Initial 10, then reduced to 6 + 2 Point Deductions

[Gilbert..]

Wow are you really blaming a finance director for poor transfers?

Basically, a Football club has two sides the business side and the football side. The Finance Directors' role is about revenues and budgets. It isn't about the performance of the football side of the operation.

No. Im blaming a finance director for allowing such a mess on his watch.
Not fit and proper to sit on a panel. We might aswell have just had nick leeson sitting there.

 

[gwladysnight]

No. Im blaming a finance director for allowing such a mess on his watch.
Not fit and proper to sit on a panel. We might aswell have just had nick leeson sitting there.

When you have a mess you blame the decision-makers, not their advisors. It was Terry Brown, Paul Aldridge, and Scott Duxberry who were the decision-makers. The role of the finance Director is to ensure a club fulfills its fiscal responsibilities. If West Ham had been guilty of not adhering to FRS 102 or other accounting protocols then you would have a point.

 

[Toffeepot]

We are on the brink of an abyss. The brink of sleepwalking into being owned by one of the worst sports investment companies on the planet and people are focusing on the points deduction.

We broke the rules, WE HAVE ADMITTED breaking the rules yet people are focusing on it being a witch hunt.

Yes the punishment is harsh and hopefully will be reduced on appeal. However, there are far too many people pouring petrol on the flames. It is reminiscent of Trump supporters who just completely disregard all evidence. The same idiots who buried their heads in the sand whilst Moshiri was destroying the club.

It is nothing like Trump supporters disregarding evidence. We know we went over the limit. The sanction is the problem and as per the Athletic it was a special case for the Everton case which points to a multitude of suspicious reasons why, by your own admission, the punishment is harsh.
It could be the threat of Government regulation and needing a sacrificial example
Maybe it's the disturbingly non-impartial panel that was selected
What it isn't, is an above board fair sanction that all clubs will be judged equally under going forward
and what it definitely is, is people looking at the evidence(not disregarding it) and being ever more shocked at the punishment, the more comes out about it.

Bit bizarre that you think it's all fine based on the evidence tbh and go around calling rightfully skeptical people idiots. Some people don't like to lay back and take it when the scales of justice aren't balancing

 

[HalfTimeSayers]

Wow are you really blaming a finance director for poor transfers?

Basically, a Football club has two sides the business side and the football side. The Finance Directors' role is about revenues and budgets. It isn't about the performance of the football side of the operation.

No.

I have been in and around a PL winning teams finance department. I had to go into meetings with a famously cantankerous but brilliant manager AND the FD for all sorts. For example, discussing whether book values of players should be impaired, based on form, fitness, saleability. The manager said no to every single player being written down - he hated being there. The FD was more circumspect based on injuries in particular. It was a strong FD. The manager would obviously always want XYZ in terms of spending. A good owner looks to the FD. A strong FD HAS to have input. Owners can get star struck and sign any cheque a convincing manager or DOF wants.

I hold Ingles more responsible for our mess than almost anyone. He caused none of it. But in that role you are responsible for ALL of it. Every penny. You aren’t in that position to do the bank rec and chase outstanding payments or make sure the cleaners are paid!!!!! Clubs outside the ultra elite aren’t even large businesses, outside of gate receipts they have a small number of large transactions. You aren’t getting a seven figure salary to sit in the finance department and verify the fixed assets. I’ve seen 2 CFOs go in my current business for minor issues nothing like the scale of our recent financial meltdown. The business has hundreds of sites worldwide, and the vast majority have far greater revenue than a mid-table PL club. Man City’s recent revenue bombshell is less than a tenth of just the UK business.

Financial or regulatory issue? First in the dock is the CFO/FD. Including major asset purchases, of which players would be one.

I reviewed the contract of a player which was said clubs record ever sale to audit the receivable. I did not do this with anyone from the “football side”. It was with the FD and Financial Controller (and interestingly was printed on really thick posh strong smelling paper).

Bed

 

[gwladysnight]

It is nothing like Trump supporters disregarding evidence. We know we went over the limit. The sanction is the problem and as per the Athletic it was a special case for the Everton case which points to a multitude of suspicious reasons why, by your own admission, the punishment is harsh.
It could be the threat of Government regulation and needing a sacrificial example
Maybe it's the disturbingly non-impartial panel that was selected
What it isn't, is an above board fair sanction that all clubs will be judged equally under going forward
and what it definitely is, is people looking at the evidence(not disregarding it) and being ever more shocked at the punishment, the more comes out about it.

Bit bizarre that you think it's all fine based on the evidence tbh and go around calling rightfully skeptical people idiots. Some people don't like to lay back and take it when the scales of justice aren't balancing

It wasn't a special case for Everton it was the first time any PL club had breached PSR so they basically needed sentencing guidelines to present to the IC.

 

[gwladysnight]

No.

I have been in and around a PL winning teams finance department. I had to go into meetings with a famously cantankerous but brilliant manager AND the FD for all sorts. For example, discussing whether book values of players should be impaired, based on form, fitness, saleability. The manager said no to every single player being written down - he hated being there. The FD was more circumspect based on injuries in particular. It was a strong FD. The manager would obviously always want XYZ in terms of spending. A good owner looks to the FD. A strong FD HAS to have input. Owners can get star struck and sign any cheque a convincing manager or DOF wants.

I hold Ingles more responsible for our mess than almost anyone. He caused none of it. But in that role you are responsible for ALL of it. Every penny. You aren’t in that position to do the bank rec and chase outstanding payments or make sure the cleaners are paid!!!!! Clubs outside the ultra elite aren’t even large businesses, outside of gate receipts they have a small number of large transactions. You aren’t getting a seven figure salary to sit in the finance department and verify the fixed assets. I’ve seen 2 CFOs go in my current business for minor issues nothing like the scale of our recent financial meltdown. The business has hundreds of sites worldwide, and the vast majority have far greater revenue than a mid-table PL club. Man City’s recent revenue bombshell is less than a tenth of just the UK business.

Financial or regulatory issue? First in the dock is the CFO/FD. Including major asset purchases, of which players would be one.

I reviewed the contract of a player which was said clubs record ever sale to audit the receivable. I did not do this with anyone from the “football side”. It was with the FD and Financial Controller (and interestingly was printed on really thick posh strong smelling paper).

Bed

Righting down the value of assets is absolutely something that a Finance Director should be involved in. Likewise, any financial breaches and financial regulatory issues are something that falls at the feet of a finance director.

What you are missing is that transfers especially during a transfer window are extremely fluid. A club will be offered multiple players and will look to offload multiple players during any window. There is no way a Finance Director could be, would be or should be involved in all of those transfer negotiations.


His role is to retrospectively implement accounting principles to any deals. It was Ingoe who highlighted the 3rd party issue to the Premier League. The biggest thing though is that West Ham signed Tevez and Mascherano in 2006. The Premier League didn't bring in 3rd Party ownership rules until 2007.

 

[Toffeepot]

It wasn't a special case for Everton it was the first time any PL club had breached PSR so they basically needed sentencing guidelines to present to the IC.

But they say that were they to use same guidlines for other clubs it would require updating terms
That is underhanded dealing using us as a test run. They had plenty of time to establish stable punishments instead of winging it for us and seeing how it plays out.
Changing the goal posts mid match too re stadium loan funding stinks to high heaven. The Law doesn't act retroactively so why should PL rules for one case? Its a disgrace changing what can be written off when it's too late to not build the stadium

 

[the golden visionary]

Another one for the helmet list.

I prefer cabbage filter

 

[Kevsleftpeg]

That quite simply isn't true.

If we had signed better players we would have finished higher in the League, received higher merit payments, and would have been featured on TV more. The likelihood is that we would have gone further in the cups and would have earned more prize money. That would have led to better sponsorship deals, less money spent on sacking managers and above all we would have been able to bring in more money from selling players.

Instead, we ignore all that and stamp our feet and shout about none-existent corruption.

You are completely missing the point I was making and taking it out of context.

 

[gwladysnight]

But they say that were they to use same guidlines for other clubs it would require updating terms
That is underhanded dealing using us as a test run. They had plenty of time to establish stable punishments instead of winging it for us and seeing how it plays out.
Changing the goal posts mid match too re stadium loan funding stinks to high heaven. The Law doesn't act retroactively so why should PL rules for one case? Its a disgrace changing what can be written off when it's too late to not build the stadium

You haven't read the report properly I fear.

This was the first case. They came up with a formula, basically 6 points for a breach and then 1 point for every £5m over the PSR threshold. The commission rejected the formula because the Premier League rules basically give the commission unlimited powers.

So clearly either the formula needs changing or the rules need amending.

 

[Gilbert..]

When you have a mess you blame the decision-makers, not their advisors. It was Terry Brown, Paul Aldridge, and Scott Duxberry who were the decision-makers. The role of the finance Director is to ensure a club fulfills its fiscal responsibilities. If West Ham had been guilty of not adhering to FRS 102 or other accounting protocols then you would have a point.

Yeah. Completely blameless was our director of finance friend.
If im ever in trouble im calling you in. You'll bore them to tears with your continuous waffle of diarreah they'll agree to anything to leave the room.

 

[Mrbluenose]

lol

Fake crowd noises to accompany and ever increasingly fake product, how ironic.

 

[RD2910]

You haven't read the report properly I fear.

This was the first case. They came up with a formula, basically 6 points for a breach and then 1 point for every £5m over the PSR threshold. The commission rejected the formula because the Premier League rules basically give the commission unlimited powers.

So clearly either the formula needs changing or the rules need amending.

The handbook lists the powers of sanction available to the commission, and as you say they are unrestricted. The commission will take care of the sanction basically. So if the Premier League didn't have a sanctions formula, didn't need a sanctions formula, and, if the Athletic is correct, didn't intend on this being a set sanctions formula going forward, why did it draw one up?

It feels quite a lot like a move specific to this case, and I'm not sure why you'd so readily deny that. It does leave itself open to questions over the independence of the commission simply because their chosen sanction is so in keeping with what the Premier League suggested. Was it definitely their place to suggest anything?

 

[PeregrineT]

It wasn't a special case for Everton it was the first time any PL club had breached PSR so they basically needed sentencing guidelines to present to the IC.

How long ago were the P&S rules put in place? And how long ago was the PL aware of a club likely having violated the P&S rules? And how soon after the P&S rules were put in place did they come up with the sentencing guidelines?

Let me also ask, how many rules or laws have hidden punishments the guilty don't find out about until the day of their hearing? Would the average person consider that reasonable?

 

[JP5]

Wow are you really blaming a finance director for poor transfers?

Basically, a Football club has two sides the business side and the football side. The Finance Directors' role is about revenues and budgets. It isn't about the performance of the football side of the operation.

Who is responsible for signing off transfer budgets?