Comparing punishment.

[Athelwulf]

6 minutes ago, metaframe said:

That’s a separate point to mine though. 
 

it’s not about our guilt or otherwise. Just that the punishments aren’t aligned 

 

The points deductions, and how and when they are applied, are tailored to bring about the punishment the authorities want.

 

If they'd wanted us down this season then 12 points would have done the trick.

 

If we'd got six more points from our fixtures then they'd have given us an 18-point punishment to bring our relegation about.

[Athelwulf]

2 minutes ago, billyblack said:

Other teams manage it and get promoted. Get over it.

 

And a lot don't.

 

I remember our "abiding by the rules" in that end-of-season relegation decider against Palace, who fielded players they couldn't afford.

 

I wonder what happened to them thereafter.

 

Oooh look, it says here that Palace have been in the PL since 2013.

 

Hang on a minute...

[Manwë]

1 hour ago, metaframe said:

You’re missing the point most of you.  
 

One financially affects Chansiri, the other stiffs the local and national economy and the tax payer. 
 

I don’t really get the “haha we deserve it” nonsense — pig infiltration warning. 
 

 

Just because I want Wednesday (and all teams) to stick to the rules doesn't make me a pig.

[4evaowl]

2 minutes ago, Athelwulf said:

 

But, according to Martin Samuel, we do have it.

 

It's just that unfairly we're not allowed to spend it.

 

Yet the parachute clubs are gifted brass and can.

I agree with a lot of Martin Samuel’s article but if owners spending money racks up debt for the club, that is the “mischief” the rules are trying to remedy.

If owners are throwing money in as a pure gift, then that maybe could be allowed, however, the league want a competition between clubs. If really rich owners spend so much that others simply can’t compete, there is no real competition, poorer clubs overspend trying (in vein) to catch up and the ‘product’ becomes less attractive to fans and TV companies...as the same teams will always win. We are now seeing the first signs of that in the PL, so at EFL level it’s a problem.

[S36 OWL]

2 hours ago, metaframe said:

Go into Administration - stuff over suppliers, government, local people and staff = 12 points 

 

breach p&s for 1 year on a technicality around ground sale, no actual financial harm done to nation or locality = 12 points 

 

 

it’s not right. 

 

I wouldn't call selling the stadium to a company that did not exist until 12 months after the declared date of the sale a " technicality". 

 

Chansiri tried to have the EFL over, and got found out. We are lucky the punishment wasn't higher. 

[billyblack]

7 minutes ago, Athelwulf said:

 

And a lot don't.

 

I remember our "abiding by the rules" in that end-of-season relegation decider against Palace, who fielded players they couldn't afford.

 

I wonder what happened to them thereafter.

 

Oooh look, it says here that Palace have been in the PL since 2013.

 

Hang on a minute...

Well who are the fools then?

[metaframe]

17 minutes ago, billyblack said:

Doesnt matter. We know the rules. End of.

Yeah f the people of Wigan

[billyblack]

4 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

 

I wouldn't call selling the stadium to a company that did not exist until 12 months after the declared date of the sale a " technicality". 

 

Chansiri tried to have the EFL over, and got found out. We are lucky the punishment wasn't higher. 

correct

[billyblack]

1 minute ago, metaframe said:

Yeah f the people of Wigan

Im not talking about Wigan am i? 2 different cases and massively so. Fed up of people bleating. Its not like the EFL made up a new rule just for us. We knew the rules, we knew the possible consequence. Stop crying.

[Athelwulf]

19 minutes ago, 4evaowl said:

I agree with a lot of Martin Samuel’s article but if owners spending money racks up debt for the club, that is the “mischief” the rules are trying to remedy.

If owners are throwing money in as a pure gift, then that maybe could be allowed, however, the league want a competition between clubs. If really rich owners spend so much that others simply can’t compete, there is no real competition, poorer clubs overspend trying (in vein) to catch up and the ‘product’ becomes less attractive to fans and TV companies...as the same teams will always win. We are now seeing the first signs of that in the PL, so at EFL level it’s a problem.

 

But that's what football has been since the early sixties, when the maximum wage was abolished.

 

We are one of the few clubs which, until 2010, didn't have a rich owner pouring cash in.

 

So when other big-city clubs were lifting trophies and winning titles, we were knocking around in the lower leagues.

 

No club has adhered to sustainability more than us, and that's the irony.

 

This law is pants because there is a difference between, say, Barnsley borrowing money hand over fist to try to win the league, and a club like ours which has rich backers prepared to gift money to get us up.

 

I see no difference between our backers' gifted money, and the money gifted to the parachute clubs.

 

And neither does Chansiri.

[Sova]

But Wigan have been relegated and we haven't. I would say that shows their offence is seen as more serious.

[Manwë]

3 hours ago, metaframe said:

Go into Administration - stuff over suppliers, government, local people and staff = 12 points 

 

breach p&s for 1 year on a technicality around ground sale, no actual financial harm done to nation or locality = 12 points 

 

 

it’s not right. 

Wednesday agreed to adhere to the rules by being a member of the EFL.  

 

Whether you agree or disagree with the punishment is neither here nor there, Wednesday agreed to it by being a member.

 

If we don't wish to be bound by stupid rules then it's time we set up our own League with our own rules, or better still, no rules.   

 

Fixtures:

Week 1, Sheffield FC B away.

 

Week 2, Sheffield FC B Hillsbor8 Stadium.

 

Season over.

[Sefton owl]

Agree with what you are saying. Lets he honest, people can pretend to be experts but no one really knows all of the detail around this and similar cases (Man city, Birmingham etc). The longer we sit around and feel sorry for ourselves the worse it will get. The club just needs to start taking some productive and positive decisions to move forward, whether that involves bringing in some young raw talent from the lower leagues or different staff for Monk 

[daleblue]

1 hour ago, @owlstalk said:

 

 

I always sigh when I read comments like this

 

It's like the weakest thing anyone could ever post

 

Have to disagree there matey, some if not all my posts are worse than that, in fact, sat here now doing a bit of flagellation

for my dishonest posts, but hey ho, each to their own.

[Guest Bulgaria]

1 hour ago, The Horse said:

 

Think you're going to have a busy day on here today.
I'm off to Weston Park for some fresh air and an ice cream. Horses LOVE ice cream.

You should get one of these for yourself and all the mods today though...

 

 

If they were salt and vinegar it would be perfect!

[billyblack]

26 minutes ago, Athelwulf said:

 

But that's what football has been since the early sixties, when the maximum wage was abolished.

 

We are one of the few clubs which, until 2010, didn't have a rich owner pouring cash in.

 

So when other big-city clubs were lifting trophies and winning titles, we were knocking around in the lower leagues.

 

No club has adhered to sustainability more than us, and that's the irony.

 

This law is pants because there is a difference between, say, Barnsley borrowing money hand over fist to try to win the league, and a club like ours which has rich backers prepared to gift money to get us up.

 

I see no difference between our backers' gifted money, and the money gifted to the parachute clubs.

 

And neither does Chansiri.

Pants or not, its there.

[McRightSide]

I tend to agree that if there are rich people who want to spend cash on football clubs, players etc then the should be allowed to do it

 

However I do believe there should be some kind of post-ownership regulation in case of leaving a club in a financial mess...much like how CEOs can’t drive up a stock price with short term initiatives, cash in the chips, leave and then the company gets extremely distressed due to those decisions in years to come 

Edited August 1, 2020 by McRightSide

[4evaowl]

2 hours ago, Athelwulf said:

 

But that's what football has been since the early sixties, when the maximum wage was abolished.

 

We are one of the few clubs which, until 2010, didn't have a rich owner pouring cash in.

 

So when other big-city clubs were lifting trophies and winning titles, we were knocking around in the lower leagues.

 

No club has adhered to sustainability more than us, and that's the irony.

 

This law is pants because there is a difference between, say, Barnsley borrowing money hand over fist to try to win the league, and a club like ours which has rich backers prepared to gift money to get us up.

 

I see no difference between our backers' gifted money, and the money gifted to the parachute clubs.

 

And neither does Chansiri.

But is his money a gift, or a debt?

 

Parachute money (that I agree is majorly flawed) is income. 

[Costello 77]

2 hours ago, Bulgaria said:

If they were salt and vinegar it would be perfect!

Salt 'n' Vinegar...show band at Butlins in the 70s...

[Athelwulf]

9 minutes ago, 4evaowl said:

But is his money a gift, or a debt?

 

Parachute money (that I agree is majorly flawed) is income. 

 

It's always been my understanding that the money comes from his family, although where/how they "acquire" it I can't say.

 

But it can be considered an internal debt, if indeed it is one, which is the salient point.

 

As long as the family unit is prepared to tolerate the financial circumstances, which they are, then I see no problem.

 

Borrowing money from outside of that unit is, of course, a different matter altogether.

 

I guess it's like comparing Wednesday and United in the pre-Mandaric/McCabe era.

 

Wednesday's debts were largely external, to people outside the club, whereas United debts were internal and to McCabe.