What can the EFL do? (1 Viewer)

[CanadianCCFC]

I’m not saying there’s nothing the EFL can do, but if you look on the EFL twitter page, the comments are filled with people who expect more from them than I think is possible. So what can they do?

The main thing out of the Bolton/Bury situations in my opinion is that strict spending limits relative to income are necessary.

I don’t know all the details about Steve Dale’s takeover of Bury, but I believe they were in desperate state, without a long list of potential buyers leading the EFL to allow the takeover to go through without thorough investigation. As for the fit and proper test as a whole, the EFL can’t predict the future; they don’t know who out there is willing to gamble the existence of a club on a quick fortune. The Dale situation was unique as mentioned, it seems he took over Bury without much money, but about Bury’s previous owner and Bolton’s owner(s), I believe it can be said that they bought the clubs with adequate money in their pockets (I might be wrong but I think I’m right), but they overspent while at the helm. What were the EFL supposed to do for these clubs once that happened?

I really don’t know, I’m not particularly business savvy and didn’t really follow the situations at Bury and Bolton until they became somewhat mainstream, I just think some of the criticism of the EFL is unfair, unless there’s something here I’m missing.

 

---

[SAJ]

To me the one thing the EFL could and should have done is make a decision at least one week before the start of the season. By not making a decision has created additional problems for other clubs. For example Fleetwoods season finishes a week before anybody else now which will be to their disadvantage unless of course they make the play offs.
If we the worst happens for Bolton as well, I’m assuming we gain in that we will lose 1 point but others will lose 3. But the teams that have played Bolton at home have had the income from those matches while everyone else has to work on the more restricted budget.
Undoubtedly there are other winners and losers in this the biggest being the fans at the moment of Bury but possibly Bolton as well.

 

[oldskyblue58]

Not much they can do with the Bury & Bolton situations now, things have to run their course. It is not however like this has suddenly happened, it has been building for years at both those clubs, which begs the question how many other clubs are heading in the same direction. Everyone, EFL, Clubs, Owners, FA and fans have had their heads in the sand for years regarding the state of English football.

The EFL prime function is keeping the integrity (whatever that means) of the competition for its members. The EFL acts as a competition organiser to distribute the funds they receive. The members (ie all 72 clubs) control what can and cannot be done within the closed shop. Those members have many different needs, ambitions, structures, ethics and business practices. Which means getting the necessary consensus on rule changes is going to be very difficult because it requires 75% of the clubs to agree to each change. Clubs or owners who are twisting on the hook of club finances are not going to welcome greater interference that might greatly affect their individual situations or costs. Getting things done especially if contentious is very difficult, and lengthy

What should happen is a far greater level of monitoring. In a digital world it should not be too onerous for the members, after all the clubs are going to have to comply with the requirements of making tax digital a key part of which means quarterly returns to HMRC. The problem for the EFL is that greater monitoring is going to require employing enough people with the right skills to be able to do it, then the will to make difficult decisions early and the resolve to battle the inevitable legal cases that could follow, adding even more potential cost. Add in to that the lack of clarity in many of the ownership set ups then monitoring can only go so far unless it has real teeth and a leadership brave enough to use them. Which brings you back to the clubs themselves voting for this to happen.

The whole thing was set up with nothing like the modern situation in mind and new rules tagged on to cover the running of the competition in the main. As far as financial control is concerned then it is not well thought through, it still allows clubs to spend more than they have, it still allows reckless owners to speculate on success. Take SCMP they put in the rule but within it are all sorts of caveats and discretionary powers, it only relates to some playing staff and takes no real account of the total cost of running the business. You can be within the SCMP budget and still be running big losses.

Not picking on our own club as such but we spent on players this season prior to having the income budget in place..... what would have happened if Chaplin and Bayliss had got injured and could not be sold? because their sales is the only way CCFC remained within the "rules" ......once done what were the EFL going to do - embargo bit late for that when the players already employed....... its the same for most clubs i expect. That was all done on the budgets presented pre season to the EFL and approved, effectively spending money before we had it or even sure we would get it. Yes i know that you have to budget in advance but i am just pointing as an example to an area where the rules can be subject to problems

You could put in government regulation but it still leaves you with monitoring problems and extra cost not to mention the threat of FIFA seeing it as government interference and excluding the national team from competition.

Until the owners of the clubs buy in to the idea of living within means, of professional business management that is enforced with the possibility of penalty or prompt exclusion and are prepared to pay for it i do not see the EFL situation changing. Unfortunately it is going to take more than Bury & Bolton going bust before any tangible change will take place.

Just my take on things