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.
Rigsby said:
Think someone mentioned money was still owed from January transfer window, and so think people believed that could be Blackpool. However, if they were still owed money then the original transfer embargo would be still in place, so that doesn't tally up for me.
It could be true that other football creditors are involved, but I haven't seen any clear evidence/confirmation of this and it appears to be speculation.
Click to expand...
As fans we are never likely to see the hard evidence of deal sheets / contracts the best we will ever get is 2nd or 3rd hand verbal information but never clear evidence. Things are confidential & covered by non disclosure agreements . You will be waiting a very very long time if you want actual evidence
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron Burguvdy
SW3 Chelsea Tiger said:
As fans we are never likely to see the hard evidence of deal sheets / contracts the best we will ever get is 2nd or 3rd hand verbal information but never clear evidence. Things are confidential & covered by non disclosure agreements . You will be waiting a very very long time if you want actual evidence
Click to expand...
We've had confirmation that the Barry deal was the issue for the transfer embargo and restriction. Nothing else has been confirmed relating to other football creditors, just speculation
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jim the Tiger, Ron Burguvdy and Gone For A Walk
Stockholm Tiger said:
No GFAW it says they are separate and one was resolved and the other isn't.

I basing my opinion on what the article says. If subsequent articles say otherwise, and I hope they do, then I'll base my opinion on that.

What he said to Mike White doesn't address this point but hopefully what Acun said is true.
Click to expand...

See post 713 above from Rigsby which explains how it is.
Yes, they are 'separate', but both stem from the same issue i.e. the 'debt' to Villa.
The first issue: The payment has been resolved, hence the embargo lifted
The second issue: ... but the technical fact remains that the 30 day period was exceeded (albeit Villa and City both thinking there wasn't an issue) hence the punishment remains (at least for now, but hopefully an appeal sees it overturned).

Everything else (Blackpool, suppliers, whatever) has all been conjecture. Feel free to show us all anything that states clearly that there's anything other than the Villa issue, that isn't simply based on rumour, hearsay, etc
 
  • Like
Reactions: Red top reader, springtiger, hullborn and 1 other person
Gone For A Walk said:
See post 713 above from Rigsby which explains how it is.
Yes, they are 'separate', but both stem from the same issue i.e. the 'debt' to Villa.
The first issue: The payment has been resolved, hence the embargo lifted
The second issue: ... but the technical fact remains that the 30 day period was exceeded (albeit Villa and City both thinking there wasn't an issue) hence the punishment remains (at least for now, but hopefully an appeal sees it overturned).

Everything else (Blackpool, suppliers, whatever) has all been conjecture. Feel free to show us all anything that states clearly that there's anything other than the Villa issue, that isn't simply based on rumour, hearsay, etc
Click to expand...

You think I'm wronge (and I might and for that you can blame the HDM). I think you're wronge.

That's fine with me I'll move and to hear more. As I said before your scenario would be much better all round.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gone For A Walk
We didn't pay Villa what they were due within 30 days so have been given the transfer restriction is how I understand it. What do you think happened?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gone For A Walk
SydneyTiger14 said:
It was the cause of the embargo not the fee restriction. They are separate.
Click to expand...

TBF it could be there are two elements of punishment for the same offence. So a single incident of paying Villa 30 days late and that fee still being outstanding. By paying Villa we have removed the embargo but the restrictions remain as it was late.

I think the article implies, I hope incorrectly, the are other late payments and we are answering for those too.

TWT
 
Stockholm Tiger said:
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.
Click to expand...
I agree, but it’s just so hard to cut through all the ‘fog of war’ or whatever you want to call it and see how bad the issue(s) actually is/are isn’t it?

At present the punishment doesn’t seem to fit the crime, and the noises from the club suggest that they’re confident of having it reduced on that basis, but you’d have to be pretty foolish not to wonder what magnitude of crime the EFL believes we’ve committed for that to be the (draft?) punishment in the first place.

And it’s hard not to jump in with both feet. Like everyone else, I guess, I believe my opinion to be perfectly reasonable. My sheets are just fine, ta, but if anyone who is marginally more concerned than me is a bedwetter and anyone marginally less concerned is a naive Acun-apologist then it doesn’t leave those of us jumping to conclusions much room for manoeuvre as any facts actually become clear.

Hopefully the truth will out soon and it won’t be as bad as feared, but I’m certainly braced for it to be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Christophalophados, Chazz Rheinhold, HulltoHellandback and 2 others
Stockholm Tiger said:
TBF it could be there are two elements of punishment for the same offence. So a single incident of paying Villa 30 days late and that fee still being outstanding. By paying Villa we have removed the embargo but the restrictions remain as it was late.

I think the article implies, I hope incorrectly, the are other late payments and we are answering for those too.

TWT
Click to expand...

I suggest the new HDM article pretty much confirms / clarifies that what me n Rigsby have been trying to explain is the case. (edit: sorry, our posts crossed)

Now waiting for usual suspects to slate him for being a swinger on top of everything else. :emoticon-0112-wonde
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back