EMBARGO Questions.

So it would seem that we now have definitive answers on the embargo.

It was removed by FIFA but remains in place with the EFL.

It covers 3 transfer windows and means that we cannot pay fees for players whether they are bought outright or loaned.

My questions are;

1. How can an embargo be in place under one football governing body and not another? Especially as FIFA is the higher governing body.

2. The EFL have said that the 3 window ban on fees will remain in place EVEN if we pay FC Nantes the full amount. How is this possible? How can a restriction be kept in place even if the offence has been removed?

It seems to be a restriction of trade if we have to fight the whole of next season without paying for players across the two transfer windows. The EFL could be seen as diminishing the value of a club and forcing a reduced income (relegation).

I understand it should perhaps remain if we do not pay but cannot understand why it would remain if we coughed up the fee.

The FIFA decision was in September 2019 at which point in time only one instalment of the Sala fee was overdue. Therefore, once that instalment was paid FIFA could no longer impose an embargo.

The EFL have taken the view that the non payment of fees due was an absolute, irreversible breach of their regulations so couldn`t be lifted even after fee instalments are subsequently paid. They have not fully officially explained why this should be so, but enquiries of someone at the EFL indicate that they take the view that non payment of a fee gives the purchasing club an unfair advantage by improving their playing squad without a related financial cost.
I personally disagree strongly with this decision because, due to the tragic death of Emiliano Sala, CCFC never enjoyed that playing advantage. I hope and believe that the club are putting this argument forward very strongly to the EFL but am worried that having Peter Ridsdale involved in the decision procees at the EFL as one of its main board members is not going to help our cause at all.

With Ridsdale being anywhere near this we have no chance of getting it changed without going to court & given the length of time that would take we would be past the next 2 windows.

Thanks for the explanation.

You would hope that if the EFL rule is that; non payment gives an unfair advantage. The clubs arguement that the awful tragedy means there was no advantage should negate the rule.

In fact it was a disadvantage, we did not re-spend the money (I think) and we were relegated.

Dalman has a plan

One potential argument we have here is that the transaction took place when we were members of the EPL and not the EFL

I struggle to accept that the EFL can punish us for an offence which, potentially, was committed when we were not even members of the EFL.

An appropriate punishment maybe the EPL not allowing us into that league whilst the payment remains outstanding

One potential argument we have here is that the transaction took place when we were members of the EPL and not the EFL

I struggle to accept that the EFL can punish us for an offence which, potentially, was committed when we were not even members of the EFL.

An appropriate punishment maybe the EPL not allowing us into that league whilst the payment remains outstanding

That's a good point. Isn't there situations where Championship clubs have broken FFP rules only to have been promoted with their reprimands being held over until (if) they return to the EFL?

If our owner has other clubs. Could they buy a player and loan to CCFC? So like buy Kaba and Kipre if available via the Belgium club as an example?

If our owner has other clubs. Could they buy a player and loan to CCFC? So like buy Kaba and Kipre if available via the Belgium club as an example?

That is an option but it just feels like us trying to bend the rules. The EFL are bad enough without giving them ammunition to affect us further.

Thanks for the explanation.

You would hope that if the EFL rule is that; non payment gives an unfair advantage. The clubs arguement that the awful tragedy means there was no advantage should negate the rule.

In fact it was a disadvantage, we did not re-spend the money (I think) and we were relegated.

I agree. This was exceptional circumstances and we didn't refuse to pay, we were in dispute and though i disagreed with it to some extent, we went through an appeal procedure. The EFL jumped on us the moment they had an opportunity to because we were a few days late making the payment once it was finally arbitrated. Got the hand of the Riddler all over it.

Riddler and a JB sit at that table mind, we got no chance even...
A. We weren't EFL.
B. We certainly didn't gain any advantage ( quite the opposite which should be a counter claim )
C.FIFA lifted embargo.
D. We paid the instalment.
So as for bending rules personally I would go any route open as it seems the EFL can.

Riddler and a JB sit at that table mind, we got no chance even...
A. We weren't EFL.
B. We certainly didn't gain any advantage ( quite the opposite which should be a counter claim )
C.FIFA lifted embargo.
D. We paid the instalment.
So as for bending rules personally I would go any route open as it seems the EFL can.

In what world does someone disqualified as a director for eight years for diverting funds away from the creditors of his personal company into his own bank account get onto the EFL board?

Riddler and a JB sit at that table mind, we got no chance even...
A. We weren't EFL.
B. We certainly didn't gain any advantage ( quite the opposite which should be a counter claim )
C.FIFA lifted embargo.
D. We paid the instalment.
So as for bending rules personally I would go any route open as it seems the EFL can.

In what world does someone disqualified as a director for eight years for diverting funds away from the creditors of his personal company into his own bank account get onto the EFL board?

I know mate it's crazy and rotten to the core.