Because I don’t see us on here:
https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/embargoes/
Printable View
Because I don’t see us on here:
https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/embargoes/
I bet someone will come on here now and refute this with evidence.
Good spot and fingers crossed something has happened behind the scenes
Nice one fingers crossed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Carl Dale's Mole
I like Burnleys solution, just get promoted out of the EFLQuote:
Originally Posted by Carl Dale's Mole
We haven't been shown on the efl list of shame since it was partially lifted. Dont think it alters fact that we are under a partial embargo because we paid Nantes late.
Isn’t it the FIFA embargo we are under?
No. Just this partial EFL one.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleve van Leef
Yes. We can’t spend any money.
You're right. It's weird. I'm sure they've made up this partial embargo rule just for us!Quote:
Originally Posted by Former Labour leader
Sheffield United have just had their embargo lifted. They'd been under it since January, so more than 30 days, and it was for the same rule breach as us, so presumably they'll be under the same partial embargo as us (which I think was explained at the time as being because we'd been under embargo for more than 30 days). If not, what's the difference?
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/65340594.amp
Will it apply in the premier league?Quote:
Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland
If City are under an embargo (and nobody at the club has bothered to tell us, while the useless clowns in the local media haven't even bothered to ask), is it perhaps because only the first installment of the Sala fee has been paid? He was signed in January 2019, so no doubt the other two installments are now long overdue.Quote:
Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland
It's ridiculous, though. High time the club and the EFL for that matter told us what the situation is.
That could be a get out for them I guess. Stupid if that's the case - harsher penalty for one club than another just because one doesn't get promoted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
Could be to do with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
Completely agree, we should have a definitive answer from both of them on exactly what the situation is and why.
As per the original agreement, instalments 2 and 3 were due in January 2020 and 2021 respectively - so both overdue, unless we have agreed a new timetable for payment with Nantes.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Gunman
This is the rule that's being applied to us by the look of it:
52.6 ...where any Club defaults on payment of any amounts:
52.6.1 due to any other Club (or 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 (whether one default of 30 days, or a number of individual defaults which when taken together amount to 30 days) or more in any 12 month period (1 July to 30 June) (‘Persistent Default’) 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.
So, looks like it's an established rule, which the EFL have applied as soon as the FIFA embargo was lifted. It's because we defaulted by 30 days, not because we were under embargo for 30 days. Not technically an embargo now, which must be why we were removed from the list.
It won't apply to Sheffield United, assuming they go up, as the EFL has no jurisdiction over the Premier League. Lucky them!
"Lamouchi, meantime, says Cardiff will attempt to sign Sory Kaba on a permanent basis this summer if they avoid relegation."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/65347869
Should that apply if we were part of an ongoing legal dispute about it? I guess it is intended to stop brinkmanship with payments, but that isn't the case with this one I don't thinkQuote:
Originally Posted by Undercoverinwurzelland
Either way, it is ****ing insane that we have to try and figure it out ourselves.
Dalman talked about the situation at the time and hence the reason for the appeal. EFL have used a rule which City argue doesnt apply to us. Fingers crossed they relent.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rjk
Additionally there was appeal in the Swiss Courts which was due to be heard, as I recall, at the end of March. Wonder what is happening there?
Can we engage in player swaps? That way, we could look at singing Kaba.
if we've got anyone that Midtjyland would want, and would be happy to go thereQuote:
Originally Posted by The Hooded Claw
I guess there could be player swaps or loan swaps, or sales including a loan of someone else from the team buying. It’s going to be hard work for whoever the manager that’s for sure.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hooded Claw
Shouldn’t this be in the Chant for Kaba thread:shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by The Hooded Claw
:hehe::hehe:Quote:
Originally Posted by splott parker