Dick_Turpin Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 20 minutes ago, Triple O said: The hearing, in my opinion, can only side with SWFC if there is any evidence to show we were given a green light by anyone at the EFL. That could be in writing, email, phone call, text or in conversation. The EFL say additional information came to light. It’s not simply about a green light. If it was there would be no case at all. We have to see what their evidence is and how it contradicts the original case and how the version in the audited accounts don’t comply with EFL rules. But sod to conspiracy theories. Charges have been levelled against many clubs over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 The fact that the individual charges were dropped put the EFL’s case immediately on the back foot IMO? Plus the said individuals are probably the most senior figures at the club so they must have made the decisions the EFL are contesting? Which begs the question if Individual charges can’t stick, how can then the charges against the club stick? It’s common knowledge we were under yet another transfer embargo in the summer. This was probably down to issues that are a part of the current charges brought against the club? Yet we were allowed to come out of the embargo so something must’ve satisfied someone at the EFL in order for this to happen? Personally I think this is a case of someone at the EFL p1$$1ng against the wall and risking it splashing back? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gizowl Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 14 minutes ago, Great Big Galaa said: The fact that the individual charges were dropped put the EFL’s case immediately on the back foot IMO? Plus the said individuals are probably the most senior figures at the club so they must have made the decisions the EFL are contesting? Which begs the question if Individual charges can’t stick, how can then the charges against the club stick? It’s common knowledge we were under yet another transfer embargo in the summer. This was probably down to issues that are a part of the current charges brought against the club? Yet we were allowed to come out of the embargo so something must’ve satisfied someone at the EFL in order for this to happen? Personally I think this is a case of someone at the EFL p1$$1ng against the wall and risking it splashing back? That someone being a certain P Rick Parry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick_Turpin Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 21 minutes ago, gizowl said: That someone being a certain P Rick Parry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and white Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 5 hours ago, mogbad said: Agree it's dragged on to long but if we get a points deduction this season & the season is somehow completed we could easily be relegated. I'd rather start on minus points next session but still be in the Championship. Its not as far fetched as it sounds that we could be relegated on merit SHOULD the season be allowed to reach a conclusion, we could then get a points deduction for the start of our push to get out of league one. That is the worst case scenario, but it isn't a daft as it sounds. Worrying times indeed. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue and white Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 42 minutes ago, Great Big Galaa said: The fact that the individual charges were dropped put the EFL’s case immediately on the back foot IMO? Plus the said individuals are probably the most senior figures at the club so they must have made the decisions the EFL are contesting? Which begs the question if Individual charges can’t stick, how can then the charges against the club stick? It’s common knowledge we were under yet another transfer embargo in the summer. This was probably down to issues that are a part of the current charges brought against the club? Yet we were allowed to come out of the embargo so something must’ve satisfied someone at the EFL in order for this to happen? Personally I think this is a case of someone at the EFL p1$$1ng against the wall and risking it splashing back? It has been well documented in the local papers that we should have documented evidence from the EFL acknowledging our ground sale and accounts to a satisfactory level, should we have this then we are safe, if we don't we are fizzed. This begs the question why would the EFL seem keen to push on with this if we have documented approval from them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kobayashi Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 52 minutes ago, Great Big Galaa said: The fact that the individual charges were dropped put the EFL’s case immediately on the back foot IMO? Plus the said individuals are probably the most senior figures at the club so they must have made the decisions the EFL are contesting? Which begs the question if Individual charges can’t stick, how can then the charges against the club stick? It’s common knowledge we were under yet another transfer embargo in the summer. This was probably down to issues that are a part of the current charges brought against the club? Yet we were allowed to come out of the embargo so something must’ve satisfied someone at the EFL in order for this to happen? Personally I think this is a case of someone at the EFL p1$$1ng against the wall and risking it splashing back? They cut a deal: the EFL dropped the individual charges and SWFC dropped the arbitration in which they claimed charges couldn’t be brought against the club. As of yet the merits of the case have not even been heard so nothing that has happened so far gives any clue as to how it will be found. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple O Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 1 hour ago, rickygoo said: The EFL say additional information came to light. It’s not simply about a green light. If it was there would be no case at all. We have to see what their evidence is and how it contradicts the original case and how the version in the audited accounts don’t comply with EFL rules. But sod to conspiracy theories. Charges have been levelled against many clubs over the years. I might be getting confused but.... wasn't the "additional information" in regard to the second charges against individuals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sham67 Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 16 minutes ago, Blue and white said: It has been well documented in the local papers that we should have documented evidence from the EFL acknowledging our ground sale and accounts to a satisfactory level, should we have this then we are safe, if we don't we are fizzed. This begs the question why would the EFL seem keen to push on with this if we have documented approval from them. They have to be seen to be doing something, otherwise Gibson will set the lawyers on them. Imho, this is the only reason they are carrying on with this farce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Tibbs Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 18 hours ago, Five Archers said: Been around Wednesday for 58 years now and i know how this will pan out, the charges against us will be dropped, then this season restarts in August and we only have half a team of first team pro's. Resulting in SWFC getting relegated for fielding an under strength team. You’ll get good odds on that treble. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick_Turpin Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 29 minutes ago, Triple O said: I might be getting confused but.... wasn't the "additional information" in regard to the second charges against individuals? Don’t think so. The initial reporting was just of the charge against the club as far as I can remember. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nbupperthongowl Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 40 minutes ago, kobayashi said: They cut a deal: the EFL dropped the individual charges and SWFC dropped the arbitration in which they claimed charges couldn’t be brought against the club. As of yet the merits of the case have not even been heard so nothing that has happened so far gives any clue as to how it will be found. Source?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No 2 is r nilsson Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 I’m not sure if this point has been made but the timing of the hearing makes a huge difference, and has to be taken into account in the punishment given (if any). A 9 pt deduction this season would have made things tight, but we would probably survive. A 9 pt deduction next season could arguably be devastating, and may make the difference between promotion or not, if we’re near the top 6. The only fair punishment in July (assuming the season is over by then) would therefore be a fine. I realise there are lots of permutations, but if the hearing was originally March the punishment should have an equivalent effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animis Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 53 minutes ago, kobayashi said: They cut a deal: the EFL dropped the individual charges and SWFC dropped the arbitration in which they claimed charges couldn’t be brought against the club. As of yet the merits of the case have not even been heard so nothing that has happened so far gives any clue as to how it will be found. Did that actually happen? Interesting if so, as it wasn't reported. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick_Turpin Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 17 minutes ago, No 2 is r nilsson said: I’m not sure if this point has been made but the timing of the hearing makes a huge difference, and has to be taken into account in the punishment given (if any). A 9 pt deduction this season would have made things tight, but we would probably survive. A 9 pt deduction next season could arguably be devastating, and may make the difference between promotion or not, if we’re near the top 6. The only fair punishment in July (assuming the season is over by then) would therefore be a fine. I realise there are lots of permutations, but if the hearing was originally March the punishment should have an equivalent effect. In July 2008 Luton were deducted 20 points by the EFL for irregularities on coming out of administration. That was on top of a 10 point deduction by the FA. They subsequently finished bottom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No 2 is r nilsson Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 1 hour ago, rickygoo said: In July 2008 Luton were deducted 20 points by the EFL for irregularities on coming out of administration. That was on top of a 10 point deduction by the FA. They subsequently finished bottom. Didn’t Birmingham get 9, but as a soft punishment because it meant they just finished in a lower mid table position. This seems like a more realistic precedent. The point I’m making is that this doesn’t seem as soft if we’re doing well next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Horse Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 7 hours ago, mcmigo said: I think we will be fine. No one can say we cheated as cheating involves gaining some sort of an advantage by not playing by the rules. In our case, we sportingly spent all of our money on a load of old cack, gaining no advantage whatsoever. There is therefore no case to answer. Absolutely. If anything we should be recognised as a charity! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick_Turpin Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 19 minutes ago, No 2 is r nilsson said: Didn’t Birmingham get 9, but as a soft punishment because it meant they just finished in a lower mid table position. This seems like a more realistic precedent. The point I’m making is that this doesn’t seem as soft if we’re doing well next year. Leeds were given a points deduction immediately before the season started too. If we are found guilty it may well be a double whammy - for breaking P&S rules and for misconduct. A fine would be insufficient punishment and with the season about to start the sky’s the limit for a punishment. Luton may be more akin to what we’ll get. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
longreach Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 10 hours ago, casbahowl said: By whom? I said "alegeably" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick_Turpin Posted April 18, 2020 Share Posted April 18, 2020 1 hour ago, rickygoo said: Leeds were given a points deduction immediately before the season started too. If we are found guilty it may well be a double whammy - for breaking P&S rules and for misconduct. A fine would be insufficient punishment and with the season about to start the sky’s the limit for a punishment. Luton may be more akin to what we’ll get. That of course is if we’re found guilty and I think we’ll be OK - but crucially we don’t know what evidence the EFL will be relying on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now