Shrimpsvoices

.....stinks!

I've 110% sympathy with Sammy on this one.

We got rid of 3 squad players to reduce the wage bill and to comply with league demands.

We now find ourselves with only 14 fit players (Radio Lancashire 4.30pm Sports up date)

Had we NOT done as asked by the league, the 3 now no longer with us could have been in contention to replace both Stanners and Fraser who are out for around 6 and 3 weeks respectively.

And yet to date, we are still being penalised. Whilst at the same time other clubs are heavily in debt and are / have been able to sign new players in the now closed transfer window.

It appears to my simple way of thinking that we are not operating on a relatively level playing field.

Surely our present situation demands a re-think by the league?

Rant over......

i agree, it is one rule for us and one rule so it seems, for everyone else.

its OK we can just play a 4 2 4 seeing we have plenty of strikers

DawZi wrote:its OK we can just play a 4 2 4 seeing we have plenty of strikers

.....well it would answer my constant moan about 'not enough bodies in the opposition box'.....

Christies Child wrote:.....stinks!

I've 110% sympathy with Sammy on this one.

We got rid of 3 squad players to reduce the wage bill and to comply with league demands.

We now find ourselves with only 14 fit players (Radio Lancashire 4.30pm Sports up date)

Had we NOT done as asked by the league, the 3 now no longer with us could have been in contention to replace both Stanners and Fraser who are out for around 6 and 3 weeks respectively.

And yet to date, we are still being penalised. Whilst at the same time other clubs are heavily in debt and are / have been able to sign new players in the now closed transfer window.

It appears to my simple way of thinking that we are not operating on a relatively level playing field.

Surely our present situation demands a re-think by the league?

Rant over......

What part of this transfer embargo don't you understand?

We have a set figure that we need to get under and even after releasing the 3 players it would seem we are still not under that figure.

Would you like the League to just say "oh well, that's ok then, you're still breaking the rules but not as much as you were so we'll let you sign players again to take you even further above the limit that we've set you".

The Red Knight wrote:

Christies Child wrote:.....stinks!

I've 110% sympathy with Sammy on this one.

We got rid of 3 squad players to reduce the wage bill and to comply with league demands.

We now find ourselves with only 14 fit players (Radio Lancashire 4.30pm Sports up date)

Had we NOT done as asked by the league, the 3 now no longer with us could have been in contention to replace both Stanners and Fraser who are out for around 6 and 3 weeks respectively.

And yet to date, we are still being penalised. Whilst at the same time other clubs are heavily in debt and are / have been able to sign new players in the now closed transfer window.

It appears to my simple way of thinking that we are not operating on a relatively level playing field.

Surely our present situation demands a re-think by the league?

Rant over......

What part of this transfer embargo don't you understand?

We have a set figure that we need to get under and even after releasing the 3 players it would seem we are still not under that figure.
Would you like the League to just say "oh well, that's ok then, you're still breaking the rules but not as much as you were so we'll let you sign players again to take you even further above the limit that we've set you".

Insider info?

My point is that we have an injury crisis that puts us at a distinct disadvantage.

Also, it seems strange (to my simple mind ) that at the 11th hour the league gave the club permission to bring somebody in. And now it appears that emergency loans are now no longer available to us with the embargo back in place.

First it's removed and then re-introduced!

You obviously don't agree, but to me it stinks!

First it's removed and then re-introduced!

It was never removed. The league gave us special exemption to sign one player in the transfer window. For whatever reason we didn't get the paperwork done in time. The window closed ending the special permission.

I do not know on what grounds the league gave us special exemption. If it was because we had gone under the 60% limit then surely the embargo would simply have been lifted. That not being the case then we can assume we are not under the 60% limit. I am guessing it is because of the Sainsburys deal which affects the revenue forecast significantly. However the rules are one revenue forecast in summer and an adjusted forecast in december at which time the Sainsburys deal couldn't be revealed so didn't go into the forecast.

It's the fans' fault. Or rather, it's the missing fans' fault.

If they continued to turn up and made this seasons projections accurate, we wouldn't have the embargo. As it is, their absence has messed up the figures. So if and when people who are not coming anymore start to moan about the embargo, they should look at themselves in the knowledge that they're partly to blame.

Christies Child wrote:Insider info?

Not at all, just common sense.

We know for a fact that as Gnasher quite rightly points out there is a 60% limit we need to be under.

We were placed in an embargo as we were over the 60% limit.

We released 3 players and went back to the League asking if they would lift it.

They didn't so it is safe to assume that we are still not under the 60% or we are under it but only just meaning that if we were to sign another player it would then take us over the 60% again.

Rather than moaning about it and saying it isn't fair you should be asking yourself why the likes of Dagenham are able to assemble squads that are able to compete in this League and comply with the salary cap yet we go so far over the cap that even when we get rid of 3 players we can't come out of it.

This embargo thing is like the 'Hokey Pokey'.........

Time to concentrate on this weekend and play our part in ensuring the lads get 3 points v Chester....agreed?

I think we clearly overestimated our crowds this year- and given how badly we tapered off last year I am surprised the club did not re-visit its estimates- the crowds wre dropping off fast at the end of the season. Also Sammy wanted cover in all areas and has paid over the odds for average players- we must of lost a good deal of money on Carr and co. We have to cope with it but hope that there is a clear out next year. Still surprised at how Sammy has his favourites and how difficult it is for some players to break in- Taylor for example should have replaced Blinkhorn last night.

The embargo was placed when we were averaging 2100 instead of our optimistic projection of 2800

It now looks like our next projection for next season would be based on gates of 2100, when in fact we will probably end up with an average of about 1800, given these alarming numbers, what will our wage cap be next season, will the new stadium attract lots more fans long term, league football has not done so, will anybody sponser games and pay for corporate hospitality on a february tuesday night match next season or the season after?

There needs to be a bit more imagination on the commercial side in my opinion, to maximise things now!!

I do not mean trying to prise money out of peoples pockets when they do not have it, but giving value for money on and off the pitch, on a night like last night when there is nobody in the dining room, a cheap curry and happy hour in the bar might have dragged a few people off their couches??

The Red Knight wrote:

Christies Child wrote:Insider info?

Rather than moaning about it and saying it isn't fair you should be asking yourself why the likes of Dagenham are able to assemble squads that are able to compete in this League and comply with the salary cap yet we go so far over the cap that even when we get rid of 3 players we can't come out of it.

Daggers have a lot more players close to hand.

'Wine', the club understands the spirit of the rules and agrees with the 'principle'. No-one wants to see clubs spend beyond their means and go under.
The 'unfairness' is that the rule hasn't been developed properly and has some glaring anomalies that are penalising us.

We overspent because we didn't predict the size of the drop in gates and didn't get any decent cup runs (you can never bank on cups and the club didn't - but a good cup run would have mitigated against the attendance drop, that's why it's mentioned).

Now we are facing negotiations with a League that is good at making rules and quoting them - but isn't good at making decisions that, though they technically may mean finding leeway within the rules, are RIGHT ones to make.

So they tell us what items of our overall budget -within the rules they can point to - we can and can't include in the salary calculations. That's where the problem is.

They are happy to let other clubs run up massive - multi-million pound - debts (not included in the calculations) but, just because they get a thousand more on their gates (included), they can have a much bigger player budget than us.

We have no debt - and have money in the bank, the club's money which isn't owed to anyone - but we aren't being allowed to invest that money in strengthening our squad.

The club WILL work within the rules but it is right to push the League to look at the points we are making about a very well-run club being penalised by these rules. They have only recently been drawn up - a situation like ours may not have been envisaged.

But they should be reviewed so as not to penalise clubs like us and, at the same time, favour others who run things far less prudently but get away with it.