Transfer Embargo

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!

What’s gonna happen

  • Temporary blip

  • Complete ****ing collapse

  • It’ll all be ok

  • Relegation

Results are only viewable after voting.
SydneyTiger14 said:
It absolutely should be. They should be in the business of ensuring all clubs in the division are sustainable.
Click to expand...
I assume they're also ****ting themselves about the Govt Regulator coming in and criticising previous decisions so may well err on the side of caution.

Still shouldn't take this long to actually report a decision, even if the 'decision' is part of ongoing engagement between the EFL and the club, that is ludicrous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PLT and SydneyTiger14
dennisboothstash said:
I assume they're also ****ting themselves about the Govt Regulator coming in and criticising previous decisions so may well err on the side of caution.

Still shouldn't take this long to actually report a decision, even if the 'decision' is part of ongoing engagement between the EFL and the club, that is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
I imagine the club aren’t doing something they should have more so than the EFL are been ****s deliberately as some seem to want to think
Not you den
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stockholm Tiger, dennisboothstash and SydneyTiger14
dennisboothstash said:
Certainly wouldn’t be surprising, although if I was the EFL I’d say that
Click to expand...

It seems as if they're defaulting to silence as the go-to way of handling an awkward situation. I know that sometimes that's for the best with legal matters, but there's something that feels wrong about it to me. Football should be about players and fans, but this approach is keeping them and us in the dark as if they and we shouldn't need to know anything about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dennisboothstash
PLT said:
It seems as if they're defaulting to silence as the go-to way of handling an awkward situation. I know that sometimes that's for the best with legal matters, but there's something that feels wrong about it to me. Football should be about players and fans, but this approach is keeping them and us in the dark as if they and we shouldn't need to know anything about it.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with the fans though, it's a legal matter between the club and the EFL, it's no different to any other business having a legal issue, the customers will know when there is something to know.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stockholm Tiger and AlRawdah
PLT said:
It seems as if they're defaulting to silence as the go-to way of handling an awkward situation. I know that sometimes that's for the best with legal matters, but there's something that feels wrong about it to me. Football should be about players and fans, but this approach is keeping them and us in the dark as if they and we shouldn't need to know anything about it.
Click to expand...

Pretty sure Puerta and Laalaa will know exactly what’s going on, or at least more than we on here do.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dennisboothstash and Howdentiger2
TwoWrights said:
It shouldn't be up to them to decide if we can afford them, perhaps we really can't at the present time. If though later this year the likes of Pandur and Hughes go for a combined £15m+ could we then afford them? :emoticon-0138-think


The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.
Click to expand...
Well yes it is their decision, seeing as our owner put us in this situation and it looks like the right decision and he needs miro managing, seems to be working, I agree it seems like it's taking ages, but it wouldn't have though if Acun hadn't put us in this position in the first place
 
  • Like
Reactions: SydneyTiger14
Howdentiger2 said:
It has nothing to do with the fans though, it's a legal matter between the club and the EFL, it's no different to any other business having a legal issue, the customers will know when there is something to know.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I get that angle to an extent. But I still think it feels wrong. The EFL (and other authorities) always seem uncomfortable dealing with this sort of thing. I wouldn't be surprised if at some point in the coming years there's a more transparent process defined, but currently they're having to react on the fly to a tricky situation and it seems like the silence is just the easiest/safest way for them.

I don't think it's entirely true to say we'll be informed when there's something to know, because several things already have happened that haven't been officially stated. The two players being unable to play hasn't been confirmed by the EFL publicly at all, and the club have barely spoken about them either. The full embargoes were only ever publicly announced after they'd ended, and it needed journalists to dig out the truth leading to City having to confirm it. We've had at least one period during the fee restriction time where no signings were being approved until suddenly a batch were approved in quick succession, and it seems like we're now back in the unofficial 'no signings approved' state again, but none of this has been announced anywhere and we only find out or can piece it together after the fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drew
I feel like the EFL know they've been heavy handed and are worried about this new regulator coming in and bollocking them about it. It's been acknowledged by journalists and fans that the penalty was strong and given that the club feel confident they have the evidence to show its all in order, the EFL might now be regretting going in so hard if the argument is to protect the financial stability of the club going forward.

That being said, we don't know what constitutes "evidence" and whether that was just paper talk to satisfy fans, who the club sent to represent them at the hearing (please, don't let it be Acun) or what was said in the hearing (not sure if minutes ever get published, I assume they don't).

If I had to predict the outcome, I would think the sanction will be something like Oxford's, with it being suspended for one or two seasons. We aren't repeat offenders, the club did pay the outstanding monies (eventually), so the only question mark will be over long term sustainability. That's where my worries lie, however, we can point to players like Hughes and Pandur as assets worth enough that by selling them, we could continue to exist.

And that's just it, isn't it? The EFL aren't here to make sure we remain in the Championship, they want to make sure we don't go pop to make them look bad. Because I look at Morecambe, who were in the EFL for 14 years and had financial difficulties from around 2020 up to the present day, and the EFL were quite happy to let them continue without stepping in. It's only now they're in the National League and are no longer the EFL's problem that the real issues are coming to light.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Drew
Christophalophados said:
Interesting quote that nobody has picked up on. "Hull have a pay ceiling of around £1million a year"
Click to expand...

It was picked up on when the original deal for McBurnie was rejected by the EFL. Some thought this was due to a wages cap per player but its overall. We got some off the payroll so the deal could then go through(he might have even reduced his wages demand, but that doesn't sound like a footballer)
 
The real answer is nobody knows, trying to make sense of what Baz puts in his articles, what other journalists have written about it and what posters on here claim to be the situation is nothing more than guess work.
Non of it makes any sense. How have we been able to get all the good players we have if we are in the financial **** and everything we do is being scrutinised by the EFL.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Howdentiger2
TigerMarv said:
It was picked up on when the original deal for McBurnie was rejected by the EFL. Some thought this was due to a wages cap per player but its overall. We got some off the payroll so the deal could then go through(he might have even reduced his wages demand, but that doesn't sound like a footballer)
Click to expand...
£1m for all players??
 
Steven Toast said:
I feel like the EFL know they've been heavy handed and are worried about this new regulator coming in and bollocking them about it. It's been acknowledged by journalists and fans that the penalty was strong and given that the club feel confident they have the evidence to show its all in order, the EFL might now be regretting going in so hard if the argument is to protect the financial stability of the club going forward.

That being said, we don't know what constitutes "evidence" and whether that was just paper talk to satisfy fans, who the club sent to represent them at the hearing (please, don't let it be Acun) or what was said in the hearing (not sure if minutes ever get published, I assume they don't).

If I had to predict the outcome, I would think the sanction will be something like Oxford's, with it being suspended for one or two seasons. We aren't repeat offenders, the club did pay the outstanding monies (eventually), so the only question mark will be over long term sustainability. That's where my worries lie, however, we can point to players like Hughes and Pandur as assets worth enough that by selling them, we could continue to exist.

And that's just it, isn't it? The EFL aren't here to make sure we remain in the Championship, they want to make sure we don't go pop to make them look bad. Because I look at Morecambe, who were in the EFL for 14 years and had financial difficulties from around 2020 up to the present day, and the EFL were quite happy to let them continue without stepping in. It's only now they're in the National League and are no longer the EFL's problem that the real issues are coming to light.
Click to expand...

The minutes do get published for what it’s worth. Or at least Oxford’s did
 
  • Like
Reactions: Steven Toast
Steven Toast said:
I feel like the EFL know they've been heavy handed and are worried about this new regulator coming in and bollocking them about it. It's been acknowledged by journalists and fans that the penalty was strong and given that the club feel confident they have the evidence to show its all in order, the EFL might now be regretting going in so hard if the argument is to protect the financial stability of the club going forward.

That being said, we don't know what constitutes "evidence" and whether that was just paper talk to satisfy fans, who the club sent to represent them at the hearing (please, don't let it be Acun) or what was said in the hearing (not sure if minutes ever get published, I assume they don't).

If I had to predict the outcome, I would think the sanction will be something like Oxford's, with it being suspended for one or two seasons. We aren't repeat offenders, the club did pay the outstanding monies (eventually), so the only question mark will be over long term sustainability. That's where my worries lie, however, we can point to players like Hughes and Pandur as assets worth enough that by selling them, we could continue to exist.

And that's just it, isn't it? The EFL aren't here to make sure we remain in the Championship, they want to make sure we don't go pop to make them look bad. Because I look at Morecambe, who were in the EFL for 14 years and had financial difficulties from around 2020 up to the present day, and the EFL were quite happy to let them continue without stepping in. It's only now they're in the National League and are no longer the EFL's problem that the real issues are coming to light.
Click to expand...

They've literally just followed their own rules, and applied the sanctions as they should be. There is no ambiguity. It may seem harsh but the rules probably aren’t set up for niche cases like this, it’s probably never happened before where a club has been put into embargo after a loan to buy clause has been activated. Much like the rules around club names and kits didn’t carry enough water until they were revised after Vincent Tan and the Allams came along and pushed them. There will probably be some thought go into this moving forwards to prevent players unnecessarily and unknowingly getting caught in limbo again.

And also remember, it does nothing for the EFL to weaken their competition by punishing us, they literally gain nothing at all from doing so.

Hopefully all will be resolved by the appeal, where interpretations and good will can probably be applied.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gone For A Walk, Stockholm Tiger and Howdentiger2
philhul said:
It may well be per player...it certainly isn't for the squad
Click to expand...

Pretty sure Baz mentioned something about an overall salary cap - not per player. This would explain the delays with McBurnie and the likelihood of other outgoings if Williams, Akintola and Frigan were to come in.

It is a bit of a weird scenario however that the EFL cap might mean we can’t yet sign these players, however, let us register Puerta and sell him and we could.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back