loyalblade95
were all blades here pigs not welcome
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2015
- Messages
- 2,017
- Reaction score
- 1,526
Oh right, I thought that was what we still had to pay.It has already been paid it was just delayed
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?
Oh right, I thought that was what we still had to pay.It has already been paid it was just delayed
The EFL have only posted the Consent Award Decision written reasons in March today. The Club could have pleaded late payments as mitigation in the January 2024 hearing but we will need access to the IC's February 2024 written reasons to confirm that.Only read the judgment quickly but can't see any reference to us waiting for payments from other clubs?
I saw the wilder press conference on there while having my lunchIt’s only time we get a mention on Sky
I hope you weren’t eating a sandwich in front of him.I saw the wilder press conference on there while having my lunch
Grbic for.another 10 years
We were under the jurisdiction of the EFL at the time, the other clubs are operating under EPL rules, different organisations, different rulesWe were late paying but it got paid and we get a 2 point deduction.
City, Forest and Everton took the piss breaking rules.
Clubs also owed US money at this time,that's conveniently brushed under the carpetIt’s alright complaining about the rules / interpretation of rules between prem and EFL but we shouldn’t be in the situation in the first place.
Just pay the fucking bills on time.
Purely down to miss management of the club. Nothing else.
But did they pay us on time (I don’t know)?Clubs also owed US money at this time,that's conveniently brushed under the carpet
The judgment highlights United's mitigation points in relation to the 'charges' as part of the run through of events. The January hearing seems to have been about jurisdiction issues.The EFL have only posted the Consent Award Decision written reasons in March today. The Club could have pleaded late payments as mitigation in the January 2024 hearing but we will need access to the IC's February 2024 written reasons to confirm that.
This is the thing for me.It's alright saying its only 2 points yada yada. It's enough to make us look like the shitshow that we are and it WILL come into the minds of players in the summer thinking which club to join or rejoin.
I am all for real time ffp/sporting sanctions like how la liga refuse to allow clubs to sign players who spend over the agreed terms. That's how they lost Messi on a free rather than getting docked points seasons later.They could have taken it off our points total from the year we committed the offence.
In fact they could have made it 12 points and saved us the ignominy of this season.
La dee dar. Someone's been watching Countdown! Ignominy. Very fancy!They could have taken it off our points total from the year we committed the offence.
In fact they could have made it 12 points and saved us the ignominy of this season.
Spot onOnly skim read Independent Commissions (IC) written reasons. My comments as follows;
1. The club have been aware of this since March 2023.
2. The club defaulted on transfer/loan payments to other clubs over a period of 600 days(1.65 years). The EFL considered this conduct was sufficiently serious to justify further sanctioning the club( in addition to the transfer embargo) under their rules and referred the matter to a disciplinary committee who appointed an IC.
3. The payment defaults related to 5 player transactions totalling £8.2 million.
3. Throughout 2023 both parties made submissions to the IC culminating in a hearing in January 2024. Nick De Marco KC represented the Club. The KC currently acting for Florist.
4. The IC found in favour of the EFL in February 2024 who had requested points deductions and a fine.
5. In March 2024 a compromise sanction was agreed at 2 points deducted plus 2 deferred for further breaches in the next full EFL season.
6. SUFC agreed there would no appeal.
6. Costs were awarded against SUFC totalling for £310,000 for the EFL plus the IC's costs.
Clearly defaulting on transfer payments over nearly two years has led to this state of affairs and the EFL felt obliged to push for further sanctions because the club was continually in breach of EFL payment rules. This drives a coach and horses through PA's response to Sheffield United Way that the embargo only related to around £1 million and lasted only a few months. 5 player transactions and £8 million in fees defaulted on suggests it certainly wasn't the picture being painted. That explains why consideration was given not to Appeal and get the best compromise avoiding a fine. The term I believe is "bang to rights"
The cost to the club in defending this action exceeds the £310,00 quoted. Add in the IC's costs and Mick De Marco who doesn't come cheap and you are looking at north of double that amount.
A sorry state of affairs imo. Not only has the clubs reputation been sullied but they now face stricter limitations on any future default with the potential for automatic additional point deductions. Will this affect future transfer dealings one can only speculate but it may lead to requests for more money up front. It also has the potential for any rival we do future business with running to the EFL to get the additional points applied should there be any semblance of delay in making payments.
The Clubs statement that they were waiting for payments from other clubs doesn't hold water imo. The EFL rules set out a clear process whereby SUFC could have invoked disciplinary proceedings via the EFL against said clubs for late payment within pre determined time scales. That doesn't seemed to have happened here.
I've largely been a Prince supporter but I've no problem with the club being punished for that.Full decision here
Snippets...
United missed payments of...
(a) £1,000,000, £750,000 and £3,750,000 due to Club 1 under a permanent transferagreement for Player A - has to be Brewster
(b) EUR 2,000,000 due to Club 2 under a permanent transfer agreement for Player B - has to be Ahmedhodzic (half of €4m fee)
(c) £143,546.28 due to Club 3 in respect of the loan of Player C - probably Khadra, figure so exact that it must include penalty clauses
(d) £62,500 due to Club 4 in respect of the loan of Player D - Clark?
(e) EUR 900,000 due to Club 5 under a permanent transfer agreement for Player E - I assume that with the currency being Euros this can only be Berge
Cheers Prince
He is the player that Wilder really wanted and was initially refused by the PrinceThe money wasted on Brewster, what an absolute shit show. With the transfer fee, signing on fee, wages, it will cost £35 million and for what? Brewster is the South Stand debt for the new age, we will still be paying this for the next five years,
Don’t understand why people have a problem with the Prince ?Has anyone reported that the Prince actually lied on one of his spin sessions sure he said it was only about one player?
100% on prince and the board thisI'm all for proper punishment and we're getting it. The embargo is to prevent us making it worse, the points deduction is the actual punishment.
Unbelievable we are in this situation given what we've spent, owner is a dickhead.
All advertisments are hidden for logged in members, why not log in/register?