Breaking news. SWFC v EFL

[Nero]

7 hours ago, RUMBELOWS91 said:

So in order to punish us for putting a legitimate stadium sale into 'the wrong year' , the EFL attempted to manipulate the system by entering the punishment into 'the wrong year'?

 

 

Fekkin bang on.

Oh its the rules though eh @owlstalk ?

[shandypants]

What a mess

[Animis]

1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

If the figures quoted in the article are right, our P&S losses were around £9M more than Birmingham's so maybe that was a factor in why our deduction is bigger.

 

Possibly, but that's a subjective approach. In the end the only figure to hit is £39m over three years - you either do it or don't. Also, there has been constant dialog between SWC and the EFL over temp embargos over the last three years, and we have to submit accounts forecasts part way through each season. They knew our position and we must have explained our plan to get the losses reduced.

 

It seems a bit faux outrage and morals from the EFL to me - like this had just been made aware to them. The ground sale 'loophole' wasn't closed by them, even when they expressed concern after Reading, Aston Villa had gone down this route. They seem like an organistation who can not control it's members and have difficulty in setting consistent and fair rules, particularly when relegated PL clubs with parashot payment land on the field.  

[SiJ]

Quite ironic really.

 

They delayed the charges in order to try and relegate us, but by delaying the case they spared us relegation (for at least another season).

[Owls-Fan]

So do we think the reason for the long wait to hear an outcome from the IDC went like this,  SWFC and EFL submitted all the documents to the IDC.  The IDC reviewed and saw that we breached the rules last year and asked EFL to explain why the punishment didn’t get enforced then. EFL went “oh sh*t, umm err someone think of a reason that doesn’t sound dodgy”. Few weeks later they finally admit to IDC they have no answer to the postponement. IDC give us a 12 point deduction for next season.  

[ChapSmurf]

2 hours ago, vulva said:

I’ve got a better idea. Let’s stick to the rules And run the business properly like 80 odd other clubs manage to, and none of this will happen. It’s an old fashioned principle but we should give it a whirl. 
 

 

 

I don't think anyone is arguing about why we are, where we are. We broke the FFP rules, plain and simple. However, those rules are way past their sell-by date and were introduced when the financial landscape was different to what it is now. That doesn't mean we, or any other club, have the right to go around breaking them, but change is needed and it is needed now.

 

At any one time, there could be as many as 9 football clubs in receipt of parachute payments in the Championship. I think we would all agree that parachute payments are wrong. However, let's look at it from a relegated clubs perspective, who, due to the crazy finances invovled in football transfers, wages, and the ridiculous agents fees, are bent over and shafted just to survive. They could get their house in order, and not give in to the amounts requested by clubs, players and their agents, but an individual club will know that one of their rivals will. Because of that, they have to follow suit. Can we get the PL to govern its finances better and introduce wage/transfer caps? Not a chance. There is too much money involved, without even touching the subject of legalities.

 

So what can be done? In my opinion, a club should be allowed to invest, by way of a loan from the Chairman - with certain clauses attached as not to ruin the football club if they left/sold the club - up to the same amount as is being received in parachute payments by an individual club, thereby giving some parity back to those who can afford it. Why shouldn't clubs like ours, Bristol City, Derby and no doubt others, be allowed to spend what they want, as long as there are clauses built in with regards to the loan agreement? It's stifling the businesses and making the entire league uncompetitive, financially. That's why we have ended up where we are, although the ultimate decision to do what we did lies with our Chairman still. There is no escaping that.

 

In no other industry are there caps on what an individual business can spend on Capex/Opex costs. Until such times as the entire world of football gets its finances in check, I don't see any alternative. And I do appreciate the irony of what I've just said.

[SiJ]

Just now, Owls-Fan said:

So do we think the reason for the long wait to hear an outcome from the IDC went like this,  SWFC and EFL submitted all the documents to the IDC.  The IDC reviewed and saw that we breached the rules last year and asked EFL to explain why the punishment didn’t get enforced then. EFL went “oh sh*t, umm err someone think of a reason that doesn’t sound dodgy”. Few weeks later they finally admit to IDC they have no answer to the postponement. IDC give us a 12 point deduction for next season.  

Wouldn't surprise me.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, StudentOwl said:

Say you don't wear a seatbelt in your old car. You get a new car, with the old one going to the scrapheap (you get no money for scrap parts). CCTV finds you never wore a seatbelt in your old car... and the punishment is for you to take your old car away.

See how that doesn't work?

 

That is the same rationale as to why backdating the points deduction doesn't work as a punishment. 

 

You're right of course with what you're posting, but you're posting something against something I haven't said. I've never said a points deduction isn't a punishment, nor have I said it should be done at a point that should maximise the punishment a club receives. I'm saying that using a backdated points deduction makes no sense because it's no punishment whatsoever... much like taking away a car you scrapped two years ago is no punishment.  

 

 

True, but as said, how can we punished in the 2020-21 season for the same offence that Birmingham got punished for in the 2018-19 season when it is the same offence occurring in the same accounting periods? Birmingham's punishment had little effect when it was delivered and was much less punitive than ours could be.Starting a season 12 points behind is hardly comparable to having 9 points took off after transfer windows have closed and the punishment sees you still comfortably above the drop zone.

The rules make no sense, there should be a cut off point for taking action.

[steelowl]

Disturbing  but it is after all the Sun which is basically one step down from the beano

 

I'd rather wait for our Brief's interpretation but if at all accurate I'd expect us to go for the EFL for damages ( in that a punishment should have ben applied but wasnt and is now affecting a season 2 years from the 'offence'

 

I have zero empathy with Charlton they went down due to their form, not the availability of a 2 year old lifebelt 

and they weren't in our league when the contravention was deemed to have happened

 

2 hours ago, Shiregreenowl 80 said:

If article is correct how do they do that?  Cus what we were found guilty of the maximum penalty is 12 points 

you need to look at the penalties that could have been imposed (which include amongst others chucking out of the league) a lot worse but tbh will have certainly been met by months of legal action 

[Nero]

3 hours ago, vulva said:

There is an element within the fan base that just can’t see beyond the end of their blue and white nose. Wake up and smell the coffee ffs. This isn’t the EFLs fault. 

There is a very small element in our fan base that won't accept what is fundamentally clear.

It is the EFL that is at fault for the whole sheetshow,including proving the unfair and unworkable platform which led ours and others incompetent attempts to compete.

Some like Wolves Brighton and Villa rolled the dice and got lucky.

 

 

 

[CalmJimmers]

9 minutes ago, StudentOwl said:

Say you don't wear a seatbelt in your old car. You get a new car, with the old one going to the scrapheap (you get no money for scrap parts). CCTV finds you never wore a seatbelt in your old car... and the punishment is for you to take your old car away.

See how that doesn't work?

 

That is the same rationale as to why backdating the points deduction doesn't work as a punishment. 

 

You're right of course with what you're posting, but you're posting something against something I haven't said. I've never said a points deduction isn't a punishment, nor have I said it should be done at a point that should maximise the punishment a club receives. I'm saying that using a backdated points deduction makes no sense because it's no punishment whatsoever... much like taking away a car you scrapped two years ago is no punishment.  

 

 

Thing is, to use your example, you were caught when driving your old car, and 3 points would ban you from driving. The DVLA go errrrm well yeah you should have been driving with a seat belt, but errrrm we dunno what to do just yet, so keep driving that's fine, we gave the other drivers 3 points but you know we just aren't sure this time. Keep going, but probably wear a seat belt, but not going to give you a definitive answer. 

 

You then get caught in your new car without a seat belt again, and this time they're like yeah you should have been wearing one are you stupid that'll be 6 points now - all when you've hit some trouble and really need your car. 

[Guest Therealrealist]

2 minutes ago, CalmJimmers said:

 

Thing is, to use your example, you were caught when driving your old car, and 3 points would ban you from driving. The DVLA go errrrm well yeah you should have been driving with a seat belt, but errrrm we dunno what to do just yet, so keep driving that's fine, we gave the other drivers 3 points but you know we just aren't sure this time. Keep going, but probably wear a seat belt, but not going to give you a definitive answer. 

 

You then get caught in your new car without a seat belt again, and this time they're like yeah you should have been wearing one are you stupid that'll be 6 points now - all when you've hit some trouble and really need your car. 

Da wot 

[CalmJimmers]

Just now, Therealrealist said:

Da wot 

 

Exactly

[S36 OWL]

So, every season we have three clubs come down from the Prem with a £45m head start, and that's acceptable according to the EFL. We then have an owner like Chansiri who wants to invest large amounts of money to be able to compete with these clubs. That's unacceptable according to the EFL. 

 

Financial fair play my Arse. 

[Nero]

32 minutes ago, Sheff74 said:

So do we all still hate the EFL for supposedly having it in for us and being supposedly corrupt, or should we be sending them a thank you card for being so incompetent that they spared us relegation?

 

Asking for a friend, called Rick.

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.

[axolotl]

7 minutes ago, StudentOwl said:

Say you don't wear a seatbelt in your old car. You get a new car, with the old one going to the scrapheap (you get no money for scrap parts). CCTV finds you never wore a seatbelt in your old car... and the punishment is for you to take your old car away.

See how that doesn't work?

 

That is the same rationale as to why backdating the points deduction doesn't work as a punishment. 

 

You're right of course with what you're posting, but you're against something I haven't said. I've never said a points deduction isn't a punishment, nor have I said it should be done at a point that should maximise the punishment a club receives. I'm saying that using a backdated points deduction makes no sense because it's no punishment whatsoever... much like taking away a car you scrapped two years ago is no punishment.  

 

 

I see your point about backdating them, and yes, they (the points deduction) shouldn't be backdated. Rather the EFL should have charged us at the time of the breach, and the IDC applied any punishment at that time - so the 2018/19 season. Obviously as it transpires it wouldn't have relegated us, but as I said (and I think you agreed with?), that isn't our problem.

 

The issue here lies with the rules themselves. If, like it is with Administration, the rules stated points deductions occur at the end of the season if it would result in relegation, or the following season if not, then fair enough - but they don't, not for P&S breaches, at least as far as I am aware. So if that negates the impact of any deduction, it isn't the fault of the club. The EFL surely can't make it up as they go along and impose sanctions and punishments when it suits them; when it is most punitive. The EFL have dug themselves a hole, because by delaying in a (failed) attempt to have the deduction result in our relegation, rather than at the time of the charges/offence, they have trodden on the toes of Charlton, who sporting merits aside (should have won more points themselves, etc), now have a very real right to feel aggrieved. If the EFL had imposed the deduction at the correct time - 2018/19 - then Charlton wouldn't have a leg to stand on. 

 

[Yellowbelly]

-6 & we all can go home.

[Owls2k]

10 hours ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Timeline appears to be:

 

Should of punished club in 2018/19 but EFL chose to purposely wait because 12 points then wouldn't have relegated club.

 

Last year club doing well in league so instead of simply going for FFP punishment went for 21points.

 

When directors charges dropped messed up plan so didn't chase it as we were heading for good league position so again 12points wouldn't have got what they wanted.

 

After out form fell off a cliff and we fell like a stone the expedited hearing to June to send us down with 12points.

 

Report will be interesting to read at least and sounds like EFL were indeed after making an example out of SWFC and were only interested in send club to league 1

 

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

Edited August 16, 2020 by Owls2k

[Dick_Turpin]

2 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

So, every season we have three clubs come down from the Prem with a £45m head start, and that's acceptable according to the EFL. We then have an owner like Chansiri who wants to invest large amounts of money to be able to compete with these clubs. That's unacceptable according to the EFL. 

 

Financial fair play my Arse. 

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? 

[sheffsteel]

5 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

True, but as said, how can we punished in the 2020-21 season for the same offence that Birmingham got punished for in the 2018-19 season when it is the same offence occurring in the same accounting periods? Birmingham's punishment had little effect when it was delivered and was much less punitive than ours could be.Starting a season 12 points behind is hardly comparable to having 9 points took off after transfer windows have closed and the punishment sees you still comfortably above the drop zone.

The rules make no sense, there should be a cut off point for taking action.

Agree.....I think the main driver of FFP is to act as a deterrent....not to be a punishment.

Some people say SW are guilty of cheating...however it was more an admin error. 
If the idea to sell the ground to himself had been done 12 years earlier....then the loophole suggests this action would be OK.

 

The timing of s punishment is massively important....natural justice says promotions/ relegations should be decided on the pitch...not in the courts,

So all punishments should be pre-season so everyone knows where they stand and the punished club have a chance.

The delay and timing of the Birmingham City punishment....meant that effectively BCFC received no punishment.

 

I’ve no doubts that if SW had finished 15 points clear of relegation or we in mid table safety then the 12 point deduction would have been applied this season. There needs to be more transparency regards the rules and cut off dates.