Rockfords Love Child
Member
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2010
- Messages
- 6,888
- Fav Player
- Jason Koumas / John Morrissey
Murphy played 32 games for Forest last season, so can't be that past it.Daryl Murphy is no longer championship level & is nocking on,
Murphy played 32 games for Forest last season, so can't be that past it.Daryl Murphy is no longer championship level & is nocking on,
The rules certainly need looking atMy point was that these signings have apparently been funded by yet more debt, which should not be permitted after what has happened.
I doubt we could afford either Murphy or Bridcutt.
For what it is worth, I still don't believe it is certain they will go down.
9 signings but none contracted beyond the end of the season so the financial exposure is being tightly controlled. It seems pretty reasonable and not sure what else we should expect. Their new owners need to ensure that they are competitive for the remainder of the season otherwise they'd risk losing a slice of their fanbase and associated revenues.My point was that these signings have apparently been funded by yet more debt, which should not be permitted after what has happened.
I doubt we could afford either Murphy or Bridcutt.
For what it is worth, I still don't believe it is certain they will go down.
But why could not the money have been provided as capital investment rather than debt ? The club again has significant debt - a £20 million loan repayable in three years apparently - which risks the same problems recurring in a few months' time.9 signings but none contracted beyond the end of the season so the financial exposure is being tightly controlled. It seems pretty reasonable and not sure what else we should expect. Their new owners need to ensure that they are competitive for the remainder of the season otherwise they'd risk losing a slice of their fanbase and associated revenues.
I don't know the answer to that, RLC, but after recent criticism I would be very surprised if the EFL hasn't done its diligence over the sustainability of the financial model until the end of the season at the very least. The fact that the loan is repayable in 3 years would suggest that somebody believes it is either repayable or covered by assets. I would be genuinely interested to know how many clubs AREN'T funded by, supported by or carrying debt; it's easy to google those with massive debt but less easy to find this out. I suspect that the answer is not many if any.But why could not the money have been provided as capital investment rather than debt ? The club again has significant debt - a £20 million loan repayable in three years apparently - which risks the same problems recurring in a few months' time.
On principle, I don't think a twelve point deduction which can be overturned in a matter of weeks is sufficient punishment for going into administration and fielding youth teams for the first month of the season. What real disincentive is there for clubs to act the same way in future ?
I think a club that can't field eleven professionals at the start of the season should not be participating in the League. However, given that Bolton were allowed to start the season, the standard twelve point deduction for entering administration does not seem sufficient to me. The fact they have had to play youth teams is entirely self-inflected and should not mean that other sanctions don't apply.I don't know the answer to that, RLC, but after recent criticism I would be very surprised if the EFL hasn't done its diligence over the sustainability of the financial model until the end of the season at the very least. The fact that the loan is repayable in 3 years would suggest that somebody believes it is either repayable or covered by assets. I would be genuinely interested to know how many clubs AREN'T funded by, supported by or carrying debt; it's easy to google those with massive debt but less easy to find this out. I suspect that the answer is not many if any.
Surely, the punishment for fielding an inexperienced team has been the fact that they have achieved only 1 point from their fixtures this season and suffered three 5-0 tonkings on the spin. I will, though, be pretty miffed if they aren't deducted further points for the 2 cancelled matches.
There is a difference between debt which is owed to a private individual and is not repayable within a specific timeframe (our position with PJ), and loans which must be repaid within three years with a 4% interest rate. Neither situation is ideal, but the latter one is obviously far more risky.I would be genuinely interested to know how many clubs AREN'T funded by, supported by or carrying debt;
The hearing was last Friday, the outcome will be announced this weekSeems to be taking forever for the punishment for the 2 called-off matches to be decided. It was over a week ago (nearly 2) that they had the hearing. I wonder if they are giving Bolton the chance to earn some more points, take the new hit and still remain on + points!
The EFL are a disgrace.Amazingly Bolton have got away without playing 2 games, minus 5 points suspended for 18 months.
The disciplinary panel are a joke for this
From what I can gather it is not down to the EFL but the disciplinary panel who made the decision.The EFL are a disgrace.
They have basically received a fine of £35,000 for failing to fulfil two fixtures. What is to stop other clubs doing the same in future ?