Jump to content

Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, cowl said:

 

I know you're saying this tongue in cheek, but I doubt it's personal with the EFL.

 

For them it's the principle. They have their rules (which seem to change every other year) and they want to be seen to enforce them - and do so without any further consideration as to whether the rules are even reasonable.

 

Actually, it's not just that they have their rules - they know they're ultimately nothing without their rules, and most importantly for them, imposing them.

 

They're ridiculously out of touch though - it's like their spitting feathers over a rule being breached - a rule which might otherwise seem reasonable, like prohibiting the slamming of doors behind you, without realising it's because the whole house is burning.

You can't argue 'They have their rules' when they manipulate their own rules in a deliberate attemp to send a club down. If they were working to 'their rules' they wouldn't have tried to delay the penalty until it sent us down.

 

I would appeal the decision on the basis that it shows bad faith by the EFL/Rick Parry. If the penalty was deliberately delayed by the EFL, it should in all fairness be applied in the year it was earned not in a year to suit the EFL's malicious intent.

 

I would take it to the courts not the EFL's jurisdiction. I'd also be going after Parry and the EFL for punitive damages, we would be unlikely to get them but it will get their attention.

 

English law is slow to award punitive or exemplary damages. They are rarely seen in commercial disputes where the measure of damages tends to be compensatory. Nonetheless, as a matter of legal principle, punitive damages are available for all torts that involve a wilful element on the part of the tortfeasor

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Nero said:

The points should have been deducted in 18 19 which wouldnt have relegated us.

They tried to max out the punishment to 21 points in 19 20 instead to relegate us.

Thats the issue in a nutshell.

They were so incompetent they didnt manage it.

 

I am not an expert, but I don't think there is anything within the rules which states when a points deduction has to be applied, apart from admin situations. So on that basis, it was presumably in their gift to pursue a deduction when they wanted to, especially if they were pushing for a higher penalty, which would lead to an inevitable delay.

 

I will need to read the full report, but it doesn't sound like the EFL authorities need to justify why and when they chose to pursue the case. If anything, they might now decide to appeal the panel's decision to defer the points deduction to next season.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

Parry said the parachute payments are wrong. It’s the PL that pay them and want to keep them . Who’s going to win that one? 

 

The same bloke who was chief exec of the Premier League? Cheers Rick think your words now will be meaningless in comparison to your previous involvement in the way money is allocated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

Parry said the parachute payments are wrong. It’s the PL that pay them and want to keep them . Who’s going to win that one? 


Agree...there’s a big gap in standard between the PL and Championship.

Most promoted clubs automatically become big favourites for relegation so they would normally struggle to attract decent players.

 

So it’s in the PL interest to have a highly competitive league where every single club has quality players but those players will have high salaries. It was recognised that relegated clubs could go into financial meltdown....so the PL2 was muted as a solution.

 

This would solve the financial issue for relegated clubs but it would mean the Sky billions are shared out amongst 44 clubs instead of 20. An alternative solution to the benefits of PL2 was the parachute payment system. The Authorities would say it’s been a success because no relegated clubs have gone into admin. If there was no parachute payments then almost every promoted club would immediately be relegated....it would be a joke with no competition.

 

Not sure what the answer is.....it’s an unfair system but football has always been unfair. Theres never been an equal playing field....clubs like Barnsley, Luton and Wycombe based on finances have little chance to compete next season...they just try their best.

 

The real problem is that the FA, PL, EFL are all separate entities so each organisation just protect their own interests.

Edited by sheffsteel
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sheff74 said:

 

I am not an expert, but I don't think there is anything within the rules which states when a points deduction has to be applied, apart from admin situations. So on that basis, it was presumably in their gift to pursue a deduction when they wanted to, especially if they were pushing for a higher penalty, which would lead to an inevitable delay.

 

I will need to read the full report, but it doesn't sound like the EFL authorities need to justify why and when they chose to pursue the case. If anything, they might now decide to appeal the panel's decision to defer the points deduction to next season.

 

But their charges against SWFC were 'misconduct' . What was the suppose misconduct undertaken by SWFC?

 

Our penalty is for the standard £39m breach over 3 years, not some corrupt corporate conspiracy.

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

 

I am not an expert, but I don't think there is anything within the rules which states when a points deduction has to be applied, apart from admin situations. So on that basis, it was presumably in their gift to pursue a deduction when they wanted to, especially if they were pushing for a higher penalty, which would lead to an inevitable delay.

 

I will need to read the full report, but it doesn't sound like the EFL authorities need to justify why and when they chose to pursue the case. If anything, they might now decide to appeal the panel's decision to defer the points deduction to next season.

 

The regulations state it should be applied as soon as possible but no stipulation on when it has to, no cut off point, otherwise we wouldn't have received it for the next season.

 

Doesn't make it right or fair though does it, one club gets punished in 2018-19 with little impact for breaching P&S in 2018, another gets punished in 2020-21 for the same offence in the same accounting period which will obviously hinder signings in the current transfer window and potentially have a much bigger impact.  

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

 

I am not an expert, but I don't think there is anything within the rules which states when a points deduction has to be applied, apart from admin situations. So on that basis, it was presumably in their gift to pursue a deduction when they wanted to, especially if they were pushing for a higher penalty, which would lead to an inevitable delay.

 

I will need to read the full report, but it doesn't sound like the EFL authorities need to justify why and when they chose to pursue the case. If anything, they might now decide to appeal the panel's decision to defer the points deduction to next season.


Surely this can’t be right, as what you’re saying is in 2-3 seasons time when we are positioned 2nd and heading for promotion the EFL can suddenly say “surprise! Here’s your 12 point deduction for breaching rules 4 years ago”..  can’t see that being fair myself 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, pressy said:

Let's just take the punishment we deserve and move on, if the pigs were saying this we would be slagging them, let's all just man up and get on with it 

I'm all for that. Apply it in the year it should have applied.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hirstyboywonder said:

 

The regulations state it should be applied as soon as possible but no stipulation on when it has to, no cut off point, otherwise we wouldn't have received it for the next season.

 

Doesn't make it right or fair though does it, one club gets punished in 2018-19 with little impact for breaching P&S in 2018, another gets punished in 2020-21 for the same offence in the same accounting period which will obviously hinder signings in the current transfer window and potentially have a much bigger impact.  

 

No it doesn't mate, but there are often inconsistencies with how things are applied.

 

As I say, without reading the report it is hard to know why a decision was made to delay pursuing a case.  Let's not forget that our accounts for that reporting period were also submitted later than normal, albeit after agreement. So maybe that made it difficult for a case to go ahead earlier?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven’t read the Charlton fans forum but assuming they are saying it’s not fair on them and the deduction should be applied now to relegate us? In which case is wrong, as the deduction shouldn’t be last season, next season or the season after. It should have been 2 seasons ago.
 

If Charlton were to win their case and we get relegated instead of them. What’s then stopping the other 23 league 1 clubs saying, hang on, why are we suddenly in the same league as a club the size of Wednesday and their money and pulling power when they should have been punished 2 years ago?  I can’t see the posh boss liking that idea 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Owls-Fan said:


Surely this can’t be right, as what you’re saying is in 2-3 seasons time when we are positioned 2nd and heading for promotion the EFL can suddenly say “surprise! Here’s your 12 point deduction for breaching rules 4 years ago”..  can’t see that being fair myself 

 

I am not suggesting they would or could do that. But there is nothing to suggest that action has to happen within a certain time frame, depending on circumstances.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why I was so annoyed about the last few games..... just a couple of wins or whatever and all this would have been avoided. However, don't forget that for months and months we had absolutely no idea how many points might have been required.

 

some people say it would have relegated us, well of course it would, but had we known months before performances would have been different rather than just thinking well this season's over...

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt the EFL or SWFC will appeal.

 

The EFL will lick their wounds and start to re-think how their rules work and can be applied. We will think we had a lucky escape, try to use 2020/21 to bottom out and consolidate in the Championship (even if that means finishing 4th bottom) and try to push on the season after.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

Doesn't make it right or fair though does it, one club gets punished in 2018-19 with little impact for breaching P&S in 2018, another gets punished in 2020-21 for the same offence in the same accounting period which will obviously hinder signings in the current transfer window and potentially have a much bigger impact.  


At first glance...it seems natural to think SWFC guilty as charged....take it on the chin and apply the deduction this season.

 

However if SW do appeal....then it seems weird that the timing of BCFC punishment effectively meant ZERO punishment.

The timing is key and open to manipulation....but doesn’t seem right where 2 clubs commit similar misdoings...one has a 12 point deduction from the start of a new season whereas the other (Birmingham) escapes any effective punishment .

Edited by sheffsteel
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

But their charges against SWFC were 'misconduct' . What was the suppose misconduct undertaken by SWFC?

 

Our penalty is for the standard £39m breach over 3 years, not some corrupt corporate conspiracy.

 

I think they decided to pursue the FFP breach, after dropping the misconduct charge. Sounds like they suspected foul play, so wanted to nail us for that. Didn't have enough evidence, so then just went for what they could prove.

 

Not sure where this leaves us, or them in terms of an appeal.

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

 

The same bloke who was chief exec of the Premier League? Cheers Rick think your words now will be meaningless in comparison to your previous involvement in the way money is allocated.

Parry had already left the PL before we got relegated. I’m not sure parachute payments would have bothered them unduly although they would have been part of the decision making. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

But their charges against SWFC were 'misconduct' . What was the suppose misconduct undertaken by SWFC?

 

Our penalty is for the standard £39m breach over 3 years, not some corrupt corporate conspiracy.

Misconduct has a very wide definition in EFL rules. It effectively means breaking the rules. 

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

 

No it doesn't mate, but there are often inconsistencies with how things are applied.

 

As I say, without reading the report it is hard to know why a decision was made to delay pursuing a case.  Let's not forget that our accounts for that reporting period were also submitted later than normal, albeit after agreement. So maybe that made it difficult for a case to go ahead earlier?

 

The late filing of the accounts at Companies House may have been an issue but we would already have been under scrutiny due to the losses in the previous 2 years and so would have had to have submitted additional accounts with proper forecasting to the EFL, though the whole issue centred on the stadium sale which came late, but we were said to be in regular dialogue with the EFL at the time.

 

As you say, more should become clear from the report but generally it seems that more clubs are becoming frustrated by the rules they have signed up for and the somewhat arbitrary nature of the sanctions and when they are applied raises further concerns.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Owls2k said:

 

That is actually incredible, the panel should have deducted them from the 18/19 season then.


I thought the same, why can’t the deduction be put into the record books for the correct season? 

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...