Stoke City and a transfer embargo ?

[blackdog]

www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-9438517/Championship-facing-financial-armageddon-TEN-clubs-placed-transfer-embargo-month.html

Have our cousins down the road hit a bit of a bump in the road ?

I've read the article and looked on the oatcake and I have to admit I don't really understand the situation.

[Joe B]

Government have given businesses an extra three months to submit accounts due to the pandemic.

EFL, in their classic incompetence, have not allowed the same extension.

Therefore, when clubs have not submitted their accounts by the original deadline they've been smacked with an embargo, which I assume are the EFL's rules RE failure to submit accounts.

Considering their season has crumbled it's funny, but will be lifted when they meet the government's deadline.

The fact they've lost £90m isn't good, whether the accounts are on time or otherwise, though. 

[Fosse69]

Admin problem more likely for the cousins than a shortage of money. Fair Play restrictions more of a problem I think.

[Iron Curtain]

Annoyingly it also seems like Financial Fair Play rules are on the verge of being removed too... or at least loosened.

Can someone provide me with some comfort that it wont mean Stoke can just plough loads of cash into their team and buy promotion again? please.

[Joe B]

2 minutes ago, Iron Curtain said:

Annoyingly it also seems like Financial Fair Play rules are on the verge of being removed too... or at least loosened.

Can someone provide me with some comfort that it wont mean Stoke can just plough loads of cash into their team and buy promotion again? please.

I wouldn't fear, as last time they had a load of money at this level they spent it on Thomas Ince, Ryan Woods, and Peter Etebo.

[Wrex]

1 hour ago, Joe B said:

Government have given businesses an extra three months to submit accounts due to the pandemic.

EFL, in their classic incompetence, have not allowed the same extension.

Therefore, when clubs have not submitted their accounts by the original deadline they've been smacked with an embargo, which I assume are the EFL's rules RE failure to submit accounts.

Considering their season has crumbled it's funny, but will be lifted when they meet the government's deadline.

The fact they've lost £90m isn't good, whether the accounts are on time or otherwise, though. 

Thanks for the explanation.

I was bemused as to how they'd have fallen foul of the rules seen as they're always banging on about the financial fair play restrictions meaning they can only sign <ovf censored> players

[Doha]

 

 

 

 

 

[Iron Curtain]

The one annoying thing about the latest Stoke news is that unfortunately they have played the crappy cards they were dealt pretty well.

FFP rules have been amended meaning on a one off basis, losses on a Covid year don't count.

Stoke have therefore used that loophole to write off the value of all the players they couldn’t sell.

Take Wimmer for example... he’s rubbish, but they paid a lot for him. So he is recorded in their books as worth a lot of money.

If they sold him for peanuts (all anyone would be willing to pay) or gave him away for a free then the difference between what he is worth and what they got would be considered a loss on their books... that loss would have counted against them in FFP.

That means they couldn’t get rid and had to pay his extortionate wages... also not good for FFP.

They have used the Covid loophole to revalue all their dross meaning they can get them off the books and not take the FFP hit.

Wimmer has had his contract terminated immediately after the write down. Without the Covid loophole that would have knackered them under FFP.

Its clearly tactical and against the spirit of the Covid loophole... Wimmer is not worth much because he is rubbish... nothing to do with Covid. I can well imagine a review getting them into trouble 🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞🤞

[Santa]

Wimmer was four years into a five year contract so even without the loophole they would have written down over £14 million of his fee by now, wouldn't they?

[Iron Curtain]

16 minutes ago, Santa said:

Wimmer was four years into a five year contract so even without the loophole they would have written down over £14 million of his fee by now, wouldn't they?

I’m not sure if the actual numbers on each individual player and Wimmer is just one example.

But on those numbers they have just taken a £3.5m hit which would have counted towards FFP which now won’t. That said I don’t know if amortisation is considered in the losses so a final year contract may be a bad example... but they have certainly hacked away at the value of their poor players so will benefit FFP wise.