Message from Trust about embargo [Archive]

Former Labour leader

25-04-23, 20:35

Trust Chair Reports on Transfer Embargo and Cardiff City Football Club Legal Cases

There has been a lot of discussion between fans over several months regarding the above topics so this report to members is by way of update on the current position.

Transfer Embargo

I have been in correspondence with both the English Football League (EFL) and senior management of CCFC to seek clarification on this.

The EFL, through their Director of Communications Mark Rowan has stated in writing that CCFC is "not subject to a registration embargo".

After raising this with CCFC officials they have stated that they do not agree with this statement as they have received different information from the EFL and will be raising the matter with the EFL.

I have asked the club to revert to me as soon as they have received a response from the EFL and they have promised to do so.

Legal Cases

Subsequent to the Court of Arbitration For Sport (CAS) ruling against the club in August last year regarding the Emiliano Sala case, the club have reported that they will pursuing the matter further through the Swiss Federal Tribunal (SFT), which is the Supreme Court, within whose jurisdiction CAS falls.

The club has informed me within the last few days that this matter is ongoing and they are currently awaiting a final decision from the SFT, all relevant paperwork having been submitted some time ago.

The club has also confirmed that their case against the club`s insurers/brokers continues to be pursued.

Keith Morgan,

UNDERHILL1927

25-04-23, 20:45

It baffles me how there can be any ambiguity about something like this.

The Lone Gunman

25-04-23, 20:47

EFL: “Cardiff City are not under a transfer embargo.”

Cardiff City: “Yes we are.”

Brilliant.

splott parker

25-04-23, 21:03

EFL: “Cardiff City are not under a transfer embargo.”

Cardiff City: “Yes we are.”

Brilliant.

That’s how I read it.......sheeesh!!!!!!!!!

2b2bdoo

25-04-23, 21:06

EFL: “Cardiff City are not under a transfer embargo.”

Cardiff City: “Yes we are.”

Brilliant.

Madness.

Father Dougal

25-04-23, 21:09

EFL: “Cardiff City are not under a transfer embargo.”

Cardiff City: “Yes we are.”

Brilliant.

It's an interesting approach to shifting season tickets for next season ill give them that!

Rjk

25-04-23, 21:14

EFL: “Cardiff City are not under a transfer embargo.”

Cardiff City: “Yes we are.”

Brilliant.

like the reverse haggling scene in the life of Brian

The Lone Gunman

25-04-23, 21:18

like the reverse haggling scene in the life of Brian

:hehe:

We're probably only days away from Tan threatening the EFL with legal action unless they put City under an embargo.

Undercoverinwurzelland

25-04-23, 21:20

Is the EFL being pedantic? The rule that's being applied to us technically isn't an embargo I think. If that's the case though then the club could have pointed that out in their response.
Why can neither of them be clear on what the situation is?

Father Dougal

25-04-23, 21:28

Is a registration embargo different to a transfer embargo?

blue matt

25-04-23, 21:49

Is a registration embargo different to a transfer embargo?

we can register players can't we, Free's and Loans

Rjk

25-04-23, 21:57

:hehe:

We're probably only days away from Tan threatening the EFL with legal action unless they put City under an embargo.

god willing we will have our embargo

Rjk

25-04-23, 21:58

we can register players can't we, Free's and Loans

yep, we just can't pay a fee for them.

Father Dougal

25-04-23, 22:03

yep, we just can't pay a fee for them.

But the quote above refers to a registration embargo. And we know we can register players. The issue is paying fees for players? So perhaps the EFL guy is correct and the club are also correct they are just talking about different things?

Anyway be good if they spoke to each other to clarify!

NYCBlue

25-04-23, 22:08

we can register players can't we, Free's and Loans

That's how I read it.

the other bob wilson

26-04-23, 04:08

Is a registration embargo different to a transfer embargo?

That’s what jumped out ar me when I read it. The question “are we under an embargo” should be able to be answered with a straightforward yes or no, but if there are different types of embargo, then it becomes more complicated - the qualification of the EFL’s answer to the question implies that we are not under a certain type of embargo, but may be under a different type of one. This would tie in with what’s been reported, but the EFL could have stopped all of this speculation by going on to explain what type of embargo we are under - assuming that we are under one.

Of course, all we can do is speculate because the Trust’s message leaves things still hanging in the air, but, from the info we have so far, they’re not to blame for that and I don’t think the club are - the EFL have been presented with an opportunity to fully explain the position and have failed to do so. Let’s not forget either that we’re, presumably, not under any sort of embargo according to their website because we’re not on their list of clubs who are.

logic

26-04-23, 06:41

EFL: “Cardiff City are not under a transfer embargo.”

Cardiff City: “Yes we are.”

Brilliant.

The EFL quote refers to registering players not transfers though - so we can sign free agents, loans. Unless the Trust have got things wrong, it's odd that EFL wouldn't use unambiguous language like "Cardiff are not under a transfer embargo".

Jamsarnie

26-04-23, 07:41

… wouldn't use unambiguous language…

Possibly the best double negative ever. :hehe:

logic

26-04-23, 08:48

Possibly the best double negative ever. :hehe:

Always been positive :hehe:

Trigger

26-04-23, 13:33

Does anyone at the club have a Scooby about anything?

Is there anyone even there day to day?

dml1954

26-04-23, 13:51

Enoch Mort

26-04-23, 14:10

All the trust had to do to clear this up is to ask the simple question to the EFL - can Cardiff City sign players on loans, frees and by paying transfer fees or not. They obviously didn't or the EFL chose not to answer. Still, who cares ? Its always good to have a good old round of club bashing, just for a laugh.

I asked Keith about this issue at the Trust Office before the Stoke game. He showed me the confusingly worded email from the EFL. He also showed me his subsequent email to the EFL asking what exactly their response meant and the EFL's further response that the matter was confidential and advising him to take it up with the club which is what he did.

The Lone Gunman

26-04-23, 14:25

All the trust had to do to clear this up is to ask the simple question to the EFL - can Cardiff City sign players on loans, frees and by paying transfer fees or not. They obviously didn't or the EFL chose not to answer. Still, who cares ? Its always good to have a good old round of club bashing, just for a laugh.

You’d rather bash a supporters’ group who are trying to get clarity on the situation than the club’s officials, who have told us absolutely nothing. Kind of sums you up. Mug punter.

SLUDGE FACTORY

26-04-23, 15:07

logic

26-04-23, 15:35

You’d rather bash a supporters’ group who are trying to get clarity on the situation than the club’s officials, who have told us absolutely nothing. Kind of sums you up. Mug punter.

From the post above yours.

"I asked Keith about this issue at the Trust Office before the Stoke game. He showed me the confusingly worded email from the EFL. He also showed me his subsequent email to the EFL asking what exactly their response meant and the EFL's further response that the matter was confidential and advising him to take it up with the club which is what he did. "

Somehow it's all the fault of the club though.

Der Kaiser

26-04-23, 16:01

Does anyone at the club have a Scooby about anything?

Is there anyone even there day to day?

It really is like we've got one person who works 1 day a week, and never catches up on their emails. We've probably got a court case we don't even know about currently underway.

Elwood Blues

26-04-23, 16:26

I asked Keith about this issue at the Trust Office before the Stoke game. He showed me the confusingly worded email from the EFL. He also showed me his subsequent email to the EFL asking what exactly their response meant and the EFL's further response that the matter was confidential and advising him to take it up with the club which is what he did.

Perhaps Keith should ask why our embargo is confidential when embargoes are normally put on their website.

What have the EFL got to hide?

Ninian1962

26-04-23, 16:33

Perhaps Keith should ask why our embargo is confidential when embargoes are normally put on their website.

What have the EFL got to hide?

The EFL made it very clear (in writing) that they were not willing to provide any further explanations and basically said "ask your club" which I did .

Keith

The Lone Gunman

26-04-23, 17:18

Somehow it's all the fault of the club though.

Logic would indicate that a failure by Cardiff City Football Club to inform its supporters of its position in relation to the alleged embargo is indeed the fault of the club.

Logic would also indicate that if the club is under an EFL transfer embargo of any sort, it will indeed be the fault of the club for breaking EFL rules.

logic

26-04-23, 17:21

Logic would indicate that a failure by Cardiff City Football Club to inform its supporters of its position in relation to the alleged embargo is indeed the fault of the club.

Logic would also indicate that if the club is under an EFL transfer embargo of any sort, it will indeed be the fault of the club for breaking EFL rules.

I assume Keith's posts aren't relevant to you then?

Unless you're claiming he's lying, seems EFL are being very evasive.

The Lone Gunman

26-04-23, 17:24

I assume Keith's posts aren't relevant to you then?

Unless you're claiming he's lying, seems EFL are being very evasive.

I know Keith well, he's a friend of mine. He's not lying.

The EFL's alleged evasiveness doesn't change anything I've said. The club could and should have informed its supporters of its position long ago. Do you disagree with that idea?

logic

26-04-23, 17:32

I know Keith well, he's a friend of mine. He's not lying.

The EFL's alleged evasiveness doesn't change anything I've said. The club could and should have informed its supporters of its position long ago. Do you disagree with that idea?

I don't disagree no.

Would you disagree with the notion that EFL's clear ambiguous language and evasiveness could also be towards the club as well as the Trust?

The Lone Gunman

26-04-23, 17:36

Would you disagree with the notion that EFL's clear ambiguous language and evasiveness could also be towards the club as well as the Trust?

I believe the club will know exactly what its position is.

The fact of the matter is that Cardiff City have not been listed on the EFL's website as being under an embargo on any occasion I've checked it in recent months. I think a statement from the club on the matter is very long overdue.

logic

26-04-23, 17:40

I believe the club will know exactly what its position is.

The fact of the matter is that Cardiff City have not been listed on the EFL's website as being under an embargo on any occasion I've checked it in recent months. I think a statement from the club on the matter is very long overdue.

I agree a statement is overdue, the EFL comments to Keith are odd, they appear shifty.

Nothing stopped EFL from providing a clear and coherent response to the enquiry.

Elwood Blues

26-04-23, 17:40

The EFL made it very clear (in writing) that they were not willing to provide any further explanations and basically said "ask your club" which I did .

Keith

Sorry Keith, there was no criticism of you intended there, you have obviously done what you could as your further explanation shows, but I can't see why on the one hand the league appear to openly publish details those who under embargo with the reasons for it (as in the case of Burnley)
but then appear to be underhand by not putting us down on the list or be open with the reasons why they have placed the embargo

It makes them appear deceitful (should I really be surprised?)

cityhammer

26-04-23, 17:43

I don't disagree no.

Would you disagree with the notion that EFL's clear ambiguous language and evasiveness could also be towards the club as well as the Trust?

I don’t see the EFL wording as ambiguous. They stated we aren’t under a registration embargo, but we knew that, the club know that, if we were well couldn’t have signed players in January. For the club to tell the trust that we are is clearly nonsense.

logic

26-04-23, 17:43

Sorry Keith, there was no criticism of you intended there, you have obviously done what you could as your further explanation shows, but I can't see why on the one hand the league appear to openly publish details those who under embargo with the reasons for it (as in the case of Burnley)
but then appear to be underhand by not putting us down on the list or be open with the reasons why they have placed the embargo

It makes them appear deceitful (should I really be surprised?)

The only thing I can think of which would reasonably justify the EFL response would be maybe if we were taking legal action against them?
Citing "confidentiality" is odd, unless their view is that they don't want to respond to entities that aren't officially part of the club?

The Lone Gunman

26-04-23, 17:46

I agree a statement is overdue, the EFL comments to Keith are odd, they appear shifty.

Nothing stopped EFL from providing a clear and coherent response to the enquiry.

I suspect the owner's apparent penchant for litigation may be a factor. It could also be that some sort of process is going on behind the scenes that prevents the EFL from making a definitive statement at this stage, as was the case when the rumours about Reading's latest points deduction started circling a few months back.

logic

26-04-23, 17:46

I don’t see the EFL wording as ambiguous. They stated we aren’t under a registration embargo, but we knew that, the club know that, if we were well couldn’t have signed players in January. For the club to tell the trust that we are is clearly nonsense.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the original post imply Keith enquired about a transfer embargo. EFL respond about registrations solely. Club response sounds like it's referring to a transfer embargo.

The Lone Gunman

26-04-23, 17:47

The only thing I can think of which would reasonably justify the EFL response would be maybe if we were taking legal action against them?

Exactly what I've just posted.

:thumbup:

logic

26-04-23, 17:54

Exactly what I've just posted.

:thumbup:

Three minutes after I made that post.

:hehe:

The Lone Gunman

26-04-23, 18:08

Three minutes after I made that post.:

What I meant was we’re thinking along the same lines. Hasn’t Dalman already said the club were going to challenge an embargo or appeal it or something during one of his rare visits here?

I can’t remember the details, when he said it or who to, but I’m sure that was the gist of it.

2b2bdoo

26-04-23, 18:15

logic

26-04-23, 18:18

What I meant was we’re thinking along the same lines. Hasn’t Dalman already said the club were going to challenge an embargo or appeal it or something during one of his rare visits here?

I can’t remember the details, when he said it or who to, but I’m sure that was the gist of it.

Remember that too, think it was around UEFA/FIFA liftting their embargo so the validity of EFL applying one was in question or something like that?

logic

26-04-23, 18:19

I’m a bit confused and not for the first time lol.

As far as I was aware from what the club or maybe what’s being said on here is we can’t paid a fee for players or loans? I’m not sure anything has changed reading between the lines here, I’m not sure anyone is at fault? (Except the club for putting us in the position)

As it stood, under the EFL embargo, we could register players IF they were free agents or loans without a fee attached. Any transfer or loans into the club that included a fee were prohibited, players couldn't be registered.

That's why the EFL wording is curious.

The Lone Gunman

26-04-23, 18:21

I’m a bit confused and not for the first time lol.

As far as I was aware from what the club or maybe what’s being said on here is we can’t paid a fee for players or loans? I’m not sure anything has changed reading between the lines here, I’m not sure anyone is at fault? (Except the club for putting us in the position)

If the club is under an embargo, I believe the EFL is at fault for not publicising the fact on their website (it currently says Burnley and Reading are under embargoes).

Either way, I believe the club is at fault for not clarifying the matter to its fans. And either way the puppets in the local press are at fault for not investigating the matter.

Dorcus

26-04-23, 18:39

It really is like we've got one person who works 1 day a week, and never catches up on their emails. We've probably got a court case we don't even know about currently underway.

And I believe he's on £750k a year, no doubt with bonuses and expenses on top. Nice work if you can get it.

2b2bdoo

26-04-23, 18:54

If the club is under an embargo, I believe the EFL is at fault for not publicising the fact on their website (it currently says Burnley and Reading are under embargoes).

Either way, I believe the club is at fault for not clarifying the matter to its fans. And either way the puppets in the local press are at fault for not investigating the matter.

It feels like it’s not an embargo but some other kind of punishment? I read something on here about the rules being vague and not really relevant to our situation. I wonder if we went down the EFL would be next for our lawyers.

Local press lol they just look on here or on twitter from what I can gather.

As much as I think Tan isn’t the devil like some, huge issues at the club and it’s running.

dandywarhol

26-04-23, 19:09

Panto time Oh yes we are,oh no we ain't.

Undercoverinwurzelland

26-04-23, 19:20

It feels like it’s not an embargo but some other kind of punishment?
Think it's this rule, which doesn't seem to call itself an embargo:

52.6 Where any Club defaults on payment of any amounts:

52.6.1 due to any other Club (including but not limited to any Transfer Fee, Compensation Fee, Loan Fee, other contributions due pursuant to the terms of any Temporary Loan Transfer, or any subsequent payments which become due under the terms of any original transfer(s), ticket monies, or other payments pursuant to the terms of any other agreement); and/or

52.6.2 covered by Article 48.1.5 (football creditor claims of full time or former full time employees for arrears of remuneration due up to the date of termination of employment),

for a period of 30 days then that Club shall not be permitted to pay or commit to pay any Transfer Fee, Compensation Fee or Loan Fee or any other form of payment (other than a sell on fee) in respect of the registration of any Player during the period:

(a) commencing on the date on which the Persistent Default occurred; and

(b) ending at the end of the next following Season.

Father Dougal

26-04-23, 19:29

Think it's this rule, which doesn't seem to call itself an embargo:

52.6 Where any Club defaults on payment of any amounts:

52.6.1 due to any other Club (including but not limited to any Transfer Fee, Compensation Fee, Loan Fee, other contributions due pursuant to the terms of any Temporary Loan Transfer, or any subsequent payments which become due under the terms of any original transfer(s), ticket monies, or other payments pursuant to the terms of any other agreement); and/or

52.6.2 covered by Article 48.1.5 (football creditor claims of full time or former full time employees for arrears of remuneration due up to the date of termination of employment),

for a period of 30 days then that Club shall not be permitted to pay or commit to pay any Transfer Fee, Compensation Fee or Loan Fee or any other form of payment (other than a sell on fee) in respect of the registration of any Player during the period:

(a) commencing on the date on which the Persistent Default occurred; and

(b) ending at the end of the next following Season.

Hence the 3 transfer window ban?

Seems quite clear?

We aren't under a registration embargo as can register players. However we can't pay any fees until summer of 2024.

the other bob wilson

26-04-23, 19:29

Think it's this rule, which doesn't seem to call itself an embargo:

52.6 Where any Club defaults on payment of any amounts:

52.6.1 due to any other Club (including but not limited to any Transfer Fee, Compensation Fee, Loan Fee, other contributions due pursuant to the terms of any Temporary Loan Transfer, or any subsequent payments which become due under the terms of any original transfer(s), ticket monies, or other payments pursuant to the terms of any other agreement); and/or

52.6.2 covered by Article 48.1.5 (football creditor claims of full time or former full time employees for arrears of remuneration due up to the date of termination of employment),

for a period of 30 days then that Club shall not be permitted to pay or commit to pay any Transfer Fee, Compensation Fee or Loan Fee or any other form of payment (other than a sell on fee) in respect of the registration of any Player during the period:

(a) commencing on the date on which the Persistent Default occurred; and

(b) ending at the end of the next following Season.

Thanks for that - so that’s the EFL rules you’re quoting I presume and not FIFAs?

Undercoverinwurzelland

26-04-23, 19:34

Thanks for that - so that’s the EFL rules you’re quoting I presume and not FIFAs?
Sorry, I should have said. Yes, I found that in the EFL rule book.

LA Bluebird

26-04-23, 19:36

the other bob wilson

26-04-23, 19:36

Sorry, I should have said. Yes, I found that in the EFL rule book.

:thumbup:

splott parker

26-04-23, 19:36

If, say, an EFL official telephones the club with a query, request or just a general ‘catch up’ call, are there competent office staff permanently in house available to field such a thing? The club is a multi million pound concern, or certainly has been in the recent past, there has to be a competent team running the day to day.........hasn’t there?

The Lone Gunman

26-04-23, 19:37

Hence the 3 transfer window ban?

Seems quite clear?

We aren't under a registration embargo as can register players. However we can't pay any fees until summer of 2024.

But that is an embargo, surely? Indeed, on the EFL’s own website, the explanation of embargoes seems to include the exact situation that we believe City may be in (ie: defaulted on payments, can sign players but can’t pay fees).

Madassa

26-04-23, 19:40

I maybe over simplifying but isn't it just that we can sign players but not pay a fee? i.e. Wickham and maybe even Kaba, assuming the deal was structured right?

The Lone Gunman

26-04-23, 19:40

I should have added Reading can sign players but can’t pay fees, and they are listed on the EFL website as being under an embargo.

2b2bdoo

26-04-23, 19:52

The rules are the rules but I do think our case is slightly different to the usual no payment.

Ninian1962

26-04-23, 20:37

Seems pretty cut and dry, why the local press or the trust couldn't track that down and ask the club and the EFL that specific question I'm not really sure. I'm generally very supportive of the trust, but seems like they've gone through the effort to ask a question and email all their members the answer to something isn't actually the question that needed to be asked?

The question asked of the EFL was what is the exact situation regarding a transfer embargo on the club. Their answer was exactly as I quoted and they refused to clarify further referring all future enquiries to the club rather than them.
The club senior management was then asked to clarify the exact position (they have seen the response from the EFL ) but, other than saying they disagree with the position claimed by the EFL have not so far provided that clarification.

So the relevant question was most certainly asked even if the parties asked are being somewhat evasive/unclear in their answers.

Keith