• Further New Features Are Available - Click To Update

  • Join OxVox

    The forum would encourage all members to consider joining OxVox during this important moment in our history. See here for more information.

General The Board & Senior Management

 
Last edited by a moderator:
OUFCGav said:
but it was also about timing of investments given that they couldn't currently include stadium investment.
Click to expand...
Yes that is true but it’s something that could have been foreseen and the club could have been upfront about it.

As it was it was leaked a week before we heard anything if not more.
 
OUFCGav said:
but it was also about timing of investments given that they couldn't currently include stadium investment.
Click to expand...
Which in itself is crazy to me - does the EFL think we’re making it up?

The planning process and legals is a huge expense which is easily evidenced and it’s all in the public eye, not to mention fundamental to our existence and sustainability - their motive for stricter rules. To refuse to recognise that as infrastructure investment is bizarre (if I’ve understood this correctly) and its success/failure should make no difference.
 
Anyone have any sense on when the case will be heard and concluded?
 
Swaby39 said:
Which in itself is crazy to me - does the EFL think we’re making it up?

The planning process and legals is a huge expense which is easily evidenced and it’s all in the public eye, not to mention fundamental to our existence and sustainability - their motive for stricter rules. To refuse to recognise that as infrastructure investment is bizarre (if I’ve understood this correctly) and its success/failure should make no difference.
Click to expand...
The problem at the moment is that millions have already been spent on architects, consultants, lawyers, planning and developing the stadium project, but a lot of that expenditure has to hit the club’s accounts as a cost rather than sitting there as the value of a completed stadium.
That is why the money already spent on finding and developing the new stadium site has affected the club’s financial position.
Once construction gets underway and the qualifying stadium costs can be capitalised, the situation changes. Instead of tens of millions of pounds of construction spending going straight through the profit and loss account, it can sit on the balance sheet as an asset under construction and ultimately as the stadium itself.
 
Billyox said:
The problem at the moment is that millions have already been spent on architects, consultants, lawyers, planning and developing the stadium project, but a lot of that expenditure has to hit the club’s accounts as a cost rather than sitting there as the value of a completed stadium.
That is why the money already spent on finding and developing the new stadium site has affected the club’s financial position.
Once construction gets underway and the qualifying stadium costs can be capitalised, the situation changes. Instead of tens of millions of pounds of construction spending going straight through the profit and loss account, it can sit on the balance sheet as an asset under construction and ultimately as the stadium itself.
Click to expand...
Whether you capitalise it or expense it, it is still a cash expense (assuming we / Thohir and co are actually paying the professionals’ bills).

Now I don’t know how the infrastructure rules work, but it’s quite possible that the EFL have different interpretations of what qualifies as capital versus accounting standards.

is proof of funding for the year ahead part of the PFA court case ?

Or is it that % of “football revenue” is unfair ?
 
MarkG said:
Whether you capitalise it or expense it, it is still a cash expense (assuming we / Thohir and co are actually paying the professionals’ bills).

Now I don’t know how the infrastructure rules work, but it’s quite possible that the EFL have different interpretations of what qualifies as capital versus accounting standards.

is proof of funding for the year ahead part of the PFA court case ?

Or is it that % of “football revenue” is unfair ?
Click to expand...
The PFA's argument is basically
These rules directly restrict players' earning opportunities, so under the PFNCC agreement the EFL cannot simply have its League One clubs vote them through. The PFA says there must be proper consultation and agreement through the PFNCC, which includes the PFA, EFL, FA and Premier League.

The EFL's response is effectively
"We did consult you. We discussed these changes extensively through the PFNCC. But you don't have a veto that prevents our clubs introducing financial-control rules
 
Billyox said:
The PFA's argument is basically
These rules directly restrict players' earning opportunities, so under the PFNCC agreement the EFL cannot simply have its League One clubs vote them through. The PFA says there must be proper consultation and agreement through the PFNCC, which includes the PFA, EFL, FA and Premier League.

The EFL's response is effectively
"We did consult you. We discussed these changes extensively through the PFNCC. But you don't have a veto that prevents our clubs introducing financial-control rules
Click to expand...
Is that what they said? (Sincere)

I read their response as them not seeking approval as they didn’t think they were a significant enough change from the previous rules. Might be my misinterpretation.
 
The reality is that the rules that have been put in to create "sustainability" are anything but sustainable. The gap between the Championship and League One is so big now that its only a couple of large sales from the PL days (Leicester) and new owners have a clean slate (Sheff. Wed) that prevented all three relegated clubs from being on a transfer embargo.

And without changes, I'd be amazed if clubs coming down next season aren't in exactly the same position.

A policy that is designed to prevent another Bury is actually putting clubs at huge risk of going out of business or crashing through the leagues.

It's an absolute s**t show and its just our luck that we're the first to be fucked, but I'll be amazed if we're the last.
 
Billyox said:
The PFA's argument is basically
These rules directly restrict players' earning opportunities, so under the PFNCC agreement the EFL cannot simply have its League One clubs vote them through. The PFA says there must be proper consultation and agreement through the PFNCC, which includes the PFA, EFL, FA and Premier League.

The EFL's response is effectively
"We did consult you. We discussed these changes extensively through the PFNCC. But you don't have a veto that prevents our clubs introducing financial-control rules
Click to expand...
They contradict themselves in their press release.

They say while they want to ensure football clubs are run sustainably, they then go on to say they want their players to earn as much as they can.

The wages we have been paying are unsustainable for now without outside income, we should absolutely be forced to live within our means.
 
Bicester Yellow said:
They contradict themselves in their press release.

They say while they want to ensure football clubs are run sustainably, they then go on to say they want their players to earn as much as they can.

The wages we have been paying are unsustainable for now without outside income, we should absolutely be forced to live within our means.
Click to expand...
Maybe we’ll reach the stage like in American football (or baseball possibly) where a club can have one or two nominated big earners, while everyone else is on an average wage and keeping the whole wage bill below the limits allowed in the rules.
 
Makes sense why the SMT have said f all to us if there are legal challenges going on. I imagine the we can’t even offer the current players a different contract after the relegation clauses kicked in
 
Dicky said:
Makes sense why the SMT have said f all to us if there are legal challenges going on.
Click to expand...

Yes, yes that'll be it.

The (more or less) radio silence of the SMT all summer is because they are secretly working tirelessly to challenge an embargo that they neither saw coming nor really give a f*ck about.

Mental.
 
Ewes said:
Maybe we’ll reach the stage like in American football (or baseball possibly) where a club can have one or two nominated big earners, while everyone else is on an average wage and keeping the whole wage bill below the limits allowed in the rules.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe a club would work with the PFA so players can be paid even more.
 
Ewes said:
Maybe we’ll reach the stage like in American football (or baseball possibly) where a club can have one or two nominated big earners, while everyone else is on an average wage and keeping the whole wage bill below the limits allowed in the rules.
Click to expand...
No chance. The PL actually did something sensible a couple of years ago. They proposed an 'anchoring' squad salary cap. Basically (I think this is about right) clubs could pay players according to their turnover but the total squad salary of the biggest club could be no more than 5x the squad salary of the smallest club in the PL. As that would have led to a dilution of their power base (and a more exciting PL), naturally Man City etc objected to it, as did the PFA. The PFA's stance was particularly ridiculous because 'anchoring ' did not mean an individual salary cap, but it did mean that a) Man City and the other 'big' clubs couldn't just blow everyone else out of the water- it would stop Chelsea (for example) stockpiling dozens of players, and b) it would prevent clubs spaffing all their cash on players, instead of doing boring stuff like providing cheaper tickets for supporters.
 
SirAndyOfCrosby said:
Yes, yes that'll be it.

The (more or less) radio silence of the SMT all summer is because they are secretly working tirelessly to challenge an embargo that they neither saw coming nor really give a f*ck about.

Mental.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's players the club employ and are members of the PFA that are upset
 
Billyox said:
The problem at the moment is that millions have already been spent on architects, consultants, lawyers, planning and developing the stadium project, but a lot of that expenditure has to hit the club’s accounts as a cost rather than sitting there as the value of a completed stadium.
That is why the money already spent on finding and developing the new stadium site has affected the club’s financial position.
Once construction gets underway and the qualifying stadium costs can be capitalised, the situation changes. Instead of tens of millions of pounds of construction spending going straight through the profit and loss account, it can sit on the balance sheet as an asset under construction and ultimately as the stadium itself.
Click to expand...
yet, thanks to a handful of vitriolic individuals hiding behind the FoSB name, our club is not only at real risk of ceasing to exist its also being royally fuckedover, until the courts eventually decide to hear, and hopefully dismiss the latest in a series of delaying tactics, tactics fully intended to frustrate as well as cause maximum damage to the future of OUFC
 
Manorlounger said:
Seems to me that, whichever way one looks at this, #teamslikeOxford don't belong in the Championship, apparently.
Click to expand...
Correct the championship is becoming premier league mk 2
There own financial rules favour the bigger clubs
 
Sarge said:
yet, thanks to a handful of vitriolic individuals hiding behind the FoSB name, our club is not only at real risk of ceasing to exist its also being royally fuckedover, until the courts eventually decide to hear, and hopefully dismiss the latest in a series of delaying tactics, tactics fully intended to frustrate as well as cause maximum damage to the future of OUFC
Click to expand...
He who laughs last laughs longest
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar Threads

Sarge
General Post Match, Post Season Board Gathering
Replies
12
Views
5K
Mellowyellow
Mellowyellow
Mellowyellow
  • Poll Poll
Current Staff If many feel so strongly ,what would you do to let the board know enough is enough?
2 3
Replies
69
Views
14K
arthurturner
arthurturner
Paul Cannell
Current Staff Proper question for a poll to inform the OUFC board of our belief K. Robinson should be summarily dismissed
Replies
20
Views
5K
Paul Cannell
Paul Cannell
Malc
  • Poll Poll
Board A message for the board, with a poll "I have lost all faith in the manager"
Replies
3
Views
5K
Berliner
Berliner
Royalstandard74
  • Locked
Current Staff A message for the board.
2
Replies
53
Views
9K
Malc
Malc
Back
Top Bottom