ESI 1 v ESI 2 - Initial Hearing 01-02/09/2020, Court of Appeal 17/09/2020 (p127)

WSS

golfaddick said:

FWIW........I reckon the COA wont hear/read the appeal until Wednesday afternoon & some old doddery fart will look at his watch and mutter.. " oh dear, the injunction runs out in an hour & I can't possibly give an answer in that time. Judge Pearce says that the case isn't until November so extending the injunction by a few weeks won't do any harm". And with that the injunction will be extended past the transfer deadline & with it goes our season. 

Does the CoA even have that power to extend the injunction like that?

Covered End

WSS said:

golfaddick said:

FWIW........I reckon the COA wont hear/read the appeal until Wednesday afternoon & some old doddery fart will look at his watch and mutter.. " oh dear, the injunction runs out in an hour & I can't possibly give an answer in that time. Judge Pearce says that the case isn't until November so extending the injunction by a few weeks won't do any harm". And with that the injunction will be extended past the transfer deadline & with it goes our season. 

Does the CoA even have that power to extend the injunction like that?

They therefore announced that they would take their case to the Court of Appeal and asked him for a seven day injunction while they applied to the Court of Appeal for permission to appeal. He agreed to this and granted an injunction until 4pm on Wednesday September 9th. So, as it stands, the club can't be sold before next Wednesday.

So what happens now?

Lex Dominus have to lodge their grounds for appeal explaining why they should be granted permission to appeal. Permission will only be granted if the Court of Appeal thinks their appeal has a realistic chance of success, or there is some other good reason that an appeal should be heard. This is usually determined by the Court of Appeal on paper, but it can order a hearing. Panorama Magic will have the opportunity to contest this if a hearing is listed.

If Lex Dominus are granted leave to appeal they are likely to want to then apply for the injunction to be extended while the appeal is heard because otherwise the club could be sold before the appeal is heard.

This is a totally separate decision which might be decided by the Court of Appeal or they might refer it back to Judge Pearce. The balance of convenience would then come into play again. If a further two weeks’ (for example) delay was reckoned to threaten the club's existence then an extension would be unlikely to be granted.

CAST would be surprised if the Court of Appeal granted permission to appeal, let alone granted any eventual appeal. To do so it would have to take the view that Judge Pearce was "irrational, unreasonable or wrong" in refusing the injunction yesterday. However, as Charlton fans we know nothing is 100% certain in football or - it would seem - law.

In the meantime, Lex Dominus’s original application for an interim injunction remains refused, and Panorama has been awarded its costs, to be paid by Lex Dominus, such payment to be stayed pending resolution of its application for permission to appeal.

Trust News

MuttleyCAFC

I suspect the ESI 2 appeal will be that the club is not at risk as Elliot(t) is there to take it over. Given his letter to fans and that is probably the only direction they can take now. So the judge wasn't wrong but didn't understand their commitment and ability to run the club blah, blah, blah. I doubt they will succeed, but I do think it would be helpful to counter this with the evidence we have as well hopefully as confirmation they have failed the source test with the EFL.

ForeverAddickted

MuttleyCAFC said:

I suspect the ESI 2 appeal will be that the club is not at risk as Elliot(t) is there to take it over. Given his letter to fans and that is probably the only direction they can take now. So the judge wasn't wrong but didn't understand their commitment and ability to run the club blah, blah, blah. I doubt they will succeed, but I do think it would be helpful to counter this with the evidence we have as well hopefully as confirmation they have failed the source test with the EFL.

But then Elliott still wont fully own the club so leaving the injunction in place against anyone is a risk to the club?

Its not like the injunction leaves Elliott to run the club himself

Covered End

ForeverAddickted said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

I suspect the ESI 2 appeal will be that the club is not at risk as Elliot(t) is there to take it over. Given his letter to fans and that is probably the only direction they can take now. So the judge wasn't wrong but didn't understand their commitment and ability to run the club blah, blah, blah. I doubt they will succeed, but I do think it would be helpful to counter this with the evidence we have as well hopefully as confirmation they have failed the source test with the EFL.

But then Elliott still wont fully own the club so leaving the injunction in place against anyone is a risk to the club?

Its not like the injunction leaves Elliott to run the club himself

Elliot is not there to takeover.
He has failed the ODT and is not allowed to take over the running of CAFC.
The EFL told CAFC to remove him.

MuttleyCAFC

ForeverAddickted said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

I suspect the ESI 2 appeal will be that the club is not at risk as Elliot(t) is there to take it over. Given his letter to fans and that is probably the only direction they can take now. So the judge wasn't wrong but didn't understand their commitment and ability to run the club blah, blah, blah. I doubt they will succeed, but I do think it would be helpful to counter this with the evidence we have as well hopefully as confirmation they have failed the source test with the EFL.

But then Elliott still wont fully own the club so leaving the injunction in place against anyone is a risk to the club?

Its not like the injunction leaves Elliott to run the club himself

Yes, we know that. But Elliot(t) is going to have to have a position and my guess is it will be around his ability to run the club, so the club can't be at risk because he will take it over before it dies. It might be along the lines that we can sell assets to keep us going until November. That letter to fans won't have any effect on any of us so it must serve another purpose. I can't see him winning but he is going to have to have a plan of some kind surely. 

ForeverAddickted

Covered End said:

ForeverAddickted said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

I suspect the ESI 2 appeal will be that the club is not at risk as Elliot(t) is there to take it over. Given his letter to fans and that is probably the only direction they can take now. So the judge wasn't wrong but didn't understand their commitment and ability to run the club blah, blah, blah. I doubt they will succeed, but I do think it would be helpful to counter this with the evidence we have as well hopefully as confirmation they have failed the source test with the EFL.

But then Elliott still wont fully own the club so leaving the injunction in place against anyone is a risk to the club?

Its not like the injunction leaves Elliott to run the club himself

Elliot is not there to takeover.
He has failed the ODT and is not allowed to take over the running of CAFC.
The EFL told CAFC to remove him.

Surely thats only if he fails in his appeal with the EFL?

MattF

MuttleyCAFC said:

ForeverAddickted said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

I suspect the ESI 2 appeal will be that the club is not at risk as Elliot(t) is there to take it over. Given his letter to fans and that is probably the only direction they can take now. So the judge wasn't wrong but didn't understand their commitment and ability to run the club blah, blah, blah. I doubt they will succeed, but I do think it would be helpful to counter this with the evidence we have as well hopefully as confirmation they have failed the source test with the EFL.

But then Elliott still wont fully own the club so leaving the injunction in place against anyone is a risk to the club?

Its not like the injunction leaves Elliott to run the club himself

Yes, we know that. But Elliot(t) is going to have to have a position and my guess is it will be around his ability to run the club, so the club can't be at risk because he will take it over before it dies. That letter to fans won't have any effect on any of us so it must serve another purpose. I can't see him winning but he is going to have to have a plan. 

But Elliott can't now take back his submission in court that he would be open to listening to buyers once his agreement to purchase the club is completed, which led the original judge to conclude that he saw it as nothing more than a commercial asset. An open letter to supporters post-hearing I'd hope wouldn't carry too much weight.

MuttleyCAFC

In terms of the EFL - Has anybody ever failed this sort of thing and won an appeal? 

Miserableoldgit

Serious question. 

If TS takes over in the next week or so, and EFL give him the go-ahead, what money can He spend on transfers/Loans ?
Is there a limit on spending in Division 3 (League 1) regarding signings or is it just on wages/outgoings that is in the cap ?

ElliotCAFC

golfaddick said:

FWIW........I reckon the COA wont hear/read the appeal until Wednesday afternoon & some old doddery fart will look at his watch and mutter.. " oh dear, the injunction runs out in an hour & I can't possibly give an answer in that time. Judge Pearce says that the case isn't until November so extending the injunction by a few weeks won't do any harm". And with that the injunction will be extended past the transfer deadline & with it goes our season. 

That’s exactly what I expect to happen. In fact, I’d be shocked if there’s any other outcome.

ForeverAddickted

MuttleyCAFC said:

In terms of the EFL - Has anybody ever failed this sort of thing and won an appeal? 

To be fair most dont even fail it, so I imagine even the EFL dont know what the process is

Scratchingvalleycat

Airman Brown said:

Scratchingvalleycat said:

Addickted said:

Gary Poole said:

mendonca said:

MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.

There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.

The thing about this, is it truly exposes how slap dash and amateur MM is. The details about the OADT and appeals process are clear in the EFL regulations published on their website. I guess though that does mean you have to bother to look if you’re not sure.

Surely it would be down to the Club Secretary to advise MM on the appeal process and what was required and by whom?

Lot of animosity being shown to MM over this. Happy to be proved wrong, but I would have thought CP was partially responsible for the lack of clarity.

Don't buy that 
Chris Parkes is the football secretary  not the company secretary of CAFC Limited. Even if he were a fully fledged qualified Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators (Now known as the Chartered Governance Institute)  and appointed under the Companies Act to be the Company Secretary of CAFC Limited  he would not be in a position to give advice to Panorama Magic which is the company for whom MM works. So no responsibility in this could fall at CPs door.

This is completely wrong. Chris is the league’s point of contact with the club on virtually all matters and the club’s point of advice about the rules. We used to joke that he actually worked for them rather than the club because of it. It’s why, for example, he was even part of the meeting the EFL had with disgruntled employees about staff bonuses, even though he didn’t support them.

His suspension by Southall apparently came about because he submitted papers for Nimer to the EFL. He is the person who responded to the EFL request for assurance that Elliott was not involved with the running of the club and he is the person who submitted the Aussies’ documents way back when. It is exactly what he does. 

Not certain whether you are disagreeing with me or Addickted. I agree that he can give advice to MM on the OADT but not on the legal process to Panorama. Since it was MM statement to the  appeal process which was being drafted by him and his lawyers I doubt that MM would even have sought the clarity from CP, I do not see how anything about MM's statement can be laid at CP's door.

golfaddick

Covered End said:

ForeverAddickted said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

I suspect the ESI 2 appeal will be that the club is not at risk as Elliot(t) is there to take it over. Given his letter to fans and that is probably the only direction they can take now. So the judge wasn't wrong but didn't understand their commitment and ability to run the club blah, blah, blah. I doubt they will succeed, but I do think it would be helpful to counter this with the evidence we have as well hopefully as confirmation they have failed the source test with the EFL.

But then Elliott still wont fully own the club so leaving the injunction in place against anyone is a risk to the club?

Its not like the injunction leaves Elliott to run the club himself

Elliot is not there to takeover.
He has failed the ODT and is not allowed to take over the running of CAFC.
The EFL told CAFC to remove him.

They told the club to remove him before he appealed. Since an appeal has gone in I'd assume any "removal" is put on hold. Like an injunction. 

It's all just delay, delay, delay. It has been mentioned before, and disputed because it is deemed 'irrelevant", that as every day passes the more hurt the club is, by not being able to sign players. Players that will go elsewhere or at best, wont be "fit" when the season starts. Judge Pearce was more talking about the club going bust when he said that the injunction couldn't go on until November, but football fans know that there are smaller issues & nuances at stake in the short term. 

Redrobo

ElliotCAFC said:

golfaddick said:

FWIW........I reckon the COA wont hear/read the appeal until Wednesday afternoon & some old doddery fart will look at his watch and mutter.. " oh dear, the injunction runs out in an hour & I can't possibly give an answer in that time. Judge Pearce says that the case isn't until November so extending the injunction by a few weeks won't do any harm". And with that the injunction will be extended past the transfer deadline & with it goes our season. 

That’s exactly what I expect to happen. In fact, I’d be shocked if there’s any other outcome.

Judges are nobodies fool. They are intelligent and experienced in seeing through words and grasping the real issue. They follow the laws but try to administer justice appropriately.
I will be shocked if he does not see both sides are low life chancers out to plunder through sheers greed.
Judge Pearce did this and his summing up covered all aspects of his thought process and conclusion and the new Judge will easily follow the reasoning and I think it highly unlikely that he will reach any other conclusion himself.

sillav nitram

Spitfire76 said:

So the OADT has to be submitted/ go through a club? Can an individual not take this test without a club?

Well that appears to be what Sandgaard has done?

killerandflash

golfaddick said:

Covered End said:

ForeverAddickted said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

I suspect the ESI 2 appeal will be that the club is not at risk as Elliot(t) is there to take it over. Given his letter to fans and that is probably the only direction they can take now. So the judge wasn't wrong but didn't understand their commitment and ability to run the club blah, blah, blah. I doubt they will succeed, but I do think it would be helpful to counter this with the evidence we have as well hopefully as confirmation they have failed the source test with the EFL.

But then Elliott still wont fully own the club so leaving the injunction in place against anyone is a risk to the club?

Its not like the injunction leaves Elliott to run the club himself

Elliot is not there to takeover.
He has failed the ODT and is not allowed to take over the running of CAFC.
The EFL told CAFC to remove him.

They told the club to remove him before he appealed. Since an appeal has gone in I'd assume any "removal" is put on hold. Like an injunction. 

It's all just delay, delay, delay. It has been mentioned before, and disputed because it is deemed 'irrelevant", that as every day passes the more hurt the club is, by not being able to sign players. Players that will go elsewhere or at best, wont be "fit" when the season starts. Judge Pearce was more talking about the club going bust when he said that the injunction couldn't go on until November, but football fans know that there are smaller issues & nuances at stake in the short term. 

But those "football related" issues such as whether a defender goes to us or Peterborough or whether we beat Crewe aren't relevant to this court case.

Airman Brown

Scratchingvalleycat said:

Airman Brown said:

Scratchingvalleycat said:

Addickted said:

Gary Poole said:

mendonca said:

MM messing up the details about the Oadt test meant that it was an area that we could not expose in the trial.

There were so many holes in that area which we could not pursue with questioning. So much so that better questions have been posed on the board.

The thing about this, is it truly exposes how slap dash and amateur MM is. The details about the OADT and appeals process are clear in the EFL regulations published on their website. I guess though that does mean you have to bother to look if you’re not sure.

Surely it would be down to the Club Secretary to advise MM on the appeal process and what was required and by whom?

Lot of animosity being shown to MM over this. Happy to be proved wrong, but I would have thought CP was partially responsible for the lack of clarity.

Don't buy that 
Chris Parkes is the football secretary  not the company secretary of CAFC Limited. Even if he were a fully fledged qualified Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Secretaries and Administrators (Now known as the Chartered Governance Institute)  and appointed under the Companies Act to be the Company Secretary of CAFC Limited  he would not be in a position to give advice to Panorama Magic which is the company for whom MM works. So no responsibility in this could fall at CPs door.

This is completely wrong. Chris is the league’s point of contact with the club on virtually all matters and the club’s point of advice about the rules. We used to joke that he actually worked for them rather than the club because of it. It’s why, for example, he was even part of the meeting the EFL had with disgruntled employees about staff bonuses, even though he didn’t support them.

His suspension by Southall apparently came about because he submitted papers for Nimer to the EFL. He is the person who responded to the EFL request for assurance that Elliott was not involved with the running of the club and he is the person who submitted the Aussies’ documents way back when. It is exactly what he does. 

Not certain whether you are disagreeing with me or Addickted. I agree that he can give advice to MM on the OADT but not on the legal process to Panorama. Since it was MM statement to the  appeal process which was being drafted by him and his lawyers I doubt that MM would even have sought the clarity from CP, I do not see how anything about MM's statement can be laid at CP's door.

I meant to reply to the post which said Chris had only limited contact with the EFL, around player registrations. Personally I think it highly likely he would advise MM on the rules in relation to the OADT and I’m not sure what the practical difference is between Panorama and MM. I get MM isn’t part of Panorama but there isn’t anyone else to advise. He clearly would not advise anyone on the law.

ElliotCAFC

Redrobo said:

ElliotCAFC said:

golfaddick said:

FWIW........I reckon the COA wont hear/read the appeal until Wednesday afternoon & some old doddery fart will look at his watch and mutter.. " oh dear, the injunction runs out in an hour & I can't possibly give an answer in that time. Judge Pearce says that the case isn't until November so extending the injunction by a few weeks won't do any harm". And with that the injunction will be extended past the transfer deadline & with it goes our season. 

That’s exactly what I expect to happen. In fact, I’d be shocked if there’s any other outcome.

Judges are nobodies fool. They are intelligent and experienced in seeing through words and grasping the real issue. They follow the laws but try to administer justice appropriately.
I will be shocked if he does not see both sides are low life chancers out to plunder through sheers greed.
Judge Pearce did this and his summing up covered all aspects of his thought process and conclusion and the new Judge will easily follow the reasoning and I think it highly unlikely that he will reach any other conclusion himself.

Not doubting a judges intelligence, I’m doubting a judge cares about a league one football club. 

Injustice happens everyday in courts all over the world, I don’t think we’re exempt from that.

MuttleyCAFC

This is now about a decision a judge has made in a hearing. Forget about everything else, there has to be a major development for that not to be thrown out. I'm sure it will be sorted on Wednesday.

Covered End

ForeverAddickted said:

Covered End said:

ForeverAddickted said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

I suspect the ESI 2 appeal will be that the club is not at risk as Elliot(t) is there to take it over. Given his letter to fans and that is probably the only direction they can take now. So the judge wasn't wrong but didn't understand their commitment and ability to run the club blah, blah, blah. I doubt they will succeed, but I do think it would be helpful to counter this with the evidence we have as well hopefully as confirmation they have failed the source test with the EFL.

But then Elliott still wont fully own the club so leaving the injunction in place against anyone is a risk to the club?

Its not like the injunction leaves Elliott to run the club himself

Elliot is not there to takeover.
He has failed the ODT and is not allowed to take over the running of CAFC.
The EFL told CAFC to remove him.

Surely thats only if he fails in his appeal with the EFL?

Yes, but it would be ridiculous if the EFL rule on his appeal before the 7 day injunction.
All they have to do is sit tight and wait for the CofA to say there is no appeal justified and Elliot is gone.
Then ES1 Nimer & Southall and ES2 Farnell & Elliot can have their November court case to fight out who gets what if anything.

golfaddick

killerandflash said:

golfaddick said:

Covered End said:

ForeverAddickted said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

I suspect the ESI 2 appeal will be that the club is not at risk as Elliot(t) is there to take it over. Given his letter to fans and that is probably the only direction they can take now. So the judge wasn't wrong but didn't understand their commitment and ability to run the club blah, blah, blah. I doubt they will succeed, but I do think it would be helpful to counter this with the evidence we have as well hopefully as confirmation they have failed the source test with the EFL.

But then Elliott still wont fully own the club so leaving the injunction in place against anyone is a risk to the club?

Its not like the injunction leaves Elliott to run the club himself

Elliot is not there to takeover.
He has failed the ODT and is not allowed to take over the running of CAFC.
The EFL told CAFC to remove him.

They told the club to remove him before he appealed. Since an appeal has gone in I'd assume any "removal" is put on hold. Like an injunction. 

It's all just delay, delay, delay. It has been mentioned before, and disputed because it is deemed 'irrelevant", that as every day passes the more hurt the club is, by not being able to sign players. Players that will go elsewhere or at best, wont be "fit" when the season starts. Judge Pearce was more talking about the club going bust when he said that the injunction couldn't go on until November, but football fans know that there are smaller issues & nuances at stake in the short term. 

But those "football related" issues such as whether a defender goes to us or Peterborough or whether we beat Crewe aren't relevant to this court case.

  But the problem is they are........

Not directly because we all know the case is about who owns us or who has the right to own us. But this is not about ownership of a inanimate  object like a car or a house. Its about a football club that earns its crust by taking part in a competition involving 23 other teams. And to compete successfully against those other teams the club needs to build a competitive squad, and whilst we delay those other 23 teams (plus others in other leagues) are looking to sign those players.

So........although to a Judge the fact that the transfer window is shutting next month means absolutely nothing, for a football club its is very important. 

Covered End

ElliotCAFC said:

golfaddick said:

FWIW........I reckon the COA wont hear/read the appeal until Wednesday afternoon & some old doddery fart will look at his watch and mutter.. " oh dear, the injunction runs out in an hour & I can't possibly give an answer in that time. Judge Pearce says that the case isn't until November so extending the injunction by a few weeks won't do any harm". And with that the injunction will be extended past the transfer deadline & with it goes our season. 

That’s exactly what I expect to happen. In fact, I’d be shocked if there’s any other outcome.

The judge strongly warned both parties against trying to extend the 7 day injunction, so hopefully not.

Miserableoldgit

Miserableoldgit said:

Serious question. 

If TS takes over in the next week or so, and EFL give him the go-ahead, what money can He spend on transfers/Loans ?
Is there a limit on spending in Division 3 (League 1) regarding signings or is it just on wages/outgoings that is in the cap ?

Anyone ?

Chizz

MuttleyCAFC said:

In terms of the EFL - Has anybody ever failed this sort of thing and won an appeal? 

Massimo Cellino

Scoham

Miserableoldgit said:

Miserableoldgit said:

Serious question. 

If TS takes over in the next week or so, and EFL give him the go-ahead, what money can He spend on transfers/Loans ?
Is there a limit on spending in Division 3 (League 1) regarding signings or is it just on wages/outgoings that is in the cap ?

Anyone ?

League 1 now has a salary cap of £2.5m which includes bonuses and agent fees (amongst other payments, see first link below), though this excludes payments relating to promotion and cup runs.

Existing contracts are treated as the league average so we don't immediately have to cut every players wage.

It's the same for every club (rather than based on income) and it doesn't include transfer fees.

More detail here:

https://www.efl.com/news/2020/august/squad-salary-caps-introduced-in-league-one-and-league-two/

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/football/portsmouth-fc/efl-salary-cap-explained-how-portsmouth-might-be-impacted-wage-limits-squad-numbers-and-transfer-fees-2913567

carly burn

Covered End said:

ForeverAddickted said:

Covered End said:

ForeverAddickted said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

I suspect the ESI 2 appeal will be that the club is not at risk as Elliot(t) is there to take it over. Given his letter to fans and that is probably the only direction they can take now. So the judge wasn't wrong but didn't understand their commitment and ability to run the club blah, blah, blah. I doubt they will succeed, but I do think it would be helpful to counter this with the evidence we have as well hopefully as confirmation they have failed the source test with the EFL.

But then Elliott still wont fully own the club so leaving the injunction in place against anyone is a risk to the club?

Its not like the injunction leaves Elliott to run the club himself

Elliot is not there to takeover.
He has failed the ODT and is not allowed to take over the running of CAFC.
The EFL told CAFC to remove him.

Surely thats only if he fails in his appeal with the EFL?

Yes, but it would be ridiculous if the EFL rule on his appeal before the 7 day injunction.
All they have to do is sit tight and wait for the CofA to say there is no appeal justified and Elliot is gone.
Then ES1 Nimer & Southall and ES2 Farnell & Elliot can have their November court case to fight out who gets what if anything.

 I'm glad you're so confident.

I think it's going to be tight, and any help we can get to support not giving this bloke what he wants can only help our case.

It's pretty black and white for the EFL. Either he's passed or he hasn't. End of story for them.

Maybe he's passed and they are doing us a favour?!

ForeverAddickted

carly burn said:

Covered End said:

ForeverAddickted said:

Covered End said:

ForeverAddickted said:

MuttleyCAFC said:

I suspect the ESI 2 appeal will be that the club is not at risk as Elliot(t) is there to take it over. Given his letter to fans and that is probably the only direction they can take now. So the judge wasn't wrong but didn't understand their commitment and ability to run the club blah, blah, blah. I doubt they will succeed, but I do think it would be helpful to counter this with the evidence we have as well hopefully as confirmation they have failed the source test with the EFL.

But then Elliott still wont fully own the club so leaving the injunction in place against anyone is a risk to the club?

Its not like the injunction leaves Elliott to run the club himself

Elliot is not there to takeover.
He has failed the ODT and is not allowed to take over the running of CAFC.
The EFL told CAFC to remove him.

Surely thats only if he fails in his appeal with the EFL?

Yes, but it would be ridiculous if the EFL rule on his appeal before the 7 day injunction.
All they have to do is sit tight and wait for the CofA to say there is no appeal justified and Elliot is gone.
Then ES1 Nimer & Southall and ES2 Farnell & Elliot can have their November court case to fight out who gets what if anything.

 I'm glad you're so confident.

I think it's going to be tight, and any help we can get to support not giving this bloke what he wants can only help our case.

It's pretty black and white for the EFL. Either he's passed or he hasn't. End of story for them.

Maybe he's passed and they are doing us a favour?!

If PE had passed the ODAT then they'd be shouting from the rooftops 

Miserableoldgit

Scoham said:

Miserableoldgit said:

Miserableoldgit said:

Serious question. 

If TS takes over in the next week or so, and EFL give him the go-ahead, what money can He spend on transfers/Loans ?
Is there a limit on spending in Division 3 (League 1) regarding signings or is it just on wages/outgoings that is in the cap ?

Anyone ?

League 1 now has a salary cap of £2.5m which includes bonuses and agent fees (amongst other payments, see first link below), though this excludes payments relating to promotion and cup runs.

Existing contracts are treated as the league average so we don't immediately have to cut every players wage.

It's the same for every club (rather than based on income) and it doesn't include transfer fees.

More detail here:

https://www.efl.com/news/2020/august/squad-salary-caps-introduced-in-league-one-and-league-two/

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/sport/football/portsmouth-fc/efl-salary-cap-explained-how-portsmouth-might-be-impacted-wage-limits-squad-numbers-and-transfer-fees-2913567

Thank you. 

Covered End

Miserableoldgit said:

Miserableoldgit said:

Serious question. 

If TS takes over in the next week or so, and EFL give him the go-ahead, what money can He spend on transfers/Loans ?
Is there a limit on spending in Division 3 (League 1) regarding signings or is it just on wages/outgoings that is in the cap ?

Anyone ?

Difficult/impossible question to answer I'm afraid.
There is an equivalent of £2000pw allowed on wages.