Birmingham points deduction

[Hamburg Blade]

This is what I posted on Monday on the other thread:

I'm sorry, but as tough as this sounds, a points reduction makes absolutely no sense at all. It simply isn't logical. If it is assumed that the overspending gives them an advantage on the pitch - which is the reasoning behind FFP - then a points reduction which does not relegate them can be said to have been negated by the overspending. In other words, there is no punishment. The only logical punishment, if they are really serious about this, is to wait until the final table and if Birmingham are in the top six, disqualify them from promotion or the play offs, and if they aren't in the top six, automatically relegate them.

And now we can see how true it is. They are very, very unlikely to get relegated - 5 points off and actually in a false position - and they were very, very unlikely to get in the play offs. So they've been given absolutely no punishment whatsoever.

 

[Fulwood Blade]

As is usual with these types of case - the offence was done LAST summer and has been known about for a long time.

Why the long delay?

As per Wet Spam - 3rd party ownership known early - decision left long time.

UTB

 

[8lade]

'Completely contemptuous of the EFL.'

And they only seem to be making it worse for themselves.

 

[metalblade]

Even the 9pts deduction could relegate them if Bolton go tits up they could lose three more points.

 

[Sheffsteel]

So are they actually getting a deduction or what?

Talksport have reported all day “9 point deduction accepted by Birmingham City and will take immediate effect”.
They even had local fan and journalist Ian Danter on saying there will be some relief because his sources told him it would probably be a 12 point penalty which would put them right in the relegation mix.

 

[8lade]

Haaaar! He said Sheffield Wednesday (when talking about clubs possibly in trouble).

 

[west_yorks_blade]

Regardless of the 9 point reduction, anyone who has dropped points against them this season is entitled to feel miffed. Those points were dropped as a consequence of Birmingham cheating.

 

[Sheffsteel]

Haaaar! He said Sheffield Wednesday (when talking about clubs possibly in trouble).

He was referring to other clubs falling foul of FFP and Ian Danter did mention Sheff Wed, Villa and Derby.

However don’t believe their crime is as serious.
Birmingham were under a soft embargo and ignored it still signing players.
Where as at least Wednesday whilst SW have been under a soft embargo they have controlled their spending in recent months
The only thing they haven’t done is sell players but they would argue they’ve not had any realistic bids.

My view is that if SW continue to control their spending (basically don’t give Bruce much for transfers) then they’ll avoid a points deduction and will be fine. However of course they’re less likely to challenge for promotion if they’re restricted from spending much money for players.

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

He was referring to other clubs falling foul of FFP and Ian Danter did mention Sheff Wed, Villa and Derby.

However don’t believe their crime is as serious.
Birmingham were under a soft embargo and ignored it still signing players.
Where as at least Wednesday whilst SW have been under a soft embargo they have controlled their spending in recent months
The only thing they haven’t done is sell players but they would argue they’ve not had any realistic bids.

My view is that if SW continue to control their spending (basically don’t give Bruce much for transfers) then they’ll avoid a points deduction and will be fine. However of course they’re less likely to challenge for promotion if they’re restricted from spending much money for players.

What on earth does a fine prevent?

Mister Billionaire just spends what he wants and pays the fines, doesn't give a shit when they eventually go up.

 

[BushBlade]

What on earth does a fine prevent?

Mister Billionaire just spends what he wants and pays the fines, doesn't give a shit when they eventually go up.

You’re absolutely correct but I don’t think he said anything about giving them a fine.

 

[BusheyBlade]

The punishment for West Ham might have been fair at the time if they stopped playing Tevez and Mascharano until their contracts were made legal, a £5.5 million fine was sufficient.

What then should then happen to a club, who having received a £5.5 million fine promise that they will rectify the offending 3rd party contracts, then tell the football authorities that they have rectified the offending 3rd party contracts, then it is found that they didn't rectify the offending 3rd party contracts

The interesting thing about the West Ham fine of £5.5m is that this amount was greater than the sum total of all other PL fines given out to date. So that's basically saying you broke the rules so badly we're going to punish you to the tune of all the other punishments since our formation combined. This is what annoyed me at the time when their fans tried to say they didn't break the rules because their punishment actually said they did, in a really bad way. It's just that the punishment itself was shit and totally ineffective.

 

[YorkBlade]

It's interesting that they didn't sell Che Adams to try and help balance the books, this ruling sets a precedent. Teams could be forced to sell their best players just to keep their heads above water and avoid a points deduction.

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

You’re absolutely correct but I don’t think he said anything about giving them a fine.

Ahhhh

I read it as 'it will be a fine'.

Either way....they've broken the rules....how can they be fine?

 

[BushBlade]

He definitely did.

Will be fine. FINE. Not FINED.

 

[Scooter_mcgavin]

Will be fine. FINE. Not FINED.

FFS You're way too quick

 

[Yellarbellyblade]

This is a good breakdown of the situation.

So essentially they agree the EFL have bottled it

 

[Willie Carlin]

9 points!! no deterrent at all. Minimum should be relegation for breaking the FFP rules.

 

[Sothall_Blade]

He was referring to other clubs falling foul of FFP and Ian Danter did mention Sheff Wed, Villa and Derby.

However don’t believe their crime is as serious.
Birmingham were under a soft embargo and ignored it still signing players.
Where as at least Wednesday whilst SW have been under a soft embargo they have controlled their spending in recent months
The only thing they haven’t done is sell players but they would argue they’ve not had any realistic bids.

My view is that if SW continue to control their spending (basically don’t give Bruce much for transfers) then they’ll avoid a points deduction and will be fine. However of course they’re less likely to challenge for promotion if they’re restricted from spending much money for players.

What about inventing fictitious companies to circumvent the rules? When are they going to get punished for that?

 

[Plymouthblade]

They should give mr brooking a call he can move hurdles

 

[Plymouthblade]

You can just imagine the conversation between the EFL and Birmingham City.

EFL: You broke the FFP rules and we need to punish you. What do you suggest?
BC: Well it cant be a points deduction because we’ve a good chance of promotion and looking good for the play-offs.
EFL: OK, we’ll suspend the punishment decision and see how you get in in the league.

A few weeks later
BC: We’ve been on a poor run recently and I think promotion is gone so we’re now happy to accept a points deduction.
EFL: Good, so we’ll give you the standard 12 points deduction then.
BC: That would put us on the brink of relegation and we have some tough matches coming up against WBA, Leeds and Sheff U.
EFL: But the guidance sets a 12 point deduction.
BC: We would appeal against a 12 point punishment and there would be bad publicity of a long drawn out legal battle.
BC: we’ve spoken to our legal people and we’re prepared to compromise and accept a 9 point punishment.
EFL: OK, if you’re happy with 9 points then we’ll set that as the punishment and hope it serves as a lesson to other clubs.

BC cheers Trevor

 

[nopigfansintown]

An easy solution: a one point fine for every million you go over the limit. And a hefty fine.

 

[Yewsman]

It’s being reported that Birmingham City have agreed with the EFL to accept an immediate 9 points deduction as punishment for ignoring the FFP. It was initially feared that they would receive the usual 12 points deductionm which would put them right in the relegation battle.

It made me think that often these punishments are just for show paying lip service and not serious punishments.

Regards the Birmingham City case, the EFL realise that a 12 point deduction would our them in to a relegation battle, so they’ve relaxed the punishment to “give them a chance”, so they are more likely to accept the punishment without resorting to expensive legal action.

Regards West Ham in 2007, they were stuck at the bottom of the table, so any points deduction would mean instant relegation. Even with no points deduction it still looked massive odds on that they would be relegated.
The PL took the unusual step to “give them a chance” by giving West Ham a massive fine instead of the normal points deduction.

My point is these punishments always seem to be negotiated between the EFL, PL and the club, so that all parties come out a winner, so then it’s not such a history changing punishment.

The West Sham situation was slightly different. Firstly it was breach of PL rules and secondly the penalty was decided by and after a full hearing before and "Independent Tribunal". The persons sitting on that Tribunal did not seem to understand the relative paucity of the punishment but the High Court decided that it was not "so unreasonable" that it could be overturned on appeal. The penalty was not however "negotiated" between the PL and club as in the current position.

 

[Yewsman]

Here is an article I found which purports to explain FFP etc.. I assume it is correct. It does not however set out what the penalties should be and I suppose as a matter of law each case has to be looked at on its own facts and that it cannot just be an automatic 12 points deduction in every case where there is a breach, however there would be nothing to stop the EFL publishing guidelines as to what the penalty should for a breach. I presume that is what the current "12 point penalty" is.

https://www.mikethornton.xyz/new-ffp-tests/

Sadly the people who run football still have the Sepp Maier mentality which is that the game is run for their benefit not that of the supporters or clubs as a whole. They seem to be reluctant to tackle any of the obvious problems in the game. How long has it taken them to introduce the FFP etc., VAR, tackle cheating by players "diving" and other issues. Then when they do the measures prove to be poorly thought through (VAR) or just not properly enforced and policed FFP. Until the Authorities properly police FFP and introduce proper penalties which have an effect on the guilty, only then will it actually ensure that clubs abide by the rules. The BC case clearly shows they have not changed their tune.

 

[Sean Thornton]

Here is an article I found which purports to explain FFP etc.. I assume it is correct. It does not however set out what the penalties should be and I suppose as a matter of law each case has to be looked at on its own facts and that it cannot just be an automatic 12 points deduction in every case where there is a breach, however there would be nothing to stop the EFL publishing guidelines as to what the penalty should for a breach. I presume that is what the current "12 point penalty" is.

https://www.mikethornton.xyz/new-ffp-tests/

Sadly the people who run football still have the Sepp Maier mentality which is that the game is run for their benefit not that of the supporters or clubs as a whole. They seem to be reluctant to tackle any of the obvious problems in the game. How long has it taken them to introduce the FFP etc., VAR, tackle cheating by players "diving" and other issues. Then when they do the measures prove to be poorly thought through (VAR) or just not properly enforced and policed FFP. Until the Authorities properly police FFP and introduce proper penalties which have an effect on the guilty, only then will it actually ensure that clubs abide by the rules. The BC case clearly shows they have not changed their tune.

All German goalkeepers are see you next Tuesdays but blaming Maier for footballs problems rather than Blatter is a bit harsh.

 

[BushBlade]

Here is an article I found which purports to explain FFP etc.. I assume it is correct. It does not however set out what the penalties should be and I suppose as a matter of law each case has to be looked at on its own facts and that it cannot just be an automatic 12 points deduction in every case where there is a breach, however there would be nothing to stop the EFL publishing guidelines as to what the penalty should for a breach. I presume that is what the current "12 point penalty" is.

https://www.mikethornton.xyz/new-ffp-tests/

Sadly the people who run football still have the Sepp Maier mentality which is that the game is run for their benefit not that of the supporters or clubs as a whole. They seem to be reluctant to tackle any of the obvious problems in the game. How long has it taken them to introduce the FFP etc., VAR, tackle cheating by players "diving" and other issues. Then when they do the measures prove to be poorly thought through (VAR) or just not properly enforced and policed FFP. Until the Authorities properly police FFP and introduce proper penalties which have an effect on the guilty, only then will it actually ensure that clubs abide by the rules. The BC case clearly shows they have not changed their tune.

https://www.efl.com/-more/governanc...appendix-5---financial-fair-play-regulations/

 

[Yewsman]

All German goalkeepers are see you next Tuesdays but blaming Maier for footballs problems rather than Blatter is a bit harsh.

Sorry misprint. As you say BLATTER. Thanks for correcting me.

 

[8lade]

The West Sham situation was slightly different.

The one thing that seems to be driving all the penalties and was identified by BB(in this case), is the close proximity to the end of the season and making the fine fit the circumstances. My meaning behind this is you can apply as severe a fine as you like but whether it was 3 or 9pts it is likely to have no effect on Birmingham. If somebody with a backbone at the EFL had said, 'we've bent over backwards for these fuckers and now they're showing us their arse!' (Or words to that effect) at the point where they flaunted the rules (the signing of Jansson) and after having being warned and deducted the points then, other teams would take note.

 

[Bill Johnson]

Just seen that a few guys who streamed football have been sent to prison for longer than rapists. Glad we live in a reasonable society.

 

[HighfieldBlade]

Dear Birmingham,
Please can we have your 9 points?
Thank you.

 

[EddieColquhoun]

However don’t believe their crime is as serious.
Birmingham were under a soft embargo and ignored it still signing players.
Where as at least Wednesday whilst SW have been under a soft embargo they have controlled their spending in recent months
The only thing they haven’t done is sell players but they would argue they’ve not had any realistic bids.

My view is that if SW continue to control their spending (basically don’t give Bruce much for transfers) then they’ll avoid a points deduction and will be fine. However of course they’re less likely to challenge for promotion if they’re restricted from spending much money for players.

Danter claimed this punishment for Brum was for last season and is nothing to do with them signing Pedersen. Even though they were under embargo the EFL still sanctioned the transfer.
Wendy have broken the rules and cheats should not be allowed to prosper.