Jump to content

Swifty75

Member
  • Content Count

    84
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

74 Excellent

About Swifty75

  • Rank
    Sheffield Wednesday Youth Team
  1. I have read through the entire document now. That was an hour I wont get back! A few points for me: 1. Charge 2 that was dismissed is regarding that the management of Sheffield Wednesday did try to mislead the management of the EFL that the heads of terms had already been signed. This charge was thrown out given that there is written correspondence that demonstrates that the management of the EFL must have known it was not in place, and therefore also must have known that the heads of terms were pre-dated when signed. 2. The EFL say that our non submission of details with regard to P&S in early 2019 made them re-look at our 17/18 accounts. They then found that the heads of terms had not been signed on 15th July, and our auditors should not have accepted them. Charge 1 is then related to charge 2 is it not? In that the EFL knew that our ground sale was not concluded in July 2018. If they knew this at the time they could have told us firstly that we could not do this. They might have told us in the meeting on 3rd August. Or subsequently when emails between the 2 parties disclosed in writing the heads of terms not to have been concluded. They could have charged us as soon as the accounts came through as they had knowledge that the heads of terms were not concluded until after at least 6th August. It appears that both parties were in the know that the heads of terms had not been agreed in a timely manner. Nobody from the EFL said that we could not include the ground sale. So why was it not brought up at the time? There are number of arguments: 1. The EFL did not know that the heads of terms had been pre-dated (thrown out in charge 1) 2. Both sets of management knew it was incorrect but had gone so far down the road they were letting it pass (this then changed with new leadership at the EFL) 3. The EFL knew all along and were preparing to charge us in late 2018 but were waiting to see how the season unfolded as they would not like to charge us if a 12 point deduction would result in no relegation. For me it is a complete mess and both sides have acted poorly. The people that are losing out again is the paying spectator! Were P&S rules brought in to stop people spending their own money, or to stop clubs taking on massive debt and spending money they do not have?
  2. Not sure why Katrien Miere left but as CEO you would have expected her to be all over this. We know the EFL only want to apply a points deduction when it relegates a team. Some say we are lucky that it has not been applied in 19/20. For me the bigger question is why did it take from August 2018 to November 2019 to get round to looking at our accounts and finding the problem? Is it just that they were being a bit slow? Or was it that they realised that a points deduction in the correct year (18/19) would have no effect?
  3. That is correct. They dismissed it saying that the EFL had done no thorough investigation on the charges but charged anyway!
  4. We did not win charge 2, they dropped all charges, when it became apparent there was no case to answer. It appears that it is correct that we made a mess of the date of the transaction of the ground sale. What does get to me though is that it appears that they have waited a long time to begin proceedings. It would appear that they were waiting for a season when a 12 point deduction would relegate us, and have made mess of it because the independent panel objected to this approach.
  5. But I think we should both have had a deduction in 1819, if we were found to be guilty.
  6. The EFL want to impose the sanctions, but they want to impose the sanctions when it has the biggest detrimental effect on the club in question. Surely the EFL would want the clubs within the league and under their guidance to be as successful as possible???? One way or another they have managed to damage, or indeed destroy, Bury, Bolton, Macclesfield and Wigan. If the premier league acted in this way then it would be back page news and there would be an outcry. Anything below the premier league nobody is really bothered, especially for little clubs like Macclesfield.
  7. I have just read through the documents on the EFL website, and for me their is a startling admittance of a desire for them to relegate us contained within it. It says: Clearly they are not charging Derby this season because the maximum 12 point deduction would not relegate them. Does this then read they did not charge us in the 1819 season as it would not relegate us. I think it clearly does. It would seem that the EFL do not want to adhere to their own rules when it does not relegate the club charged. It says the club should be charged and penalties imposed in the subsequent season and that a 12 point deduction is the maximum. It does not say the EFL can choose when to impose that sanction so as it ends in relegation for that team. It is a complete mess. What is the point in a body writing rules and then not sticking to 'their' rules as it does not give the outcome they would like. They should have written the rule to say 'a breach of the profit and sustainability rule will result in automatic relegation in the subsequent season'.
  8. Surely we would need to know if they are going to deduct points this season before we vote. Under this system anymore than 9 and we would be down. it would be so Wednesday to vote end it and the next day the EFL dock us 10 points!
  9. I think you replied to the person I quoted!!!!! my bit was underneath saying that the crush outside was inevitable!
  10. The more ludicrous thing about that day was that 10,200 tickets had to enter through just 7 of the Leppings Lane turnstiles. When tested the assumed rate at which those turnstiles could operate was 750 per hour. The turnstiles opened 2 hours before kick off, so if everyone had started to queue from 1pm in an orderly fashion then everyone would have got in. Unfortunately very few football fans turn up 2 hours before kick off. The 10200 standing tickets were never going to get in. The HSE report is available for all to see and can be found with an easy google. I do think that since the SYP were given the blame for failing to protect public safety there has been an agenda against SWFC and specifically the Leppings Lane concourse. It is as if they can say that end of the ground is not safe, and it is still not safe, taking some of the blame away from 1989. If you look at what they are doing now it is in someways similar to 1989. In 1989 the police were so worried about public disorder that they totally ignored public safety. In making us all go out on to Penistone Road it feels that we have less public safety, at the expense of a few crossed words with a couple of hundred Brentford fans! Still no public disorder!
  11. Yesterday we should have won, we were 1 up with 10 minutes to play. We made a couple of errors. For the first Iorfa gets beaten at the back post, and it loops over Westwood who is too near to the front post. For the second Borner miss kicked a clearance. Problem with yesterday for some was that the errors did not come from the usual whipping boys who could have been blamed.
  12. One of the reasons used to implement this restriction is that there was trouble at the Sheffield derby in March. Not sure how chief Superintendent Morley can say about the policing operation: “Tonight saw the city come together to cheer on their teams and overall the behaviour from fans was positive and there was an exciting atmosphere for everybody to enjoy". Surely if that was his view on the 4th March, what has happened since to change the perception? Or does it suit SYP to change this opinion to form a different narrative, which supports whatever difficulties they are forcing on the supporters and club. https://www.southyorks.police.uk/find-out/news-and-appeals/2019/march-2019/match-commander-thanks-sheffield-fans-after-derby/
  13. So looking at the star report it appears that SAG employed an expert from Manchester Met to observe the crowd after the Villa match. The Star quotes: ‘The prohibition notice comes after a report by Ben Cowcill, a crowd expert at Manchester Metropolitan University, who visited Hillsborough during Wednesday’s game with Aston Villa on April 6 – just a month after trouble flared at the Steel City derby.’ I came out onto the Lep concourse after the Villa match, just before the full time whistle was blown. There were 3 very drunk Villa fans on the Leppings lane bridge shouting at Wednesday fans. The police did nothing about them until there was a flashpoint. Surely moving them on, or even warning them about their behaviour would have been pro active. I for for one am not surprised that an expert commissioned by SAG/SYP/SCC to find if there is a problem at Leppings Lane finds there is a problem at Leppings Lane! I am pretty certain that this expert was not employed to see if there is an issue at Bramall Lane when Wednesday fans complained, Norwich fans were hospitalised, or they had twice as many arrests as SWFC. It suits SYP’s agenda to call Leppings Lane unsafe. They are still trying to dodge, and minimise, the blame for their incompetence that lead to the disaster of 1989.
  14. It beggars belief what is happening. There are limited incidents on Leppings Lane, as there are at any ground. When you look at statistics and not someone’s subjective opinion, Sheffield United has twice as many arrests at Bramall Lane as we did Hillsborough in 17/18 season. They also had away fans being assaulted and hospitalised after the game outside the away end. Since SYP lies were uncovered and they were given the blame for 1989, they have done everything they can to make it seem like the stadium was the issue. They are now saying that the concourse is unsafe, leading to people not in the know believing the ground is unsafe, thus taking the blame away from our incompetent police force and onto someone else. It is a complete joke, at every ground across the country home fans and away fans will always come across each other. If it does not happen on Leppings Lane it would happen at the tram stop. We are being treated differently to any other club in the league. However I do not see where our appeal goes, SYP will always back their decision as it suits their lies and smears agenda.
×
×
  • Create New...