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.
Still makes no sense to me.
-> "Hull Live understands there’s an expectation amongst the club’s hierarchy that they will have the three-window punishment reduced on appeal. City have 14 days to lodge their appeal and will be heard by a hastily convened independent disciplinary panel".
Surely if the club had this agreement (or credit note) with Villa then they would be expecting to have the punishment lifted altogether, not just reduced as they would believe they've done nothing wrong? Or maybe that's inaccurate journalism?
It really needs the club to come out and say something meaningful to the fans to properly explain what's going on, but maybe they can't until the appeal is heard?

Even a single window ban would be a major problem, especially as we continue to off-load current players in the most needed positions.

Anything other than a complete rescinding of all punishments illustrates hopeless and inept management.
 
Even a single window ban would be a major problem, especially as we continue to off-load current players in the most needed positions.

Anything other than a complete rescinding of all punishments illustrates hopeless and inept management.
Does it explain why we have tried to sign him on a perm and tried to rearrange payments?
 
Still makes no sense to me.
-> "Hull Live understands there’s an expectation amongst the club’s hierarchy that they will have the three-window punishment reduced on appeal. City have 14 days to lodge their appeal and will be heard by a hastily convened independent disciplinary panel".
Surely if the club had this agreement (or credit note) with Villa then they would be expecting to have the punishment lifted altogether, not just reduced as they would believe they've done nothing wrong? Or maybe that's inaccurate journalism?
It really needs the club to come out and say something meaningful to the fans to properly explain what's going on, but maybe they can't until the appeal is heard?

The article explains a bit more. The embargo is about Barry's unpaid fee which we've now paid, so embargo lifted, but the transfer fee restriction is for an accumulated 30 days of overdue creditors amassed so sounds like an accumulation. Probably harder to dispute so not sure how we think we can, unless we're claiming 'first offence' and somehow have it reduced/suspended on that basis. Also not sure how we can get it to be the January window not this window..
 
The article explains a bit more. The embargo is about Barry's unpaid fee which we've now paid, so embargo lifted, but the transfer fee restriction is for an accumulated 30 days of overdue creditors amassed so sounds like an accumulation. Probably harder to dispute so not sure how we think we can, unless we're claiming 'first offence' and somehow have it reduced/suspended on that basis. Also not sure how we can get it to be the January window not this window..
That's my understanding too. But on the face of it a 3-window transfer fee penalty does seem harsh. Is it to do with the value of outstanding creditors, the lateness of payment or what? Or is 3 windows a standard tariff? Most businesses I've come across over the years always run with overdue creditor payments and they're not punished. Why different for football clubs?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SydneyTiger14
The article explains a bit more. The embargo is about Barry's unpaid fee which we've now paid, so embargo lifted, but the transfer fee restriction is for an accumulated 30 days of overdue creditors amassed so sounds like an accumulation. Probably harder to dispute so not sure how we think we can, unless we're claiming 'first offence' and somehow have it reduced/suspended on that basis. Also not sure how we can get it to be the January window not this window..

I think it’s just default procedure. The offence is committed, the punishment is handed out, then the appeal panel takes all the circumstances into consideration and decides what to do from there.
 
I think it’s just default procedure. The offence is committed, the punishment is handed out, then the appeal panel takes all the circumstances into consideration and decides what to do from there.
My worry is it’s like the Tax man you’re ok until he looks into your finances then they keep digging and digging
And with our mental owner I can imagine he’s suggested and done some very strange deals
 
My worry is it’s like the Tax man you’re ok until he looks into your finances then they keep digging and digging
And with our mental owner I can imagine he’s suggested and done some very strange deals

Yeah well, even the hmrc inspectors try to pay in cash. My mate did a load of work for one and thought he was being tricked. Nope! <laugh>
 
The thing that I find most disappointing is that this is an extremely draconian punishment. Therefore, every club in the EFL should be doing everything they can possibly do to avoid late payments to other clubs.

Yet if the club is to be believed, despite being financially sound, we've been inept enough to run up 30 days late payments in the last 12 months across multiple deals (in addition to the Barry issue). A three window ban on paying transfer fee's could easily contribute a club to being relegated.

If we were/are in a bad financial position, like a Reading, I'd understand it more.

I don't consider myself a bed wetter but this continues to undermine my faith in the way the club is being run.
 
Last edited:
I mean we have that many people behind the scenes is no one in charge of paying this stuff, or is it literally we don’t have the money. We thought Villa would be oright with slow payment?

Just send Joseph back and pretend it never happened.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nbetiger
I mean we have that many people behind the scenes is no one in charge of paying this stuff, or is it literally we don’t have the money. We thought Villa would be oright with slow payment?

Just send Joseph back and pretend it never happened.
Think the club uses a bloke who sells cheap cigs for financial dealings
 
I mean we have that many people behind the scenes is no one in charge of paying this stuff, or is it literally we don’t have the money. We thought Villa would be oright with slow payment?

Just send Joseph back and pretend it never happened.

You'd think the finance team would be on top of this. However, it's not just Villa, that was one issue, the other more serious issue, is the accumulated 30 days of football related late payments in the last 12 months. Additionally there are late payments to local suppliers outside of the EFL.
 
You'd think the finance team would be on top of this. However, it's not just Villa, that was one issue, the other more serious issue, is the accumulated 30 days of football related late payments in the last 12 months. Additionally there are late payments to local suppliers outside of the EFL.

I wouldn’t mind if we had some assets to sell or we hadn’t just finished 22nd. Even improved the training ground etc etc. Nearly 2/3rds of those we have spunked money on have left already. Complete mismanagement and ridiculous lack of planning through out.
 
You'd think the finance team would be on top of this. However, it's not just Villa, that was one issue, the other more serious issue, is the accumulated 30 days of football related late payments in the last 12 months. Additionally there are late payments to local suppliers outside of the EFL.
That's how the Sheffield Steelers finally got knobbled. They stopped paying the corner shop, then the rent.
 
You'd think the finance team would be on top of this. However, it's not just Villa, that was one issue, the other more serious issue, is the accumulated 30 days of football related late payments in the last 12 months. Additionally there are late payments to local suppliers outside of the EFL.

There is no evidence of any of that. All we know is we were late paying the loan fee for Barry. That in itself is enough to trigger this fee ban. Everything else that is rumoured is likely the quickly scrambled imaginations of someone trying to look like they were in the loop before the news broke.