BREAKING NEWS - EFL VERDICT - 12 POINTS

[Guest Ferkorf]

On 01/08/2020 at 08:57, Holmowl said:

It wouldn’t be good enough, except that it’s not true.

but it is true

Every single game he runs deep, way too deep than a player of his qualities should ever be.

Sometimes almost back to the keeper and plays a long pass upfront to nobody, in his first few seasons when we had more quality attackers it worked. But now hes almost coming back to our keeper sometimes.

Im sure he tried it against Middlesbrough and they took the ball off him and scored literally in the last game

[Dick_Turpin]

38 minutes ago, Essix Blue said:

Well we’ve already signed one very promising youngster 

We’ve signed loads if promising youngsters over the last few years. How many are in the first team squad? It’s a very uncertain business. 

[bladeshater]

1 minute ago, rickygoo said:

We’ve signed loads if promising youngsters over the last few years. How many are in the first team squad? It’s a very uncertain business. 

Certainly is 

[cockneyvillageowl]

Wonder how FFP is going to work next season. EFL clubs rely massively on gate receipts in many instances, SWFC hugely so. If COVID stops fans going, how can the loss rules remain the same without that revenue stream? We need to spend heavily to get players to consider us given the -12 pts start, but will it mean another massive breach and further punishment down the line?

The rule makers need to think this through and be clear to all clubs... doubt we’ll get that kind of foresight from them mind.

[Holmowl]

22 minutes ago, Ferkorf said:

but it is true

Every single game he runs deep, way too deep than a player of his qualities should ever be.

Sometimes almost back to the keeper and plays a long pass upfront to nobody, in his first few seasons when we had more quality attackers it worked. But now hes almost coming back to our keeper sometimes.

Im sure he tried it against Middlesbrough and they took the ball off him and scored literally in the last game

You said 80% of his passes. Now it’s sometimes. Are you Matt Hancock?

 

Hes a superb player and the best we have by light-years. (Bannan, not Hancock)

[SiJ]

If are willing to offer more than some, we may attract some half decent players.

 

Given the current situation, players will bite your hand off for a decent deal.

 

In saying that, we want to be recruiting good players, not just picking up any old nonsense for the sake of it.

 

Next season could be an absolute sh*show tbh. 

 

Having Garrrrrrrrrry in charge hardly inspires much confidence, does it? 

 

As for the chairman: oh, if only he would by some miracle sell up. That ain't going to happen though imo.

[Guest Kagoshimaowl]

1 hour ago, Essix Blue said:

Well we’ve already signed one very promising youngster 

Before it happened 

[Quist]

Just a few thoughts.

Key time line of events as I see them.

1. We were given green light to sign players last summer after accounts were sanctioned by EFL

2. Middlesboro chairman kicked up a stink about clubs circumventing rules

3. We were charged with misleading EFL and hiding information which meant we were guilty of breaking FFP regulations and officials were also accused of doing this

4. Chansiri and othershad charges dropped

5. We were found not guilty of hiding information or misleading EFL

6. We were handed 12 points deduction for breaching regulations

 

If a decision is made in order to change that decison new information has to become available or some evidence of malpractice. We have been cleared of these charges. Therefore EFL had all information available when they allowed us to sign players last summer.

 

It is clear by buying ground and leasing back is a way to get round rules. This had been done before by Derby and Aston Villa and no sanction had been taken against them. Have rules changed or a statement made from EFL saying this had changed ( I am not aware of one). With Derby being charged at a later date and from their response they had also been given thumbs up to do what they did. I suspect they realised if chnging stance with Wednesday implied changing it for others too.

 

Issue with this is if you say ok go ahead do this and then change mind this is an EFL issue not a Wednesday one. EFL are so slow to respond on decisions it is possible we asked to do ths and it was not until several months later we got nod of approval hence different year. The only thing which we now from this at moment is Wednesday were open and honest in dealings with EFL judgement says that.

 

I suspect appeal likely and could go to courts as if you tell somebody to do something and then charge them with doing it it goes against principle of law.

 

[bladeshater]

5 minutes ago, Quist said:

Just a few thoughts.

Key time line of events as I see them.

1. We were given green light to sign players last summer after accounts were sanctioned by EFL

2. Middlesboro chairman kicked up a stink about clubs circumventing rules

3. We were charged with misleading EFL and hiding information which meant we were guilty of breaking FFP regulations and officials were also accused of doing this

4. Chansiri and othershad charges dropped

5. We were found not guilty of hiding information or misleading EFL

6. We were handed 12 points deduction for breaching regulations

 

If a decision is made in order to change that decison new information has to become available or some evidence of malpractice. We have been cleared of these charges. Therefore EFL had all information available when they allowed us to sign players last summer.

 

It is clear by buying ground and leasing back is a way to get round rules. This had been done before by Derby and Aston Villa and no sanction had been taken against them. Have rules changed or a statement made from EFL saying this had changed ( I am not aware of one). With Derby being charged at a later date and from their response they had also been given thumbs up to do what they did. I suspect they realised if chnging stance with Wednesday implied changing it for others too.

 

Issue with this is if you say ok go ahead do this and then change mind this is an EFL issue not a Wednesday one. EFL are so slow to respond on decisions it is possible we asked to do ths and it was not until several months later we got nod of approval hence different year. The only thing which we now from this at moment is Wednesday were open and honest in dealings with EFL judgement says that.

 

I suspect appeal likely and could go to courts as if you tell somebody to do something and then charge them with doing it it goes against principle of law.

 

Don't think there's a problem with selling the ground the problem is we have put it in previous years accounts

[Quist]

25 minutes ago, bladeshater said:

Don't think there's a problem with selling the ground the problem is we have put it in previous years accounts

Yes, but remeber EFL accused us of concealing information and not being open. They had already approved accounts earlier, they needed something to say why they changed decison which has now gone. I indicated above reason for late sale could be due to us waiting on decision from EFL we could do this otherwise no point. When they give approval we can spend money so change in decison impacts spending. 

[Dick_Turpin]

39 minutes ago, Quist said:

Yes, but remeber EFL accused us of concealing information and not being open. They had already approved accounts earlier, they needed something to say why they changed decison which has now gone. I indicated above reason for late sale could be due to us waiting on decision from EFL we could do this otherwise no point. When they give approval we can spend money so change in decison impacts spending. 

 

They will provide their reasons in due course. Presumably the panel hasn't arbitrarily with no evidence decided to issue us with a 12 point penalty. 

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

31 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

 

They will provide their reasons in due course. Presumably the panel hasn't arbitrarily with no evidence decided to issue us with a 12 point penalty. 

True but on face of it makes no sense.

 

A) EFL approve sale and timing initially

B) charge us on basis of concealing evedence (hence bad faith charge) 

C) we were cleared of the bad faith charges which implies that EFL approved sale initially based on all the facts / evedence

 

So surely should have either been guilty of both charges, or if not guilty of bad faith charge EFL are the ones who have backtracked on this.

 

Ruling may have been in commission opinion EFL were wrong to approve initially but surely thats not swfc'fault 

[Dick_Turpin]

1 minute ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Ruling may have been in commission opinion EFL were wrong to approve initially but surely thats not swfc'fault 

 

Never our fault.  

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

1 minute ago, rickygoo said:

 

Never our fault.  

Time will tell but can't see how can be cleared of one and not the other when the basis of bringing the charge was on the bad faith element

[striker]

5 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Time will tell but can't see how can be cleared of one and not the other when the basis of bringing the charge was on the bad faith element

They decided to diverge from accepted accounting practice and not accept the stadium sale in the reported years accounts.

 

This therefore led to exceeding P&S for that period, hence mandatory penalty.

 

I don't think its correct, difficult for any club to plan when EFL can interpret financial reporting subject to their own retrospective, unpublished standards.

 

But it is what it is, there is an appeals process  up to the club if we use it. 

[Manwë]

9 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Time will tell but can't see how can be cleared of one and not the other when the basis of bringing the charge was on the bad faith element

The panel heard at least 3 days of evidence, had copies of emails, accounts and so forth, and had 20+ days of deliberations.

 

Us fans realistically know nothing compared to what they had before them.

[Dick_Turpin]

Chansiri is a bit like Trump  - there's always another person or organisation to blame. Jordan Rhodes - the fans. The P&S charges - Steve Gibson. Being found guilty - arbitrary decision making by the "independent" panel. The fact we've been mismanaged so much we had to sell the stadium in the first place - the EFL rules. General mismanagement - his advisors. Higher prices than every other club  - parachute payments. Upsetting box holders - box holders. 

 

That play off final has cast a long-lasting spell. Dave Allen will be fuming he didn't get the plaudits for an actual play-off win and as for Dave Richards - European Football and Cup Finals haven't done him much good. 

 

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

6 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

Chansiri is a bit like Trump  - there's always another person or organisation to blame. Jordan Rhodes - the fans. The P&S charges - Steve Gibson. Being found guilty - arbitrary decision making by the "independent" panel. The fact we've been mismanaged so much we had to sell the stadium in the first place - the EFL rules. General mismanagement - his advisors. Higher prices than every other club  - parachute payments. Upsetting box holders - box holders. 

 

That play off final has cast a long-lasting spell. Dave Allen will be fuming he didn't get the plaudits for an actual play-off win and as for Dave Richards - European Football and Cup Finals haven't done him much good. 

 

Agree with most of that.

 

At the end of the day when he bought the club he should have been aware of the rules he had to work in and acted accordingly.

 

But took same gamble that likes of wolves, Bournemouth etc did to spend heavily initially to try and get up.

 

Just typical Wednesday that were the ones where the gamble failed.

 

 

[Dick_Turpin]

1 minute ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Just typical Wednesday that were the ones where the gamble failed.

 

Didn't they gamble a lot bigger though?  Wolves were recruiting top, top players. We signed Forestieri, Wallace and Bannan. Good players but not ones that would tear the division apart. We also didn't push the boat out for a Bielsa figure. 

[sonofbert2]

In Carlos’ first season we had a virtually new first team - we had no players so we had to sign some on loannnnnnnnnnn.....

 

We got to Wembley.

 

Think positive against the minus 12.