Jump to content

Quist

Member
  • Content Count

    3,433
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2,055 Excellent

About Quist

  • Rank
    Sheffield Wednesday First Team

Profile Information

  • Location
    Watlington

Recent Profile Visitors

3,225 profile views
  1. Why not try something original like going to watch the game.
  2. Some excellent posts on this thread. The P&S rules are quite simply not fit for purpose. The Parliamentary Committee letter more or less spells out it is not doing what was intended. Trying to get a level playing field is impossible. The issue is exacerbated when some teams are in receipt of parachute payments and they are ignored. Each club is different they all have different levels of support and therefore different finances. Wealthy owners have enabled some clubs Bournemouth for example to achieve a far higher status than would otherwise be the situation. If they drop out of Premier League they will be similar to Swansea having to make massive reductions to adjust to P&S requirements or gambling on going straight back up. P&S was supposed to stop clubs spending money which they did not have and going into receivership. It has in fact clamped down on extremely wealthy owners investing in clubs and failed to get to terms with those who buy clubs the can not afford to run. There are some excellent suggestions on here which would mean wealthy owners who put money into clubs could not just walk away and leave them up the creek. It is not difficult to produce a set of rules which could be implemented with ease instead of ones which rely on dark arts to be implemented. When Wednesday said it was unlawful actions by EFL this was quite a step but with Derby now saying same thing it is beginning to look grim for EFL. In EFL response to Wednesday they did not say they had not approved Wednesdays actions they quibbled about finding other errors and misdemeanours. Much has been said about points deductions but I am not certain what we have been charged with would actually carry a points deduction, if found guilty it would probably be a fine. The whole purpose of this guidance is about having clubs in a sustainable state and guiding a club back to profitability. It is clear that few clubs would be profitable without benefactors pumping money into clubs so preventing owners from injecting capital into a club is hardly a way of achieving aim. The EFL committee is interesting in composition and you have to assume must be some conflict. Bazalgette who is on committee I think is the same guy who ran British Horse Authority and was extremely unpopular and eventually removed. Parry was the wrong choice as he will no doubt try and uphold status of Premier League. You can not see how current rules will survive and the EFL itself must be in jeopardy.
  3. Just had a chat with a Palace fan. A lot of fans still have high regard for him and he says that as soon as Benteke is fit he will be out on loan and thinks it will be Wednesday where he is heading. No idea how informed he is but attends matches regularly.
  4. The reporting of the trial and judges comments before Christmas gave every indication that Wednesday were in the right. The SAG had admitted the notice was clumsily worded and if found invalid would just issue another, when compared with professional approach taken by Wednesday in which facts and figures were used to show how poor decision was made it clear we would win the judgement. In view of attitude change by SAG I think it is fairly clear somebody on high has stepped on them and told them to end this fiasco. The repercussions of this will not end with this judgement as SAG have a serious responsibility and the clearly they are unable to do job properly. the decision suggests they are either, 1, Incompetent unable to ascertain what the risk was and how to mitigate it, 2, Biased have made a judgement which was not fair to all parties which suggests they have and agenda 3, Taken SYP report on face value without any critical examination of it and ignored that it was not representative of all parties involved. Whichever applies it indicates the SAG is composed of individuals who lack the skills to do the job properly and raises questions re other decisions they may have made. You would expect individuals will be replaced in due course and SYP will also need to look at who commissioned report and their part in this fiasco and review procedures. The Government were reportedly watching the outcome of this case and with the poor decisions being made costing tax payer a potentially huge sum, there will be a considerable amount of unease In SCC. The lack of reporting of the judgement is amazing, it does appear that media is being controlled more and more. Which is a grave concern.
  5. That is true but needs more games. He is not normally in PL 18. Twenty games in Championship would make him much better player. Some real talented young players coming through in numerous top teams.
  6. It is a very difficult situation for the club as I do not think anyone knows what the outcome will be. The club can agree to a voluntary embargo as we did previously and because we complied with this we avoided being referred to independent Disciplinary Commission who impose penalties. It seems we engaged in discussions with EFL and they approved our approach of selling ground. Following complaints from clubs EFL decided to refer us to Commission to hand out punishment. Following our statement EFL got upset and said they had noticed several issues we could be punished for but it was noticeable they did not deny approving our strategy. Probably we have broken rules like lots of other clubs but aim of policy was not to punish but get a club back to a sustainable position and as long as a club is doing this you are generally ok. Birmingham signed a player after being advised not to that is why they were referred it appears we were referred because of complaints by other clubs. It is one hell of a mess and if uncertainty prevents us signing players and taking steps which hamper our chances and we win court case, compensation could be huge. Would not be a surprise to see this result in changes to what is an arbitrary and very unwieldly process and one which supports PL teams to disadvantage of EFL teams.
  7. Moxt on here not really interested in football and have not been to a game in years. just like to moan for sake of it and just want attention. It ruins the site and puts people off.
  8. Presumably lawyers will have approved statement and for us to say we have documents approving way we did things it is highly likely this is the situation. The EFL sway with the wind and when put under pressure by other clubs they made a knee jerk reaction and have obviously tried to back track. Think the only defence the EFL could try is we had not supplied accurate information but even this seems unlikely as their is obviously quite a bit of correspondence on subject and this should have allowed EFL to clarify position. Much speculation on what sanctions the EFL could impose upon us, however what remedies are available to us from the EFL, presumably costs and damages which they could argue has impacted transfer activity of club and impaired chance of promotion. There will be a few sweating after today.
  9. I think the current set up does not work for the majority of teams in football league. The young players at the club do not play the best Academies and in order to improve you have to play against better players. We won league last year and now in U/23s it can be seen there is a fair gap between the two. The U/23s league again excludes all of top level Academies and have long thought it does not extend our young players as it stands. We have a large squad which helps block young players getting opportunities to play with first team. I do accept not sending players out on loan has also not helped situation. If there were proper reserve fixtures even if it was only 20 per year I think it would be a good help to bring the young players on. The leading academies now have EFL trophy games to help bring on players this is in addition to a more competitive fixture structure and some teams having European fixtures for their young players as well. The clubs in Championship are the ones who are missing out and something needs to change An alternative would be arranging ad hoc games against teams, this depends on other teams being willing to play and no guarantee of decent opposition. The teams who would challenge the players will probably not be available or not interested in playing a team from league we are currently in. Therefore fully support bringing back reserve fixtures or having youth and under 23 based on geographical basis (North and South) rather than Academy status.
  10. In the match commentary on Blackburn game it was said Ryan Needs had arrived from Birmingham this week and was the new Head of Match Analysis. I have not seen this mentioned anywhere. Hopefully this will help improve the team going forward.
  11. I watched the replay of Blackburn game on Wednesday site and it was mentioned in commentary that Ryan Needs had arrived this week from Birmingham and is now head of game analysis for Wednesday.
  12. Yes think you are correct. Heard that Monk does not see any of young players in under 23s as ready for first team. He said as much when he said he would not play young players for PR purposes.
  13. Interesting that all of these are best played on left side of team. It is all a matter of opinion.
×
×
  • Create New...