Thing is: if you fail for one three year period, there is a pretty good chance you will fail the next as well, and so on. Repeat offenders, I expect, will be treated more seriously than a one-off. We will see soon with Everton, I suppose.Mmmmm.... So essentially a team would have to weigh up if it was a price worth paying?
I ask because I think as long as all bills were paid & the club had no outstanding debt, a move like that could signal the end of FFP or whatever it's being called this week.
It could then promote secure owner investment with the monies deposited into an escrow account, & counterbalanced by a fairer wages to turnover ratio rule.
So again, a club would have to weigh up if it was a risk worth taking, & what Masters proposed is still subject to the panel's discretion?Note I've edited that post you've - getting mixed up between points and pounds :)
Should read:
Masters recommended a 10 point deduction to the panel. He used the EFL criteria as a basis for the recommendation. It was something like 6 points fixed for the breach and 1 point for each £5mil over. CBA looking that bit up.
The panel told him to fuck off because it wasn't in the rules and then went ahead using their discretion and came up with the same 10 point deduction.
I've now looked it up and that is what Masters proposed. If it was in the rules that would mean 6+20 points for a breach of £100 million and not neccessarily relegation
Superb.I think this particular Geordie was actually punched by a horse.
But let's say you bought a squad you wouldn't need to add to for 2-3 seasons, so saved that season's transfer budget, PL/CL money & any prize money earned, wouldn't that approach make it a risk worth considering?Thing is: if you fail for one three year period, there is a pretty good chance you will fail the next as well, and so on. Repeat offenders, I expect, will be treated more seriously than a one-off. We will see soon with Everton, I suppose.
Yes on both counts.So again, a club would have to weigh up if it was a risk worth taking, & what Masters proposed is still subject to the panel's discretion?
It is a dangerous game to play but, yes, a club could weigh up if it was a price worth paying.
Projectriver's case theory for Chelsea was they regarded a financial penalty as a "cost of doing business" and was what they likely expected for a breach.
The Everton case has potentially thrown that out of the window because the expectation now is a points deduction.
But let's say you bought a squad you wouldn't need to add to for 2-3 seasons, so saved that season's transfer budget, PL/CL money & any prize money earned, wouldn't that approach make it a risk worth considering?
So they'd need to get 60 points to stay up, with a far superior squad for the following season?
Mmmmm... Interesting (strokes chin).Yes on both counts.
Yes!
Masters recommended a 10 point deduction to the panel. He used the EFL criteria as a basis for the recommendation. It was something like 6 points fixed for the breach and 1 point for each £5mil over. CBA looking that bit up.
The panel told him to fuck off because it wasn't in the rules and then went ahead using their discretion and came up with the same 10 point deduction.