This season.

[Dick_Turpin]

30 minutes ago, toppOwl said:

The old ruling used to be that the points  were deducted for the season after the offence, this was more in instances when clubs went into administration timed to have the least effect, whoever the governing body was at the time then ruled that they start the following season with minus points. The people that run football now seem to not work to any rules and are even above the law of the lad ffs. I honestly don’t think they’ll forcibly relegate us but I think they will prevent us going up (should we not do that ourselves), the bad thing is they have effectively killed this season off and it’s the people who have paid good money for ST’s etc that I feel most sorry for.

If he’s broken the rules it’s Chansiri who has killed this season off. 

[room0035]

15 hours ago, Rhubarb n Custard said:

But is my summary right? 

Can anyone confirm or are the EFL just free to do whatever the fizz? 

Forestieri gets sent off in a friendly at Mansfield Town after the final whistle for something a law court said insufficient evidence was available. The EFL banned him for 3 matches for the incident even though preseason friendlies do not carry this judgement and normally the referees use an common sense on the matter.

 

Roll forward 18 months the EFL then fine and suspend Forestieri for another 6 matches for the same incident.

 

So two years 9 match suspense and a £20,000 fine.

 

Jacob Mellis for hit karate kick in Lees chest nothing, for the Mansfield players throwing punches nothing. This is how the EFL work they do what ever they want to. 

 

BUT

 

Here's the funny thing our chairman and the other 23 league chairman meet every year, a few times a year to manage the game and the league. So simple if there is an issue with fines, penalties, financial fair play, parachute payments, absolutely anything they meet to discuss to fine a fair way forward. So simple why has the issues never been raised. 

[alanharper]

2 hours ago, toppOwl said:

The old ruling used to be that the points  were deducted for the season after the offence, this was more in instances when clubs went into administration timed to have the least effect, whoever the governing body was at the time then ruled that they start the following season with minus points. The people that run football now seem to not work to any rules and are even above the law of the lad ffs. I honestly don’t think they’ll forcibly relegate us but I think they will prevent us going up (should we not do that ourselves), the bad thing is they have effectively killed this season off and it’s the people who have paid good money for ST’s etc that I feel most sorry for.

 

For administration it used to be immediate, but they changed that after Leeds went into admin at half time in the final home game of the season when it was apparent that they had no chance of staying up so tried to take the hit then when it made no difference. They still got another deduction for the start of the next season in L1 for exiting admin without a CVA, but still made (and lost in) the play offs.

 

Birmingham were deducted 9 points in late March which took them from 13th to 18th place - 5 points above the relegation zone with 8 games to play, and they finished 17th 12 points above the dropzone, without a deduction they'd have finished 14th -  so it barely affected their season.

[tarn owl]

3 hours ago, Hitcat said:

Haven't the foggiest to be fair. I'm more worried about the planet turning into a fiery ball.

Well at least we can answer that one, if an asteroid or global warming doesn't get us then the suns solar flares or eventual demise will also see the earth cease to be. But whatever year it is, the Saturday before it happens, Wednesday will concede a 96th minute late equaliser to a former player. All these are facts at least. Sod the EFL.

[Guest LondonOwl313]

18 minutes ago, room0035 said:

Forestieri gets sent off in a friendly at Mansfield Town after the final whistle for something a law court said insufficient evidence was available. The EFL banned him for 3 matches for the incident even though preseason friendlies do not carry this judgement and normally the referees use an common sense on the matter.

 

Roll forward 18 months the EFL then fine and suspend Forestieri for another 6 matches for the same incident.

 

So two years 9 match suspense and a £20,000 fine.

 

Jacob Mellis for hit karate kick in Lees chest nothing, for the Mansfield players throwing punches nothing. This is how the EFL work they do what ever they want to. 

 

BUT

 

Here's the funny thing our chairman and the other 23 league chairman meet every year, a few times a year to manage the game and the league. So simple if there is an issue with fines, penalties, financial fair play, parachute payments, absolutely anything they meet to discuss to fine a fair way forward. So simple why has the issues never been raised. 

Pretty sure it has been raised but there's no possibility of changing it as it's the premier league that pay the parachute payments. Would also say that the EFL is 72 clubs not 24, and 40 or so of those clubs spend nearly every season in the bottom 2 divisions, so they don't care about Championship finances and just want their share of the TV money, which tbf they need given what's gone on with Bury.

 

Of the Championship teams, 6-8 of them get parachute payments so would imagine they like it how it is (until they run out then they'll start complaining like Gibson at Boro). Then there's another 6-8 teams who don't have rich owners who probably quite like the idea of FFP as it in theory would make it easier for them to compete without spending much money. The teams that hate it are the likes of us, Leeds, Derby, Forest, Birmingham... teams that are big clubs but have been down here a while. We don't have a majority to change anything and I think that's why Leeds were pushing for a Premier League 2

[room0035]

2 hours ago, LondonOwl313 said:

Pretty sure it has been raised but there's no possibility of changing it as it's the premier league that pay the parachute payments. Would also say that the EFL is 72 clubs not 24, and 40 or so of those clubs spend nearly every season in the bottom 2 divisions, so they don't care about Championship finances and just want their share of the TV money, which tbf they need given what's gone on with Bury.

 

Of the Championship teams, 6-8 of them get parachute payments so would imagine they like it how it is (until they run out then they'll start complaining like Gibson at Boro). Then there's another 6-8 teams who don't have rich owners who probably quite like the idea of FFP as it in theory would make it easier for them to compete without spending much money. The teams that hate it are the likes of us, Leeds, Derby, Forest, Birmingham... teams that are big clubs but have been down here a while. We don't have a majority to change anything and I think that's why Leeds were pushing for a Premier League 2

So what you are saying is sit down, shup up and keep doing what we are doing.

 

Then in 5 years time when another 6 or 7 clubs have gone  bust, all but the 3 teams coming down have transfer embargos or points deductions the league is going to be a great watch.

 

Or what could happen is financial FAIR play for all, not the current rules we have of financial BIAS play where the big teams get bigger and the rest keep quiet or they lose the scraps from the table they get.

[Animis]

25 minutes ago, room0035 said:

So what you are saying is sit down, shup up and keep doing what we are doing.

 

Then in 5 years time when another 6 or 7 clubs have gone  bust, all but the 3 teams coming down have transfer embargos or points deductions the league is going to be a great watch.

 

Or what could happen is financial FAIR play for all, not the current rules we have of financial BIAS play where the big teams get bigger and the rest keep quiet or they lose the scraps from the table they get.

 

I'm being pedantic, but challenging clubs with parachute payments didn't seem to bother the pigs and Huddersfield. There is a route out of this division, but we chose not to go down it and are paying the price.

[flo]

For the first time ever I am actually in the know. We are currently appealing a 15 point deduction and a 3.2 million pound fine as it has gone to a tribunal and we are blaming auditors. 

Sauce : one of the auditors that is in the poo. 

Edited December 1, 2019 by flo

[archieswfc]

14 minutes ago, flo said:

For the first time ever I am actually in the know. We are currently appealing a 15 point deduction and a 3.2 million pound fine as it has gone to a tribunal and we are blaming auditors. 

Sauce : one of the auditors that is in the poo. 

Which would put us in 23rd place. And let's be honest we're not gonna win in court. We're disliked by every authority under the sun at the minute. Even Sheffield council hate us. It's time to just accept it, it's Wednesday, it's obviously gonna go t1ts up.

[OWL1969]

On 28/11/2019 at 18:19, Rhubarb n Custard said:

First of all let me say that I'm unclear as to the punishment that may or may not be doled out in relation to the club's alleged financial indiscretions. 

With this in mind, if the club are deemed to have transgressed, when would any points deductions take place? 

I'd heard that if a deduction either secured relegation or prevented a playoff place they would be imposed.

If we fell between these two stools the penalty may be held over until the following season?

Just want to clarify if this is the case or not. 

If so the best we can do is qualify for top six and accept we will take no part in playoffs.

Worst case would be finishing low half of table with the deduction resulting in relegation. 

Anything outside these two scenarios would mean the penalty would rollover. 

Is this right?

Doesn't seem fair that the EFL can hedge its bets in this way. 

If its right the performances on the pitch are pretty much an irrelevance this season and it's all about restructuring the team for when we are clear of these issues.

Sorry for long post. 

Got a bit carried away 

 

Not certain of the answer to this, although I thought it was this season.

 

Would be ironic if we got charged this Season but the EFL docked us points  and/or fined next Season, wouldn't that then make them guilty of the very same thing we are being charged with? 

 

I'm pretty certain it will be points, Not sure how they could work out a fine for something which is monetary.

 

Difficult to explain why but I'll have a go

Anything less than the amount we (allegedly illegally) sold the ground for, and the fine becomes pointless, ie we still made a profit on something we've  been charged with gross misconduct for.

Anything Close to or above what we sold the Ground for (Definetly wont happen) and The EFL would be seen to attempting to kill off one of their member Clubs. (It would be different if it we're a Club with Millions ie Man City but these Clubs don't have the need to sell their ground to make money) 

 

That's why I think it will be a points deduction  and SHOULD be this season.

Hopefully we will somehow fight their decision and win, but I can't see this happening, I'm expecting min 12 pts (most likely imo) maybe 15 pts and very worst scenario (Please No but they don't seem to like Wednesday) 25 points.

 

 

 

 

[parkfieldowl14]

On 28/11/2019 at 19:39, Rhubarb n Custard said:

Honestly. 

You lot do my bulb in 

It's like the comedians in here. 

For all of you under 40 here's a taste... 

 

 

Frank Carson was my favourite on that show.But you're right about there being Comedians on OT.A lot of them are fourth rate.

[Neon Nick]

Financial Fair Play?  Do it like we do in the USA, it's called a Salary Cap, everybody get's to spend the same amount of money on Players, and nobody cares how much money a team loses.  There is no such thing as "parachute payments", and a League 4 Club, has the same option to spend as much as a League 1 Club.  Stop with the "Premier League", why aren't they part of EFL jurisdiction?  Sorry for the rant, I'm just looking to find out how all this EFL nonsense works.

 

Yes, there are rules and laws, but "when a law is unjust, it's Man's duty to break it"...Thomas Jefferson, (American Revolutionary) and if Chansiri did, like others have done, then hat's off and raise a glass to him.  Wednesday is going to suffer the consequences, but it's not going to cause the extinction of SWFC.  

[Minton]

20 minutes ago, Neon Nick said:

Financial Fair Play?  Do it like we do in the USA, it's called a Salary Cap, everybody get's to spend the same amount of money on Players, and nobody cares how much money a team loses.  There is no such thing as "parachute payments", and a League 4 Club, has the same option to spend as much as a League 1 Club.  Stop with the "Premier League", why aren't they part of EFL jurisdiction?  Sorry for the rant, I'm just looking to find out how all this EFL nonsense works.

 

Yes, there are rules and laws, but "when a law is unjust, it's Man's duty to break it"...Thomas Jefferson, (American Revolutionary) and if Chansiri did, like others have done, then hat's off and raise a glass to him.  Wednesday is going to suffer the consequences, but it's not going to cause the extinction of SWFC.  

 

For starts, there is also no such thing as promotion or relegation in the USA. Secondly, there is a salary cap, but it does not apply to 10 out of 30 designated squad players. So it's basically pointless and you end up in the ridiculous situation where your 'star' player player is earning more in week than the lowest paid player earns in a year. (Ibrahimovic earned $7,200,000 base salary at LA Galaxy, one of their defenders Diedie Traore earned $56,250). You also end up in the situation where clubs can't keep hold of young talent as clubs not hindered by a cap can easily offer them more money. Look at the talent pouring out of MLS to European clubs currently and tell me that it is of viable, long-term benefit to the league and the clubs.

[Neon Nick]

6 minutes ago, Minton said:

 

For starts, there is also no such thing as promotion or relegation in the USA. Secondly, there is a salary cap, but it does not apply to 10 out of 30 designated squad players. So it's basically pointless and you end up in the ridiculous situation where your 'star' player player is earning more in week than the lowest paid player earns in a year. (Ibrahimovic earned $7,200,000 base salary at LA Galaxy, one of their defenders Diedie Traore earned $56,250). You also end up in the situation where clubs can't keep hold of young talent as clubs not hindered by a cap can easily offer them more money. Look at the talent pouring out of MLS to European clubs currently and tell me that it is of viable, long-term benefit to the league and the clubs.

You're right, there is no promotion-relegation here, and yes Ibrahimovic and before that Beckam, don't know what Rooney got with New York...I can't tell you that MLS "talent" going to Europe, and England benefits the MLS, but, MLS will never be as "big time" as the NFL, NBA, MLB (highest paid) or even the NHL for that matter.  The USA is just not a "soccer nation."  We follow English Football, those of us whom like "soccer."  

 

As far as "10 out of 30", that applies to every Club, not just to select Clubs, as in Parachute Money resulting from relegation.

 

You make valid, relevant, and salient points.  The best Players, here, in England, or Europe, will always make in a week what the lowest paid Squad members make in a year or two or three.  This is probably true on the Wednesday payroll too.  My point is that equality of opportunity, as far as spending goes, would benefit English Football.  

 

Thank you for your response, and for being so to the point.

[Minton]

6 minutes ago, Neon Nick said:

You're right, there is no promotion-relegation here, and yes Ibrahimovic and before that Beckam, don't know what Rooney got with New York...I can't tell you that MLS "talent" going to Europe, and England benefits the MLS, but, MLS will never be as "big time" as the NFL, NBA, MLB (highest paid) or even the NHL for that matter.  The USA is just not a "soccer nation."  We follow English Football, those of us whom like "soccer."  

 

As far as "10 out of 30", that applies to every Club, not just to select Clubs, as in Parachute Money resulting from relegation.

 

You make valid, relevant, and salient points.  The best Players, here, in England, or Europe, will always make in a week what the lowest paid Squad members make in a year or two or three.  This is probably true on the Wednesday payroll too.  My point is that equality of opportunity, as far as spending goes, would benefit English Football.  

 

Thank you for your response, and for being so to the point.

 

The issue that you end up with is that your 'big' teams with rich owners will still dominate the league, as they can afford to pay players like Rooney $13,000,000m per year. Keeping the small teams down with so little to play for each year that they have to invent a post season play-off to even give them a glimmer of something to give a throw about.

 

To put the madness of the MLS system into context, the equivalent here would be Jordan Rhodes on his £35,000k per week and Ash Baker, Fraser Preston etc (players on the fringe of our named 25 man squad) earning £274 per week. Our academy players are paid more than that. 

[Neon Nick]

Oh you're 100% correct, MLS is trying to gain ratings by signing retired 1st Tier "premier League" Players, but it isn't working, because those of us whom follow English Football, remember such Players in their prime, well, save for Ibrahimovic, whom I think was a free-transfer to Man U., from some European Club.  The reason they came here is because they got dropped in England, and were offered more money for a year in America, North, than they made across 2 or 3 years playing at their best, in England.  

 

Still, I'd like to see equality of opportunity, regarding EFL  P&S rules.  As it stands, the EFL and P&S provides no equality of spending opportunity, unless you're one of the 3 relegated from Tier 1.  Please respond, you talk sense.

[Minton]

1 hour ago, Neon Nick said:

Oh you're 100% correct, MLS is trying to gain ratings by signing retired 1st Tier "premier League" Players, but it isn't working, because those of us whom follow English Football, remember such Players in their prime, well, save for Ibrahimovic, whom I think was a free-transfer to Man U., from some European Club.  The reason they came here is because they got dropped in England, and were offered more money for a year in America, North, than they made across 2 or 3 years playing at their best, in England.  

 

Still, I'd like to see equality of opportunity, regarding EFL  P&S rules.  As it stands, the EFL and P&S provides no equality of spending opportunity, unless you're one of the 3 relegated from Tier 1.  Please respond, you talk sense.

 

The idea behind bring in 'big name' players to the MLS was twofold; To bring names into the MLS to increase the profile of the league and to improve the quality of football both on show and the quality of the players at a club. When you train with better players, you become a better player yourself and this has definitely had an impact in the MLS.

 

As for P&S rules here, they are sound in their reasoning. The idea is to stop owners buying their way to promotion at the expense of the long term stability of the club (a la QPR) or ending up with a group of teams all throwing tens of millions of pounds at a promotion push and leaving teams without a billionaire owner with no hope of ever being promoted. There is also a push to encourage teams to develop their own players, which is why expenditure on youth setup, training facilities, ground improvements (along with women's football) are excluded from the figures. One issue however, is that they didn't expect (and haven't taken into account) the rapid inflation of transfer fees and wages over the last 3 or 4 years, which has lead to a number of clubs sailing close to the wind just to try and stay mid-table, never mind go for a promotion push.

 

As for the parachute payments, they are completely necessary for any club that is promoted to the Premier League and then relegated. The last set of data that is available (from the 2017/2018 season) has the 3 relegated teams (Stoke, WBA and Swansea) with wage bills of £94m, £92m and £91m respectively. That is unsustainable in the Championship and without the payments from the PL, they would be bust in perhaps 2 seasons. When you compare the wage spending of the top Championship teams (Aston Villa's £73m aside, who let's remember would have been bust had it not been for promotion) it's almost double the highest spenders. People complain about it being 'a closed shop' but the reality is that the P&S and Parachute Payment rules make it the opposite, giving clubs not just hope of being able to compete in the PL, but the ability to try and compete without then running the risk of totally bankrupting the club if they try.

 

 

The graph also highlights our spending increases as being fairly middle of the road I might add, our wage bill that season was £42m, which put us in line with Norwich, Derby and Birmingham in 8th place.

Edited December 2, 2019 by Minton

[Neon Nick]

5 minutes ago, Minton said:

 

The idea behind bring in 'big name' players to the MLS was twofold; To bring names into the MLS to increase the profile of the league and to improve the quality of football both on show and the quality of the players at a club. When you train with better players, you become a better player yourself and this has definitely had an impact in the MLS.

 

As for P&S rules here, they are sound in their reasoning. The idea is to stop owners buying their way to promotion at the expense of the long term stability of the club (a la QPR) or ending up with a group of teams all throwing tens of millions of pounds at a promotion push and leaving teams without a billionaire owner with no hope of ever being promoted. There is also a push to encourage teams to develop their own players, which is why expenditure on youth setup, training facilities, ground improvements (along with women's football) are excluded from the figures. One issue however, is that they didn't expect (and haven't taken into account) the rapid inflation of transfer fees and wages over the last 3 or 4 years, which has lead to a number of clubs sailing close to the wind just to try and stay mid-table, never mind go for a promotion push.

 

As for the parachute payments, they are completely necessary for any club that is promoted to the Premier League and then relegated. The last set of data that is available (from the 2017/2018 season) has the 3 relegated teams (Stoke, WBA and Swansea) with wage bills of £94m, £92m and £91m respectively. That is unsustainable in the Championship and without the payments from the PL, they would be bust in perhaps 2 seasons. When you compare the wage spending of the top Championship teams (Aston Villa's £72m aside, who let's remember would have been bust had it not been for promotion) it's almost double the highest spenders. People complain about it being 'a closed shop' but the reality is that the P&S and Parachute Payment rules make it the opposite, giving clubs not just hope of being able to compete in the PL, but the ability to try and compete without then running the risk of totally bankrupting the club if they try.

 

The graph also highlights our spending increases as being fairly middle of the road I might add, our wage bill that season was £42m, which put us in line with Norwich, Derby and Birmingham in 7th place.

About bringing big-name Players into the MLS...thing is, these Players do not give a hoot in Hell about playing in the MLS, they didn't come here to better the MLS, they came here, for one last KICK-ASS payday, even if they'd spent all their English money, they got another huge payday here, and, for no other reason than who they WERE.  MLS will get more views, when it becomes as quality as the English Standards.  An average MLS Club, would be terrified of Tier 2 England, to my mind, most are Tier 3 at best, none would survive in Tier 1, most are what you guys would call Tier 3.  MLS is going to have to stand on their own, by exhibiting quality, not by buying English (and other) Players whom have been deemed "not good enough, by English standards, any more."  This is why Americans follow English Football, it's just better football.

 

P&S.  Probably all Owners today are billionaires, if for no other reason than if you're not, don't go shopping in England.  Here, if an Owner doesn't care about losing money, that's legal.  I could name a number of Teams, NFL, NBA, MSL, NHL, MLB, who don't make any money, and they have been around for a long, long time.  The EFL want's to throw Wednesday out, because Wednesday loses money?  We Fans here in the USA, do not understand this concept.  The EFL want's to throw Wednesday out because Wednesday spends money?  We don't understand that either.

 

Parachute payments?  Why don't the other Tiers get the same, albeit on a smaller scale?  Because it would allow an unfair financial advantage to give, say, Wednesday, a big cash boost for getting relegated to Tier 3.  Our wage-bill is whatever our Owner says is appropriate.  

 

Sticky subject, maybe we should start another thread, because we're getting off point regarding the OP, but it'd be a good Thread.

[Minton]

19 minutes ago, Neon Nick said:

About bringing big-name Players into the MLS...thing is, these Players do not give a hoot in Hell about playing in the MLS, they didn't come here to better the MLS, they came here, for one last KICK-ASS payday, even if they'd spent all their English money, they got another huge payday here, and, for no other reason than who they WERE.  MLS will get more views, when it becomes as quality as the English Standards.  An average MLS Club, would be terrified of Tier 2 England, to my mind, most are Tier 3 at best, none would survive in Tier 1, most are what you guys would call Tier 3.  MLS is going to have to stand on their own, by exhibiting quality, not by buying English (and other) Players whom have been deemed "not good enough, by English standards, any more."  This is why Americans follow English Football, it's just better football.

 

P&S.  Probably all Owners today are billionaires, if for no other reason than if you're not, don't go shopping in England.  Here, if an Owner doesn't care about losing money, that's legal.  I could name a number of Teams, NFL, NBA, MSL, NHL, MLB, who don't make any money, and they have been around for a long, long time.  The EFL want's to throw Wednesday out, because Wednesday loses money?  We Fans here in the USA, do not understand this concept.  The EFL want's to throw Wednesday out because Wednesday spends money?  We don't understand that either.

 

Parachute payments?  Why don't the other Tiers get the same, albeit on a smaller scale?  Because it would allow an unfair financial advantage to give, say, Wednesday, a big cash boost for getting relegated to Tier 3.  Our wage-bill is whatever our Owner says is appropriate.  

 

Sticky subject, maybe we should start another thread, because we're getting off point regarding the OP, but it'd be a good Thread.

 

All owners are DEFINITELY not billionaires.

 

The NFL as a body makes around $8.1bn profit per year, which is spread amongst the 32 teams. That is before you add in the revenue for each individual team. All the teams have the potential to make a large profit, otherwise the majority of owners would not be interested. 

 

The EFL want to fine Wednesday because we have (according to them) fiddled around with sale of ground dates to get us under the £39m, 3 year loss limit.

 

The EFL also doesn't care if teams lose money, as long as it isn't *too* much money. Championship teams can lose up to £39m ($50m) over 3 years, which would be far in excess of the US teams losses. The idea is to make teams sustainable and avoid team after team going bankrupt. 

 

There are parachute payments made by the EFL to clubs relegated from the Championship, League 1 and League 2 already.

 

 

Edited December 2, 2019 by Minton

[Neon Nick]

Thank you for that about parachute payments.  I did not know.  Still, I don't like the idea.  As for the NFL, some wouldn't make a dime were it not for "collective distribution", Green Bay for one.  Is there any such concept in English Football?