Jump to content

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Quist said:

In order to write an appeal you need basis of decison, it could be argued Wednesday statement was an holding position until this happened.

 

The Nixon article clearly illustrates why EFL have not published anything it is a terrible indictment on them. 

 

The key is they produced false charges against us to try and justify actions which have all been found to be false. 

 

If Nixon is correct I do not see how 12 point deduction can stand and you would expect heads to roll at EFL.

 Long time out of the legal profession but my thoughts exactly. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quist said:

In order to write an appeal you need basis of decison, it could be argued Wednesday statement was an holding position until this happened.

 

The Nixon article clearly illustrates why EFL have not published anything it is a terrible indictment on them. 

 

The key is they produced false charges against us to try and justify actions which have all been found to be false. 

 

If Nixon is correct I do not see how 12 point deduction can stand and you would expect heads to roll at EFL.

 

 

Can you elaborate on that bit mate?  What suggestion is there that the misconduct charges were 'false'. Unproven is one thing, them being dropped is another. But what do you mean by false?

 

Seems to me that they just tried to hammer us on one charge, couldn't prove it so went for the lesser charge that was undeniable, i.e we did breach FFP.

 

I must be missing something here, but I don't get the rush of blood for an appeal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Sheff74 said:

 

 

Can you elaborate on that bit mate?  What suggestion is there that the misconduct charges were 'false'. Unproven is one thing, them being dropped is another. But what do you mean by false?

 

Seems to me that they just tried to hammer us on one charge, couldn't prove it so went for the lesser charge that was undeniable, i.e we did breach FFP.

 

I must be missing something here, but I don't get the rush of blood for an appeal.


Me neither.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sheff74 said:

 

 

Can you elaborate on that bit mate?  What suggestion is there that the misconduct charges were 'false'. Unproven is one thing, them being dropped is another. But what do you mean by false?

 

Seems to me that they just tried to hammer us on one charge, couldn't prove it so went for the lesser charge that was undeniable, i.e we did breach FFP.

 

I must be missing something here, but I don't get the rush of blood for an appeal.

We were accused of concealing information, and basically misleading the EFL. The indvduals who were charged were also charged with this. The charges against individuals were dropped but they persisted with charges against the club and we were found not guilty of these charges by the commission. It is quite a simple one you either provided EFL with information or you did not quite clearly we did provide the information.

If you remember when charge was made to us Wednesday said they had proof they had sent this information to EFL in form of emails etc. 

Therefore the charge they made against us was false or wrong. If they had evidence to charge us on another issue (Overspending) why did they just charge us with this offence? It makes no sense way EFL acted.

 

This is speculation and based on what Nixon stated.

 

If they had opportunity to impose 12 pts deduction on us in 18/19 and did not do so, why was this? In fact I suspect they had told Wednesday everything was ok and in order to revisit te issue they required something to have changed to revisit the issue. Hence the extra charges which allowed them to levy charges.

 

If you remember Wednesday mentioned a point of law and I am guessing Wednesday are arguing you can not change a decison unless new information comes to light which would include if information was concealed.

 

Think Wednesday could argue if deduction wasnot levied in 18/19 ths is not their fault and because this was not done. It is fault of EFL and the charges only came about when Gibson threatened to sue EFL and they decided to implement rules in a diffeent manner.

 

It meant that we have had to modify spending severely in order to deal with debt. If we had been penalised eveything is set back to zero and efectively 18 million of debt is written off by points deduction. 

 

Think strong grounds for appeal and if fair they should win.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Quist said:

We were accused of concealing information, and basically misleading the EFL. The indvduals who were charged were also charged with this. The charges against individuals were dropped but they persisted with charges against the club and we were found not guilty of these charges by the commission. It is quite a simple one you either provided EFL with information or you did not quite clearly we did provide the information.

If you remember when charge was made to us Wednesday said they had proof they had sent this information to EFL in form of emails etc. 

Therefore the charge they made against us was false or wrong. If they had evidence to charge us on another issue (Overspending) why did they just charge us with this offence? It makes no sense way EFL acted.

 

This is speculation and based on what Nixon stated.

 

If they had opportunity to impose 12 pts deduction on us in 18/19 and did not do so, why was this? In fact I suspect they had told Wednesday everything was ok and in order to revisit te issue they required something to have changed to revisit the issue. Hence the extra charges which allowed them to levy charges.

 

If you remember Wednesday mentioned a point of law and I am guessing Wednesday are arguing you can not change a decison unless new information comes to light which would include if information was concealed.

 

Think Wednesday could argue if deduction wasnot levied in 18/19 ths is not their fault and because this was not done. It is fault of EFL and the charges only came about when Gibson threatened to sue EFL and they decided to implement rules in a diffeent manner.

 

It meant that we have had to modify spending severely in order to deal with debt. If we had been penalised eveything is set back to zero and efectively 18 million of debt is written off by points deduction. 

 

Think strong grounds for appeal and if fair they should win.


Good post, from what Chansiri said at the time we had to get promoted in 18/19 or there would be a big problem.  Assuming he thought we would be deducted points for breaching the FFP and it didn’t happen. 
 

I also think that it’s unfair on us, that we were hit with these charges in November when heading to 3rd in the table, then we saw a massive slump in performances and results.  Who’s to say the club wasn’t mentally effected by the threat of a points deduction or expulsion? 

Seems to be the better thing to do would be to put the 12 points deduction in the correct year’s record tables, and then let everyone move on with life.  Letting us pay back any prize money for  Finishing 12 points lower in that season’s table 

Edited by Owls-Fan
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/08/2020 at 15:24, steelowl said:

I assume the 2 weeks to appeal starts from both parties receiving the full detailed decision ?

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quist said:

We were accused of concealing information, and basically misleading the EFL. The indvduals who were charged were also charged with this. The charges against individuals were dropped but they persisted with charges against the club and we were found not guilty of these charges by the commission. It is quite a simple one you either provided EFL with information or you did not quite clearly we did provide the information.

If you remember when charge was made to us Wednesday said they had proof they had sent this information to EFL in form of emails etc. 

Therefore the charge they made against us was false or wrong. If they had evidence to charge us on another issue (Overspending) why did they just charge us with this offence? It makes no sense way EFL acted.

 

This is speculation and based on what Nixon stated.

 

If they had opportunity to impose 12 pts deduction on us in 18/19 and did not do so, why was this? In fact I suspect they had told Wednesday everything was ok and in order to revisit te issue they required something to have changed to revisit the issue. Hence the extra charges which allowed them to levy charges.

 

If you remember Wednesday mentioned a point of law and I am guessing Wednesday are arguing you can not change a decison unless new information comes to light which would include if information was concealed.

 

Think Wednesday could argue if deduction wasnot levied in 18/19 ths is not their fault and because this was not done. It is fault of EFL and the charges only came about when Gibson threatened to sue EFL and they decided to implement rules in a diffeent manner.

 

It meant that we have had to modify spending severely in order to deal with debt. If we had been penalised eveything is set back to zero and efectively 18 million of debt is written off by points deduction. 

 

Think strong grounds for appeal and if fair they should win.

 

Well as you say, a lot of this is speculation in lieu of reading the report but it's a matter of opinion that the EFL acted nonsensically. At the end of the day any governing body has a right make a case if they consider there has been an offence (perhaps not the correct term to use..) they then state their case, and leave it to those who make the decision, as does the other party, win or lose.  Why would the EFL try and enforce a lesser charge whilst a greater charge was being considered?

 

Any swift action for 18/19 season may also have been made more difficult by the timing of our accounts. Perhaps they needed time to consider fully before deciding what to do, and seen as though we had our accounting period extended it may have caused further delays?

 

As for debt being written off, are you absolutely sure about that? My understanding is (and happy to be told otherwise) that P&S doesn't re set, even after a points deduction. The 3 year rolling period keeps on rolling, and clubs are still required to work with 39m of losses for the previous 3 seasons. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sheff74 said:

 

Well as you say, a lot of this is speculation in lieu of reading the report but it's a matter of opinion that the EFL acted nonsensically. At the end of the day any governing body has a right make a case if they consider there has been an offence (perhaps not the correct term to use..) they then state their case, and leave it to those who make the decision, as does the other party, win or lose.  Why would the EFL try and enforce a lesser charge whilst a greater charge was being considered?

 

Any swift action for 18/19 season may also have been made more difficult by the timing of our accounts. Perhaps they needed time to consider fully before deciding what to do, and seen as though we had our accounting period extended it may have caused further delays?

 

As for debt being written off, are you absolutely sure about that? My understanding is (and happy to be told otherwise) that P&S doesn't re set, even after a points deduction. The 3 year rolling period keeps on rolling, and clubs are still required to work with 39m of losses for the previous 3 seasons. 

Despite the clubs who were relegated from the PL getting £45M next season each...it's bollix

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, daveyboy66 said:

Despite the clubs who were relegated from the PL getting £45M next season each...it's bollix

I agree with your sentiments but the club's make the rules the club's are the EFL as I'm led to believe

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, TrickyTrev said:

Alan Nixon seems to think the club have appealed.

If the report as damning as he reported, not surprised. Reasonable chance of suspending part of the penalty given mitigating circumstances I would have thought. 

 

We know one of DC's greatest attributes is belligerence, on this occasion, may work in our favour.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, daveyboy66 said:

Despite the clubs who were relegated from the PL getting £45M next season each...it's bollix

To be fair to Rick Parry, he agrees with us on the parachute payment nonsense.

 

"Parry, appearing before the House of Commons digital, culture, media and sport committee, called for a 'complete reset' of the way football is run, including the introduction of a wage cap and an end to parachute payments, which he described as 'an evil that must be eradicated'."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/05/efl-chief-parachute-payments-evil-eradicated-football

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sheff74 said:

 

Well as you say, a lot of this is speculation in lieu of reading the report but it's a matter of opinion that the EFL acted nonsensically. At the end of the day any governing body has a right make a case if they consider there has been an offence (perhaps not the correct term to use..) they then state their case, and leave it to those who make the decision, as does the other party, win or lose.  Why would the EFL try and enforce a lesser charge whilst a greater charge was being considered?

 

Any swift action for 18/19 season may also have been made more difficult by the timing of our accounts. Perhaps they needed time to consider fully before deciding what to do, and seen as though we had our accounting period extended it may have caused further delays?

 

As for debt being written off, are you absolutely sure about that? My understanding is (and happy to be told otherwise) that P&S doesn't re set, even after a points deduction. The 3 year rolling period keeps on rolling, and clubs are still required to work with 39m of losses for the previous 3 seasons. 

Timing of the accounts and the fact the SWFC launched an arbitration case against the EFL in December 2019. Before that was resolved the disciplinary proceedings couldn't proceed.

 

I  also understood that the 3 year rolling period continues to roll. I think it was Kieran Maguire who's talked about a reset, citing the Birmingham case. But there's nothing in the orginal EFL v BCFC decision from March 2019 that says that. I've been unable to find the published decision of the Disciplinary Commission that dismissed a further misconduct charge agianst BCFC in March 2020 (for not following an agreed buisness plan) or the appeal decison, which the EFL won but resulted in no further penalty. There seems to be no one place where decisions of Disciplinary Commissions or League Arbitration Panels are published.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sheff74 said:

 

Well as you say, a lot of this is speculation in lieu of reading the report but it's a matter of opinion that the EFL acted nonsensically. At the end of the day any governing body has a right make a case if they consider there has been an offence (perhaps not the correct term to use..) they then state their case, and leave it to those who make the decision, as does the other party, win or lose.  Why would the EFL try and enforce a lesser charge whilst a greater charge was being considered?

 

Any swift action for 18/19 season may also have been made more difficult by the timing of our accounts. Perhaps they needed time to consider fully before deciding what to do, and seen as though we had our accounting period extended it may have caused further delays?

 

As for debt being written off, are you absolutely sure about that? My understanding is (and happy to be told otherwise) that P&S doesn't re set, even after a points deduction. The 3 year rolling period keeps on rolling, and clubs are still required to work with 39m of losses for the previous 3 seasons. 

The last bit is speculation on my part but quite a lot is based on fact. We were charged with something which was incorrect. If they did not know they had been given information it suggests complete incompetence on behalf of EFL. If they did know and charged them any way I can only think it was to bring decision back to table. I would like to know what other sensible explanation there could be for such an action.

 

With regard late reporting of accounts you could equally argue that Wednesday were waiting for response from EFL. It is indicatedby Nixon that report is critical of slow response.

 

If you go to court and are punished.You can not be charged for that offence again. Hence if you are punished for £28 million debt they can not wheel that out and charge you again with that sum. If it does not start again you will be being charged with same debt over again. It si an absurd system and only way you could make it even resemble a punishment is the debt is cleared.

 

If Wednesday do not appeal I suspect the reason is it does wipe slate clean and they get 3 year shot at promotion without axe hanging over them.  Having said that with this penalty being from two years ago how future debt is calculated is somewhat difficult. Although from information to date it appears EFL make it up as it goes along. 

 

The one thing I am certain of is ths fiasco has done EFL no good and if anything has shown them not fit for purpose along with the FFP systemthey have in place. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, daveyboy66 said:

Despite the clubs who were relegated from the PL getting £45M next season each...it's bollix

 

We can't keep blaming parachute payments for everything, literally everything bad that happens to us.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, HarrowbyOwl said:

To be fair to Rick Parry, he agrees with us on the parachute payment nonsense.

 

"Parry, appearing before the House of Commons digital, culture, media and sport committee, called for a 'complete reset' of the way football is run, including the introduction of a wage cap and an end to parachute payments, which he described as 'an evil that must be eradicated'."

 

https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/may/05/efl-chief-parachute-payments-evil-eradicated-football

 

If Parry agrees that they are unfair, don't take them into consideration in the amount a team can lose

 

So if a team who is relegated gets 45mil and loses 10mil in first season then the total loss is 55mil, and if they get promoted due to this then if they are relegated they start on -12, and don't just get a fine

 

problem solved, if he really wants to solve it

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, the third man said:

 

If Parry agrees that they are unfair, don't take them into consideration in the amount a team can lose

 

So if a team who is relegated gets 45mil and loses 10mil in first season then the total loss is 55mil, and if they get promoted due to this then if they are relegated they start on -12, and don't just get a fine

 

problem solved, if he really wants to solve it

Problem is Parry isn't a dictator. As chairman of a member-owned EFL he needs to get backing of the 72 member clubs to change the regulations

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...