Transfer Window 26/27 Summer Embargo Window

[SteMerritt]

 

[Steve Gilbert]

Bit of consistency needed here mods, surely; the actual wording of my post is changed because of a few hurty words yet 20+ posts of playground bickering are left unchallenged.
Priorities…ffs

Welcome to Yellows Forum

 

[Steve Gilbert]

Or. And this is a radical idea. The owner of the club could fund the club to the extent that’s due?

Now I know I am probably suggesting something radical, and am likely opening myself up to criticism.

So let me get this straight, we are under an embargo because we have spent the last few years over spending, you now want us to get the embargo lifted and then have the owner to keep ploughing money into the club to add more debt?

 

[Carpy]

Bit of consistency needed here mods, surely; the actual wording of my post is changed because of a few hurty words yet 20+ posts of playground bickering are left unchallenged.
Priorities…ffs

Maybe after being told how wrong we were, we've just decided to let you lot sort it out between yourselves and not bother getting involved?

 

[LowerSouth]

I thought that we could spend 65% of our income and transfer fees in their entirety. Therefore, one decent sale (on top of whatever we got for Perlec) may be enough to bring us below the threshold that would lift the embargo.

I thought the Embargo was imposed due to the owners inability to stump up the required Bond, needed upfront by the EFL to guarantee the seasons running costs of the squad etc .
If they needed to fund this Bond by selling, why would they state that no one was for sale ( barring release clauses or a massive bid )
Have I misunderstood?

 

[Scotchegg]

I thought the Embargo was imposed due to the owners inability to stump up the required Bond, needed upfront by the EFL to guarantee the seasons running costs of the squad etc .
If they needed to fund this Bond by selling, why would they state that no one was for sale ( barring release clauses or a massive bid )
Have I misunderstood?

You're right, the embargo is due to not having sufficient money upfront to cover the costs. But one big issue is the need to work within the 65% ratio between income and costs, with double any difference needing to be put into club infrastructure.

I suspect that is this infrastructure payment that is causing the issues, and that dropping below the 65% would resolve this.

However, if further investment is expected, or the stadium situation gives us the opportunity to offset and top up investment, then the club may decide to suffer the embargo for now rather than selling off multiple players which cpuld cost us much more in the long run.

 

[Yellowarmy]

Which from my understanding was always the case that selling one possibly 2 would get us back under the 65%
The real issue was putting a huge lump sum in up front instead of the staggered approach which was what happened previously

2 general points on this.

I'm presuming that a 3m sale over 4 years, if structured this way, means only 750k is paid this year but will help future year's also.

My 2nd point is that surely buying a player when you do get down to 65% is like celebrating a year's sobriety which a bottle of bubbly. It rather defeats the purpose of the origin of the rule, which when agreed by the clubs, was to almost force clubs to get their houses in order. Not sure this point has been recognised during fan discussions.

I personally think we are spending enough on our wage bill currently.

 

[Ian]

NO MORE JOKES OR ATTEMPTS AT HUMOUR ANYMORE PEOPLE!!!

THE FUN POLICE HAVE SPOKEN.

Someone has turned into a mad dog...

It's time to move away from the forum, perhaps think about pizza toppings, and return gently in a day or two, dropping the subject that's causing conflict.

 

[Ian]

2 general points on this.

I'm presuming that a 3m sale over 4 years, if structured this way, means only 750k is paid this year but will help future year's also.

My 2nd point is that surely buying a player when you do get down to 65% is like celebrating a year's sobriety which a bottle of bubbly. It rather defeats the purpose of the origin of the rule, which when agreed by the clubs, was to almost force clubs to get their houses in order. Not sure this point has been recognised during fan discussions.

I personally think we are spending enough on our wage bill currently.

I agree. By selling and cost cutting to become compliant doesn't mean there is money to sign a new player. A new player might raise the outgoings above what the club has in the bank resulting in the immediate reimposition of the embago.

 

[Yellowarmy]

I agree. By selling and cost cutting to become compliant doesn't mean there is money to sign a new player. A new player might raise the outgoings above what the club has in the bank resulting in the immediate reimposition of the embago.

Totally agree Ian. We still have a large number of players earning 5k plus a week I'd imagine, which is a very healthy outlay for league 1.

To be fair to the management and players, after watching Saturdays game we do seem to have a very committed and talented set of players which I'm optimistic I will enjoy watching this season. 1 option could be 1 or 2 very cheap or even free loan deals from the likes of Arsenal. That would ideal in our scenerio.

 

[Steve Gilbert]

Totally agree Ian. We still have a large number of players earning 5k plus a week I'd imagine, which is a very healthy outlay for league 1.

To be fair to the management and players, after watching Saturdays game we do seem to have a very committed and talented set of players which I'm optimistic I will enjoy watching this season. 1 option could be 1 or 2 very cheap or even free loan deals from the likes of Arsenal. That would ideal in our scenerio.

The average wage of a league 1 player is around £4500 so most of our players are paid around the top end of a league 1 player and at slightly below average of a championship player. Not outrageous for a club who have just been relegated from the championship.

 

[londonyellow]

You're right, the embargo is due to not having sufficient money upfront to cover the costs. But one big issue is the need to work within the 65% ratio between income and costs, with double any difference needing to be put into club infrastructure.

I suspect that is this infrastructure payment that is causing the issues, and that dropping below the 65% would resolve this.

However, if further investment is expected, or the stadium situation gives us the opportunity to offset and top up investment, then the club may decide to suffer the embargo for now rather than selling off multiple players which cpuld cost us much more in the long run.

Scotch, where does the 'double any difference into club infrastructure' requirement come from?

 

[Oxford84]

Scotch, where does the 'double any difference into club infrastructure' requirement come from?

The SCMP rules?

 

[Scotchegg]

Scotch, where does the 'double any difference into club infrastructure' requirement come from?

 

[Billyox]

2 general points on this.

I'm presuming that a 3m sale over 4 years, if structured this way, means only 750k is paid this year but will help future year's also.

My 2nd point is that surely buying a player when you do get down to 65% is like celebrating a year's sobriety which a bottle of bubbly. It rather defeats the purpose of the origin of the rule, which when agreed by the clubs, was to almost force clubs to get their houses in order. Not sure this point has been recognised during fan discussions.

I personally think we are spending enough on our wage bill currently.

That is correct but
it is net transfer income. If Oxford receives a £1m instalment but is contracted to pay £400,000 in transfer fees to other clubs during that same period, only the £600,000 net amount increases the allowance.

 

[Billyox]

View attachment 36778

I question that 50/50 split no one seems to know the answer
As this says its 65% split

 

[Symp59]

Totally agree Ian. We still have a large number of players earning 5k plus a week I'd imagine, which is a very healthy outlay for league 1.

To be fair to the management and players, after watching Saturdays game we do seem to have a very committed and talented set of players which I'm optimistic I will enjoy watching this season. 1 option could be 1 or 2 very cheap or even free loan deals from the likes of Arsenal. That would ideal in our scenerio.

Alot on £10, 000 a week

 

[Orkney Islands Yellow]

 

[londonyellow]

View attachment 36778

Thanks. Surely it's 65/35 for us though as a yr1 relegated club? It would be good to get clarification on what must be done with the remaining amount that can't be used for player related expenditure. Is there anything in the rules that says it can't be ring-fenced for future use?

 

[chuckbert]

Or. And this is a radical idea. The owner of the club could fund the club to the extent that’s due?

Now I know I am probably suggesting something radical, and am likely opening myself up to criticism.

It’s not radical, it just seems to be spectacularly missing the point of what the constraint is.

 

[FabiOx]

I'm honestly getting a bit confused with the whole embargo situation now. On one hand we're being told we can't really do business because of the financial restrictions, but on the other hand there are already reports linking us with players again. Apparently Oxford are one of the clubs interested in Sami Jalal, alongside Copenhagen and Brøndby.
Hopefully the club gets this embargo situation sorted soon because I'd actually like to see us bring someone like Jalal in. Sounds like exactly the type of young signing we should be making if we're able to.

 

[Jaboysmith]

I'm honestly getting a bit confused with the whole embargo situation now. On one hand we're being told we can't really do business because of the financial restrictions, but on the other hand there are already reports linking us with players again. Apparently Oxford are one of the clubs interested in Sami Jalal, alongside Copenhagen and Brøndby.
Hopefully the club gets this embargo situation sorted soon because I'd actually like to see us bring someone like Jalal in. Sounds like exactly the type of young signing we should be making if we're able to.

The article calls us a championship club, so perhaps old interest if any at all

 

[IsaacOUFC]

FC Copenhague, Brøndby et Oxford United se disputent Sami Jalal | AfricaFoot

Sami Jalal est courtisé par le FC Copenhague, Brøndby et Oxford United après une excellente saison avec Viborg FF.

africafoot.com

 

[Carpy]

FC Copenhague, Brøndby et Oxford United se disputent Sami Jalal | AfricaFoot

Sami Jalal est courtisé par le FC Copenhague, Brøndby et Oxford United après une excellente saison avec Viborg FF.

africafoot.com

Window shopping at it's finest.

 

[SteMerritt]

FC Copenhague, Brøndby et Oxford United se disputent Sami Jalal | AfricaFoot

Sami Jalal est courtisé par le FC Copenhague, Brøndby et Oxford United après une excellente saison avec Viborg FF.

africafoot.com

Bring back the transfer rumours widget!!!!

 

[TheDukeOfBanburyshire]

You're right, the embargo is due to not having sufficient money upfront to cover the costs. But one big issue is the need to work within the 65% ratio between income and costs, with double any difference needing to be put into club infrastructure.

I suspect that is this infrastructure payment that is causing the issues, and that dropping below the 65% would resolve this.

However, if further investment is expected, or the stadium situation gives us the opportunity to offset and top up investment, then the club may decide to suffer the embargo for now rather than selling off multiple players which cpuld cost us much more in the long run.

I never once read the situation as the owner's inability to cover the required costs.

 

[TheDukeOfBanburyshire]

Window shopping at it's finest.

Perhaps they know something we don't.

NB. I'm certain they don't.

 

[TailsWeWin]

I am not ITK.
I have not been living under a stone for eight weeks.
Clearly, BdK will be off to another club soon (as will Vaulks)
Those fees will keep our head above water for the immediate future.
Stan will remain until Christmas, then move on having had a brilliant 4 months here, for a very decent fee.
Yes; you can bookmark.
COYY.

 

[chuckbert]

I never once read the situation as the owner's inability to cover the required costs.

That was one of the rumours a couple of weeks ago though, that Erick’s family had told him “enough”.

 

[Mad Dog]

I would like to apologise for my behaviour yesterday evening.

I haven't mentioned this before, as it's a private issue, but I suffer from pretty full on ADHD, and as a result I can sometimes have trouble regulating my moods, emotions and reactions to things.
If not kept in check, this can easily lead to meltdowns, and fallouts, and I can get aggressive, and find it hard to let things go.
This happened last night.

I genuinely was only trying to have a little joke with Colin B with what was my (seemingly poor!) attempt at pedantic humour, I honestly wasn't trying to provoke or twist anyones words, I was just trying to be humorous, and I clearly failed!

After Colin replied in (lets be honest) quite a rude way, it triggered me, and I admit, I had a bit of a meltdown, and got quite aggressive, which I whole heartedly apologise for.
It actually effected the rest of my evening, as I wasn't able to regulate my mood and calm down, and I was pretty wound up for the rest of the evening.

Usually Mrs MD (bless her) is around to notice when I'm showing signs of "slipping into one" as we call it, and she can usually always help me "come back down" and relax, usually with her unique blend of calmness, affection, and her amazing sense of humour, but she was out for the evening.
It was only when she got home, and saw how rattled I was, that she was able to get me to chill out, and go to bed!

As I say, it's a private issue that I've never mentioned before, and don't wish to discuss, or receive any special treatment for, and I'm usually very much in control of the condition, but sometimes it's not so easy, and I just wanted to apologise for any disruption or offence my meltdown may have caused.

 

[n1]

If anyone is worried about our squad planning for next season, take a look at this article (2 days old) about Reading's squad building. Ouch.

Reading FC: Royals with work to do on and off the field

BBC Radio Berkshire's Reading FC commentator Tim Dellor analyses matters on and off the pitch for the Royals.

www.bbc.co.uk