This really isn't the FFP hill to die on.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/birmingham-city-po
The case was heard last month and it is understood Blues claimed they were pushed to sell players in the last January window for what they considered to be below their market value.
Che Adams joined Southampton for around £15m plus add-ons in the summer after Premier League interest in the striker was rejected six months earlier.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/birmingham-citys-s
The club have pledged to contest the charge after claims they were instructed to sell some of their star assets in January of last year.
It is reported that the EFL wanted Blues to accept bids for players as part of the business plan. Club bosses refused to do so, with the threat of relegation looming. | | | |
| Brum on 14:03 - Mar 7 with 2968 views | kingo |
| Brum on 12:53 - Mar 7 by rsonist |
Yeah so it's what I said. It's not that the independent commission valued Adams at more than £15m and therefore the sale itself to be below market rate - the adjudication pertained to the lower bids received and rejected six months earlier.
Essentially this was about BCFC's right to negotiate their dealings while under the agreed business plan. The EFL (already aggrieved by the Pedersen signing earlier) wanted a firesale, BCFC argued (rightly) they should be able to get the best possible deal for their assets and have the right to decide whether midseason sales are in their sporting interests given relegation would also effect carrying out the business plan.
Being honest, if it were us we'd consider the EFL charge punitive and malicious too. This really isn't the FFP hill to die on.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/birmingham-city-po
The case was heard last month and it is understood Blues claimed they were pushed to sell players in the last January window for what they considered to be below their market value.
Che Adams joined Southampton for around £15m plus add-ons in the summer after Premier League interest in the striker was rejected six months earlier.
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/sport/football/football-news/birmingham-citys-s
The club have pledged to contest the charge after claims they were instructed to sell some of their star assets in January of last year.
It is reported that the EFL wanted Blues to accept bids for players as part of the business plan. Club bosses refused to do so, with the threat of relegation looming. |
I think that is an updated article to the one I saw. | |
| RIP: Sniffer, Doug and Pat |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
