Jump to content

THE EFL HEARING THREAD


Recommended Posts

45 minutes ago, latemodelchild said:

He's a pig who pretended to be a Wednesday Fan when we were doing better than them during their 7 seasons in the 'pub league' as their legend called it. For some reason he's reared his head again. Weird if you ask me. 


I’ve never pretended to be a Wednesday fan.

Think it’s because I’m respectful and don’t hate Wednesday due to family ties and being too long in the tooth for hatred.
I’m always interested in football in Sheffield. The success or non success does have a knock on effect regards United.

Agree that SWFC haven’t done anything illegal, it’s all within the accounting rules....but the EFL are investigating their own rules.

I think giving SW a points deduction this season resulting in relegation would be so controversial and unprecedented that it’s highly unlikely. The longer the delay the more unlikely there will be a punishment effecting this season.

Edited by sheffsteel
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, sheffsteel said:


I’ve never pretended to be a Wednesday fan.

Think it’s because I’m respectful and don’t hate Wednesday due to family ties and being too long in the tooth for hatred.
I’m always interested in football in Sheffield. The success or non success does have a knock on effect regards United.

Agree that SWFC haven’t done anything illegal, it’s all within the accounting rules....but the EFL are investigating their own rules.

I think giving SW a points deduction this season resulting in relegation would be so controversial and unprecedented that it’s highly unlikely.

 

Indeed - you take a considered position now, but earlier you post uncohoborated and wrong statements. What possible motivation would you have?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

Indeed - you take a considered position now, but earlier you post uncohoborated and wrong statements. What possible motivation would you have?

 

If that isn't a word, it bloody well ought to be.

 

That would really have the EFL scrambling.

Edited by dumboldowl
spelling correction
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

I rather think that those 'advisors" told him that the ffp system was full of holes and easy to circumvent. Then the loopholes he expected to exploit namely inputting capital from shell companies were closed. I would also hazard a guess that those "advisors" were in the business of trading players and therefore had an incentive to provide erroneous advice.

A fool and his money are easily parted, as they say

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's like being a dog in a vet's waiting room waiting to be put down.

 

Which reminds me, there were three dogs in a vet's waiting room and they get talking to each other in doggy language. One asks the other what it's in for. "To be put down" he said sadly. "I bit the owner's son but only because he kept annoying me".

 

"Me too" said another. "I'm being put down too. I keep crapping behind the couch, but only because they don't take me for walkies enough".

 

Third dog says "I've been bad too. My mistress does the cleaning in the nude and she was cleaning under the bed. Instinct cut in and I ended up mounting her and giving her one"

 

"That's a shame mate, so you're being put down too?"

 

"No mate" he says "she just sent me here to get my nails clipped".

  • Haha 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

So what is the difference? Surely spending big in anyone's mind would translate to high transfer fees and wages. That in itself should be an obvious indicator that it cannot be done within a £13 million average loss per year financial forecast. I would hazard a guess that DC was told that there were no implications exceeding the limits hence the "We've got friends" statement.

But if they told him that by spending big he could do it easily in the first year? A bit like an average golfer buying a £400 driver and thinking he's going become a scratch golfer within months.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, darra said:

But if they told him that by spending big he could do it easily in the first year? A bit like an average golfer buying a £400 driver and thinking he's going become a scratch golfer within months.

 

Then that makes DC dumber still because nobody goes into football investment expecting a guaranteed return and, if they do, they are not very bright.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

 

If it all hangs on when emails were received and who gave the go ahead, you would think it would take about ten minutes to sort out.

 

K̄hụ̂n xyū̀ kạb ẁā xīmel nận k̄heīyn pĕn p̣hās̄ʹā xạngkvs̄ʹ h̄rụ̄x p̣hās̄ʹā thịy

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

 

What a mess 

 

The article states 'a decision was expected to be made this week'. Expected by whom? I've not seen anyone involved state that they expected the decision to come this week.

 

It also states that the panel could choose to apply any sanction in the future or retrospectively. Unlikely but perhaps they should choose to apply any sanction to us to the 2018-19 season given that our alleged offence occurred within the 2017-18 accounting period. Why should Charlton benefit from any punishment we may get? They weren't in the division when our overspending was at its worst and this season measures have been taken to address this more than previous seasons, by letting some big earners go last summer and making our biggest sale of the Chansiri era. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, darra said:

Or did the advisors tell him to go big or go home? It nearly worked if they did. What gets me in all this nobody seems to be blaming Carlos. He got us to Wembley then for whatever reason changed things and we underperformed so badly and even more so next season against Huddersfield. Two of the biggest games in recent history and we didn't turn up for either of them. Arguably it was he who spent the money on players we didn't need that got us into this situation. Didn't we have something like 30 senior players on our books at one time with IIRC 7 strikers? Yet some would have him back

 

Carlos did not control the budget did he, he didn't sign off on transfer fees or player wages?

We are also told that managers do not have full control over our transfers yet you lay the blame at his door in this respect. I really don't think he went all out to push for the signing of Jordan Rhodes and there was certainly no need to buy him and Winnall in the same window. Abde was another one who didn't appear to be the choice of the manager, he hardly played him regularly from the start. 

 

Blame him for the tactical debacle against Huddersfield by all means but not for letting the budget get out of control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...