Transfer Embargo

I post the same guff every season (post), these games count for nowt, all that matters is, get fit, don't get injured, don't get sent off.


The views expressed in my posts are not necessarily mine.

 

Could it be that this came to light in their own PSR reporting? Or amongst the recent fine they received by UEFA due to fiscal issues?

I have no idea if these would uncover such, or if these organisations talk to each other, but if so, possibly could explain how it happened without Villa 'grassing'

 

A bit like Mexico at the personal level. Change the without your ocnsent when the work is complet

First thing that came to my mind

 

it’s possible but the EFL don’t investigate prem clubs, out of their jurisdiction

 

When it said Lincoln had scored twice, I thought it meant we were 2 0 up and it was our ex loan player Lincoln that had scored - obviously not paying attention at the moment

 

So would you with nails hammered into your hands.
Anyway, anything constructive to say? Anything reality based? No? Thought not. Carry on

 

No,no...He actually wept when he discovered Lazarus had died

 

I know but just wondered if the different organisations communicated/collaborated on irregularities found.

 

ahhh I see, why would the prem league care about what happens in the EFL??

 

I would have thought they'd be obliged to share any such findings. All under the jurisdiction of the same body ... the FA.

'The Football Association is the overarching governing body for football in England. It's responsible for the rules of the game, disciplinary matters, and the overall structure of English football, including all leagues and competitions'.

 

Heres summary of the podcast done via Chat GPT

Key Themes & Summary:
⚠️ Transfer Embargo Fallout

• Hull City has been hit with a transfer embargo due to financial mismanagement — specifically missed transfer payments.
  
  
• The hosts emphasize how damaging this is to the club's reputation, calling it a "horrendous look."
  
  
• They say even if the debt is repaid and the embargo lifted, the public embarrassment remains and trust is lost.
  

Financial Transparency & Acun Ilıcalı's Role

• Owner Acun Ilıcalı is expected to make media appearances soon, but there's skepticism.
  
  
• The hosts urge him to show contrition — not to spin the situation, but to acknowledge mistakes.
  
  
• While Acun may argue the money was owed only to himself and that the club is financially stable, this doesn't change how it looks externally.
  

Fan Trust Is Fragile

• Hull City fans have endured decades of instability under various owners.
  
  
• While Acun has done positive PR work (e.g., free holidays, reduced tickets), there’s little on-pitch progress.
  
  
• The embargo reawakens long-standing distrust, especially after a season that nearly ended in relegation.
  

Momentum Lost

• Excitement had been building with the new manager (Sergei Yakinovich) and players returning (like Liam Millar and Louis Barry).
  
  
• But the embargo has deflated optimism among fans, pushing them back to the end-of-season gloom.
  
  
• There’s a fear that instead of learning from this, the club will simply move on without reflection.
  

Cultural Disconnect?

• The hosts touch on a possible cultural difference in how Turkish clubs (like those Acun may be used to) operate financially vs. English clubs — hinting this may be a root of the missteps.
  

Tone

• Critical but not hostile.
  
  
• The hosts want accountability and a learning moment, not scapegoating.
  
  
• Repeated calls for transparency, acknowledgment of failure, and better governance.
  

 

Wow, we've changed 'head coach' again, already!!

Just listened to the podcast.

But what if (as looks increasingly the case) City, AND Villa, believed they were not actually doing anything wrong?

 

That's not true, was just someone making it up. Blackpool are not owed money over any terms.

 

If the EFL charged us just for the late payment to AV, AND the suggestion of an agreement is true, then a lifting or at the very least a reduction seems likely.

Even if the EFL are generally unhappy with some of the issues around the club, if they're not included in the charge it is irrelevant to this appeal.

This seem possible with the Barry fee due in March on paper (according to reports and lets say last business day in March - 30th) then we exceeded the 30 days on the 30th June, this Monday - checks out.

IF the EFL had packaged this up with another late payment to another club, a payment that was even a day late, the EFL proceedings would have started earlier as as per the EFL guides, it's 30 days across all late payments.

If we follow that train of thought it could be that the AV/Barry fee is the only change (at this stage). This doesn't mean we don't owe suppliers, or the the EFL aren't worried about our finances in general, BUT you can see how there is confidence, if the credit note/agreement is sufficient, that it will at least get reduced. The credit note/agreement was likely intended, so that no funds and to move across the two clubs for the Barry deal, however there will be payment dates on both the Philogene, and the Barry paperwork. It could be that those payments are 'legally', days, weeks, months apart as per the deal sheets. For arguments sake you could assume that we'll get a Philogene instalment every season (let's say the 1st July the first official day of the new season). It can then be assumed that the agreement was, don't pay us and we won't pay you but it's likely the EFL need to see that money transfer even if it goes straight back. If the credit/agreement can be proven than a reduction seems highly likely. How convicted the EFL are that the money has to change hands physically in my opinion will determine if it's lifted or reduced. Hence Acun been cautious that it we be 'reduced' in his interview/chat with Baz.

It could also be that AV should have paid us prior to our Barry payment but due to the credit note/agreement didn't. HOWEVER as they're in the Premier League, the EFL may not have full transparency of that (could be true that they haven't seen the credit note for the same reason - they may have seen it this week but it's too late as the punishment has been implemented and can't be reversed in the same way as an embargo can - it has be be appealed - as is the process) - this could be some of the other proposed evidence. The fact the AV were also willing to enter a new agreement with us (even with 'outstanding monies') may add weight to our argument that AV were aware of and okay with the situation. That might not be good enough for the EFL hence at least a reduction as some form of punishment still needs to be imposed.

If the EFL have managed to include any other changes thats were we'll struggle to lift the punishment. There may be other outstanding monies but the timeline doesn't add up and the lifting of the embargo implies all overdue monies have been paid - to clubs at least. If there was other missed payments I believe this would have all kicked off earlier.

What's happened isn't right and we need to learn from it. It's naive but I don't think currently in this specific situation theres any maliciousness.

IF Acun has confidence in the agreement/credit note. I don't think he lied on Monday. He told what he believed was the truth. He was probably caught of guard too (should he have been is another topic altogether). This is why he's probably keen to explain it.

The problem is, the damage already is done. The EFL were probably taking a closer look at us and chose to act on this missed payment because of a build up of worries (suppliers not paid on time, player payments not paid). I think thats exactly what's happen, hence why theres strong thoughts on but side. If thats the cace but they've not included them in the charge, they have no barring on this - or shouldn't from a legal stand point. What it does highlight is - DON'T MESS UP THE OTHER PAYMENTS - then the EFL won't be putting you under extra scrutiny.

This is just my personal opinion but I think we'll have some level of reprieve from the punishment in some capacity. Perhaps a suspended punishment would be best for all parties - under the condition of no late payments over 14 days or AT ALL over the next three seasons. Something like that would hopefully alleviate some of the EFLs concerns regarding poor money mismanagement (especially if the Barry fee can be talked down and the EFL are worried about the clubs finances and aren't able to act officially on those concerns at the moment). It also allows everyone to kinda keep face.

This took me ages to write so it's likely everything changes since I started typing.

 

Hilarious. Shame this bloke is a lying arse isn't it.
Honestly pal, think it's time you just hold your hands up and admit you'd sooner see city implode and go bust to suit your silly little agenda than keep digging like you are.

Hiding behind a silly little username on the Internet desperately hoping the club fail so you can look smug. I sincerely hope you don't have kids.

 

Really good post and effort to help people maybe understand a point a little mate .

 

Jim, who is totally an actual tiger, has absolutely crushed Kalman (or Deesy, not entirely sure who he was having the hissy fit with).

 

It's no real secret who I am is it. I've said enough over the last two years to make it obvious. You're another gimp who pops up with a little dig from behind a hidden name. No respect for that, keep hiding you sausage.

 

I asked to be specific on whether we had broken rules according to the podcasters

⚖️ Did Hull City Breach the Rules by Missing the Loan Fee?
The podcasters don’t try to argue that Hull City didn't breach regulations — in fact, they:

• Accept that something serious happened, since the EFL issued a formal transfer embargo.
  
  
• Emphasize that whatever the technical details, the situation is "a horrendous look" for the club.
  

They seem to believe:

• The EFL wouldn't have imposed the embargo without clear grounds, such as missed payments (e.g., transfer fees or taxes).
  
  
• Even if the money was owed only to the owner (Acun), and even if the debt was later settled, the club was still in breach of rules that require financial obligations to be met on time.
  

One podcaster notes:

“You can get an embargo for not paying your wages... for not paying the tax man... or for not keeping up with your transfer payments.”

That implies they fully accept the missed loan fee was enough to trigger an embargo under standard EFL rules, and they don’t see this as a gray area.

Their Bigger Point
While they acknowledge the regulatory breach, their main concern is:

• The damage to the club’s reputation,
  
  
• The loss of trust with fans,
  
  
• And a lack of accountability from ownership so far.
  

They don’t suggest the EFL overreached or that Hull were unfairly targeted — rather, they think Hull messed up, and now needs to own it and rebuild credibility.

 

If Villa don't think we did anything wrong how does the EFL even know about the late payment