Bolton and Bury games likely to be suspended....latest update, what a mess.

[WanChaiMiller]

You’ll definitely find majority were against ‘B’ teams so the EFL changed the financial rules to get them onside (allegedly)

Your comment makes no real sense. What financial rules were changed and to get them onside with what?

Like many things, B teams was a topic put forward to FL clubs for discussion and ultimately rejected. Why not?

[WanChaiMiller]

Read the bottom sentence Wan.

http://bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49493929.

"In the end if you're paying so much to buy players or for their wages and you're not getting that sort of money in, it's not a business at all is it?

"Whether the Football League has got the nerve to bring in wage caps and all those sorts of things will be interesting"

Totally agree. But its not the football league that has caused the wage inflation its the clubs themselves that have done it. The EFL are in effect trustees regulating on behalf of its members (the clubs). Not sure why you think they can act independent of them and their ultimate say.

[millertop]

So they need a wage cap?

[WanChaiMiller]

I can't understand why you think clubs like that should be treated with kid gloves by a woefully weak governing body. They made their bed, they broke the rules, they are now flouting the rules so why shouldn't they suffer the ultimate sanction?
Yes it's not the fans' fault but it wasn't the customers' fault when the likes of BHS went bust leaving thousands out of work and with their pensions shot to pieces because of a greedy, unscrupulous owner.
If football truly is a business it should surely suffer the same consequences as any other business that becomes unsustainable and unable to find anyone with sufficient financial clout to take it over.
It's harsh, but reality often is and kicking the can further down the road won't be the long term solution for clubs like Bolton.

Dont agree that the threat of being kicked out of the league and liquidated is akin to kid glove treatment.

All the EFL done has extended the time period to try and find a buyer to save the club. Sorry this it offends you so badly.

[WanChaiMiller]

So they need a wage cap?

Ive already answered this.

A wage cap currently exists but club chairmen (like ours) flout it.

[WanChaiMiller]

So they need a wage cap?

Just add surely this will be for the clubs to decide and not the EFL.

[flourbasher]

The club Chairman voted the current set of regulations through so must have been happy with them at the time.

The problems of these two clubs are caused by a different set of events.

Bury went because the owners business went bust. The same could happen to any club.

Bolton appear to have built up long term structural debt that can only be serviced on income playing at Premiership and Champioship level.

The Chairmen are busy running their respective clubs and so the EFL should take the lead here and give their membership some advice that there are risks that need addressing. Effectively acting as advisors to their membership. It's not acceptable to do precious little with the consequences being losing a 134 or so year old club.

Bury did not go because their owners went bust. That's S Dale,s version of events. What actually happened is well documented on the internet and I would imagine is now attracting the interest of some govt depts

S Dale has been on national radio recently saying he's not a football fan, didn't know Bury had a football team and has hardly been there. Whilst I'm not suggesting that should be a criteria for owning a club it shows the type of person he is. Still goading with no remorse

[a123]

Ive already answered this.

A wage cap currently exists but club chairmen (like ours) flout it.

You can’t flout it otherwise you will become the subject of a transfer embargo.

Also if the Chairman decides to inject funds to prevent breaching the 60% cap it has to be in the form of sponsorship or an injection of equity i.e. not repayable, loans from the Chairman are discounted from the calculation because they are simply increasing the debt burden of the club.

Ultimately you need to have more money than sense to take on a football club, because the chance of showing a profit on your investment are slim.

[wrinkly]

You can’t flout it otherwise you will become the subject of a transfer embargo.

Also if the Chairman decides to inject funds to prevent breaching the 60% cap it has to be in the form of sponsorship or an injection of equity i.e. not repayable, loans from the Chairman are discounted from the calculation because they are simply increasing the debt burden of the club.

Ultimately you need to have more money than sense to take on a football club, because the chance of showing a profit on your investment are slim.

They do flout the rules though.

Our opponents tonight openly stated that they deliberately broke ffp rules in a gamble to get promoted. They knew the penalties but were happy to take the risk.
Several clubs have done the same thing.

A few clubs are now using a loophole to get round ffp as it relates to maximum losses allowed.
These clubs include Sheffield Wednesday.
They have sold the stadium, to a group controlled by their chairman, for £60 million and the profit on the sale reduces the clubs losses over a 3 year period to within the permitted losses. Obviously this loophole can only be used once.
In the latest accounts the chairman has loaned the club £40 million - increasing the club's debt to him to £77 million.
This is necessary because the club's wage bill was £42 million. Income was £25 million.

[millertop]

Ive already answered this.

A wage cap currently exists but club chairmen (like ours) flout it.

Then I don’t get your previous post.

I’m sure there’s a finance cap but not a player cap