Albion v EFL: pending

So, which is to be? Survival at Hillsborough against Sheffield Wednesday, or in a court room (away), with solicitors locking horns?

Which one of these will decide Albion's fate: the final day of the season against the Owls, or a date in front of the beak?

The most bizarre of seasons is spilling over from the abysmal to the absurd. I would imagine very few had ‘charged with an alleged breach of P & S (Profit and Sustainability) rules’ on the 2025/26 bingo card.

First; background time: There has been a certain trust the Bilkul-run Baggies have been across the financial tripwires left behind by the Guochuan Lai stewardship of the club. I don’t need to bore you with the details of the loans taken out by the previous owner, which were willingly picked up by Bilkul when they acquired the club for, effectively, less than the price of a Tammer Bany (the Patels basically took on the debt in return for the low purchase price). To the credit of Bilkul they have brought debt down with each year. It has been painful, it has been awkward...but it was necessary. Please remember that.

And, yet, here we are.

Any EFL Championship club must keep losses south of £39m across a three-year cycle (it is suggested that has risen to £41.5m, yet there is no evidence in the EFL handbook this has changed). Albion appeared to be on top of that. The sale of players like Alex Palmer, Brandon Thomas-Asante, Conor Townsend, Torbjørn Heggem, Darnell Furlong and Tom Fellows reduced much of that, in last year's accounts and what we'll see reflected in this year's figures. Even so, we knew it would be close.

It is worth pointing out at this juncture how sales differ from purchases. The likes of Tammer Bany (£3.3m) and Aune Heggebø (£4.75m) – as two examples, of those signed in recent times - are not huge drains on Profit and Sustainability Rules (PSR). When you sell a player, the fee that you receive for a player is immediately reflected on the accounts (minus any remaining amortisation on that player, or, where applicable, any outstanding fees). In effect Fellows and Palmer, as home-grown players, were 100% profit; so whatever you sell them for, you get straight back onto the accounts.

But - and this is a key thing - any incoming signing is spread over the course of a player’s contract, so Bany (who signed a three-and-a-half-year contract) and Heggebø (five year deal) effectively only cost Albion £1.9m a year overall. This is merely an explainer about the processes towards PSR when it comes to costing incomings and outgoings. Signings coming into a club really aren't a massive deal for PSR costs, within the market we operate in. The notion 'we can't afford' this player, or that player, or more so, that it has been ruinous, is for the birds. We can afford these signings, albeit financial parameters still need to be given consideration.

I digress.

What we don’t know is how Albion and the EFL have come to be in dispute over what is being regarded as being a ‘possible minor’ breach of under £2m. Such a breach carries a three-point penalty – which is reduced by a point if the EFL applies mitigation that a club’s losses have reduced season-on-season, which, in Albion’s case, they have. And, yes, if necessary, any penalty will be applied this season, by definition of the regulations. It also raises the question of how such a conclusion has been drawn given we know the EFL have been holding the club's hand for some time to ensure there are no PSR blips. Is it a miscalculation by the club, a case of mistaking what is/isn't allowed within the PSR framework, or something else?

Right now, Albion, if guilty of a breach, are facing at a two-point ban, which isn't helpful to The Baggies’ cause, nor those of their rivals. No club should be in this position - knowing that results on the pitch may be impeded by decisions off the field. I dare say Leicester, Oxford, Portsmouth, Charlton and Blackburn don't particularly wish to have their survival prospects decided by men in suits.

It is also pointless applying any value of precedent. Football club accounts are complex and feature as many variables as any football match. Precedent only works when most/all things are transferable from one case to another. Stare decisis, a process whereby precedent conforms, does not apply when there are too many variables that contrast or are dissimilar. Unless one has forensic analysis of two sets of accounts, it is utterly futile to give value to the concept of comparison and, so, precedent isn't a consideration. There is no point blaming other clubs. A breach is a breach. And if Albion have been found guilty of a breach, it doesn't matter what has gone on at other clubs as their circumstances will always be different.

The EFL, by the way, are limp. As an organisation they have the kudos of owning and having governance of one of the best leagues in European football - that being the Championship, apparently - yet the reality is of an organisation that is hugely under-resourced, over-stretched and simply not fit for purpose. That football regulator you see, waving in the distance, has one hell of a job whipping non-Premier League football back in shape. I don't fancy its chances. The regulator is on a hiding to nothing - the sooner we comprehend this, the softer the fall will be, when it happens. And, here's the thing, if three clubs end up being relegated this season following points' deductions - Sheffield Wednesday and Leicester City have been docked 18 and six points respectively - then it suggests football as an entity is broken.

Where does this leave Albion? I don’t know. One can’t speculate without having full sight of the accounts or alleged breaches, and how those impact on the profit and sustainability regulations. What I do know is this: Albion found themselves in this predicament for something that predates Bilkul. Have the current owners contributed to this particular mess by mis-navigating their way through the complexities of the rules? Time will tell.

Away from this issue, some further context: I do know there have been some external parties who have approached the owners about potential investment. So far those have been resisted by Bilkul, perhaps because they feel they can manage the post-Lai storms, and maybe because they feel a certain resistance related to their own personal pride. But it is my prediction that this situation will change in the coming months: I really do expect Albion to welcome investment from other sources. Bilkul are not a bottomless resource.

In the meantime, one hopes those who believed the club’s recent statement that all was well within the P&S regulations – I was, indeed, one of those people – aren’t made to look daft in the coming period. Whatever happens, the need for greater media analysis of football clubs, including West Bromwich Albion, is imperative. We need more scrutiny. Just because we are told something, doesn’t make it true. This culture must absolutely change within media discourse - challenge everything.

Finally, in case you missed it, Monday was April 13, the date of Igor Balis day – when a Slovakian prince whisked us off to paradise, 24 years ago.

Let’s hope that April 13, 2026, isn’t the day that EFL bureaucrats took their first step towards deciding West Bromwich Albion's Championship fate.