Jump to content

BREAKING NEWS!! EFL -12 Points - Full Written Explanation Thread


Recommended Posts

30 minutes ago, vulva said:

As bad as the EFL have performed in all this, the overriding concern for me is that why we were in the dock in the 1st place will get forgotten. The ‘scandel’ will be tomorrow’s chip paper. The way the club is run needs to be addressed ASAP. We can’t carry on like this and expect things to change.

 

DC needs to appoint an experienced CEO to look after the day to day running of the club. Until he does this I don’t think the man has learnt how to run a football club. 
 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Jimbob1867 said:

and answer this: if you were in charge and the heads of terms was signed on 15 July and you knew the deadline was 31 July and, assuming you were not incompetent, would you have:

(a)  immediately sent the signed HoT to the EFL and ask them to confirm it's acceptable; or 

(b) on numerous occasions between 15 July and 15 August, have meetings and email communications with the EFL referring to the fact there was no binding agreement, then produce an agreement on 15 August which contradicts all of that, and appears to have been signed before the deadline - oh, coincidentally on the 15th of the previous month as well.  

 

Answer (a) - you are far too competent for us, please apply elsewhere.

Answer (b) - when can you start! 

 

Actually the answer is c) We sent it by pigeon carrier and he must have got hungry in Trafalgar Square, it was the pigeon's incompetence that cost us.  Damn flying rat!

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grandad
2 minutes ago, Manwë said:

 

Actually the answer is c) We sent it by pigeon carrier and he must have got hungry in Trafalgar Square, it was the pigeon's incompetence that cost us.  Damn flying rat!

 

 

It was only a matter of time before Dave Allen got the blame

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Manwë said:

 

Actually the answer is c) We sent it by pigeon carrier and he must have got hungry in Trafalgar Square, it was the pigeon's incompetence that cost us.  Damn flying rat!

 

 

 

 

 

It was the pigeon English that was to blame. :Chansiri:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Jimbob1867 said:

and answer this: if you were in charge and the heads of terms was signed on 15 July and you knew the deadline was 31 July and, assuming you were not incompetent, would you have:

(a)  immediately sent the signed HoT to the EFL and ask them to confirm it's acceptable; or 

(b) on numerous occasions between 15 July and 15 August, have meetings and email communications with the EFL referring to the fact there was no binding agreement, then produce an agreement on 15 August which contradicts all of that, and appears to have been signed before the deadline - oh, coincidentally on the 15th of the previous month as well.  

 

Answer (a) - you are far too competent for us, please apply elsewhere.

Answer (b) - when can you start! 

One other thought - the lack of imagination in failing to pick a different day in July on which we claimed the HoT had been signed.  We just rolled it back exactly one month - to the weekend.  Imagine the scene:

- poo - we need to backdate to last month! 

- OK! What day last month?!

- Aaagh I don't know - same day - 15th! 

- But that's a Sunday...?

- So?  Probably a working day in Thailand right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Nero said:

That's a very balanced and fair minded point of view. Rare today.

The problem I have with the way this has been prosecuted, is that Parry is clear that the problem is parachute payments. Previous massive FFP cheats (£7m fine) Bournemouth are coming down with £45m in their back pocket and an ability to lose another £40m plus next year alone. The P&S EFL £39m cap is driving the ground sales. Making an example of SWFC and Derby - as seems to be clearly the intention - will not make any difference at all. Except to certain interested and over-influential EFL parties. 

 

I posted something the other day about the way I would counteract parachute payments, but they themselves are the sticking plaster for financial failings that are happening prior to relegation. It's that that needs sorting, but of course it won't happen, because, well there is too much finance involved.

 

Bournemouth are a team I quoted regarding the injustice of parachute payments. Then I looked a little deeper at their financial situation, and realised that without parachute payments, they are in a mess. Even with them, they could still be. They owe around £80M in unpaid transfer fees, have staff costs of £110M (in 2019) and have a whole host of players who will not immediately receive wage reductions due to relegation. Over the past 2 seasons they have posted losses of around £43M, with £34M coming last year alone. Whose fault is it they are in this mess? Their own of course, but the financial landscape has almost forced that upon them. They either committed to overspending or they would have been admitting relegation before a ball was kicked. It's a vicious cycle.

 

Until such times as the reigns can be pulled in on the run-away finances of the PL, the only way that parachute payments can be counteracted is for the P&S rules to allow clubs to invest the same amount per season, as is being received in parachute payments by an individual club, with some heavy caveats on how the loan is made to the club and by whom, to avoid potential administration at some later date. If you like, a “gift” payment, from the Chairman who can afford to do so. I do appreciate that this suggestion is in fact making the entire financial landscape worse for football as a whole.

 

Failing that, change the P&S rules such that parachute payments can only be used for OpEx costs, like current staff wages and building maintenance, not for funding new transfers, agents fees or new contracts. Limit the way it can be used to bring some parity back to the EFL leagues.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is qute clear their wasagreement to allow us to put sale in wrong year. If they had said no we would not have bothered with the transder of ownership. They would have just applied points deduction to us.This would have reset us to year zero and no need to clear debt by selling stadium.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Quist said:

It is qute clear their wasagreement to allow us to put sale in wrong year. If they had said no we would not have bothered with the transder of ownership. They would have just applied points deduction to us.This would have reset us to year zero and no need to clear debt by selling stadium.

 

I think you have come to that conclusion based on an assumption that we knew what we were doing. The evidence suggests we hadn't got a clue, but carried on regardless. The EFL would have played ball, but because of our own incompetency it went wrong.

 

The accusation could be made that the EFL were at fault for not making it clear that we where too late with the documents and would therefore, be in breach of FFP. I still don't know, why it took another 8 months before the issue was raised again when we announced the ground sale, and again there was silence from the EFL. It was only in November 19 that the EFL raised any objections, well after we submitted the accounts in July 19.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the one thing I've taken from this whole sorry affair is that the EFL don't really care if you break the rules, they simply don't (or didn't) want to have to do anything if you do.  The suggestion from the ex-CEO that we should follow Villa's lead doesn't suggest to me a body keen on employing strict rules of corporate governance for the betterment of the competition as a whole.

 

The EFL are just not fit for purpose.  They come out of this looking like a set of incompetent morons once more (strike 3 now after Bury, Bolton and this).  It feels like they do their best to stop people breaking the rules (suggesting work arounds etc.) then when they do they go after clubs so hard they lose site of the issue and completely balls it up, like they see the red mist or something.  It's really odd.

  • Like 3

Just not bothered...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Nero said:

If i was feeling kind to the EFL I would say that the original regime was helpful and Parry's new regime is vindictive.

 

Possibly, though it also appears that the advice they were giving in trying to be helpful initially was without a full legal understanding of what they were proposing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

I think you have come to that conclusion based on an assumption that we knew what we were doing. The evidence suggests we hadn't got a clue, but carried on regardless. The EFL would have played ball, but because of our own incompetency it went wrong.

 

The accusation could be made that the EFL were at fault for not making it clear that we where too late with the documents and would therefore, be in breach of FFP. I still don't know, why it took another 8 months before the issue was raised again when we announced the ground sale, and again there was silence from the EFL. It was only in November 19 that the EFL raised any objections, well after we submitted the accounts in July 19.

 

I have put my reasons in another post. I think both parties knew what they were doing at August meeting. From excerpts of emails you can clearly see EFL were helping us to circumvent rules at that stage. It is also said their was good rapport berween the two parties until this time. 

The mood changed and you can see nature of response from Wednesday when they saw chages levelled at us' I think this came about because Gibson complained and.their was a new Chairman at EFL.It was only after this  hematter was looked at again and EFL tune changed.

 

I have indicated in earlier post I think we were inept at handling what was a relatively straightforward matter and our approach was naive, this does not alter what I believe happened.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

It was the pigeon English that was to blame. :Chansiri:


this is a serious point.

 

in such serious commercial matters when overseas you would ordinarily employ an interpreter in interviews or to translate documents..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, vulva said:

As bad as the EFL have performed in all this, the overriding concern for me is that why we were in the dock in the 1st place will get forgotten. The ‘scandel’ will be tomorrow’s chip paper. The way the club is run needs to be addressed ASAP. We can’t carry on like this and expect things to change. 

 

We aren't though are we? 

We've stopped buying players for millions, we've stopped offering £20K plus per week long-term contracts, we even sold a player for a record fee last summer.

As bad as things obviously were to get us into this state, what more do you suggest we could do currently? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Flat Owl said:


this is a serious point.

 

in such serious commercial matters when overseas you would ordinarily employ an interpreter in interviews or to translate documents..

 

Aye, but my post wasn't meant to be serious.

 

I was just referring to a previous post talking about sending messages by carrier pigeons.

 

lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, striker said:

You make a good point, especially where the EFL deliberately sought to delay, how can the current sliding scale punishment be applied fairly for an infraction which occured prior to this being agreed by member clubs. Also, considering the precedent set by the Birmingham case. 

 

They did the same thing with Forestieri in regard the the offence occurred when 5 games was the punishment. Due to delay and them changing stance since the incident, he got 6 games. 

 

I just dont think they know what they are doing and make it all up on the fly. They desparately want a club to get a maximum punishment, so they can say "we are doing all we can" and "our punishments work". But in truth they don't and are weak in both constructing rules, applying them in a democratic fair way.  

 

I have no issue with us getting a points deduction for falling foul of P&S (if we didn't win the case and I don't agree with the sale as a fan) but to me any punishment acknowledged when accounts published, should be heard and punishment applied in the next year, not delayed/chosen to inflict when the EFL want. If you are going to run the game, run it fairly. 

 

Hopefully if we appeal, the points deduction would be reduced (as no scale at time of punishment) or at least applied to the season it should have. Or like man City, get away under technicalities even though we've done wrong. But I don't think it will, and I don't think we can complain as this situation is of our own making for failing to plan for the future. 

Edited by splan80
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Nero said:

Read the whole verdict now. Its appalling. 

 

Seriously the EFL though.... relying on a hand written note to defame SWFC club officials. Not using their own investigatory powers properly. Applying a different standard to DCFC than SWFC. There actually does seem to be an agenda - which you think is ridiculous - but its there in black and white. 

 

Our problem is governance. Anyone who has worked with owners getting their finger into things they dont know anything about will feel for KM, JP etc! What a nightmare that must be. 

 

One point that shouldn't be missed is at the time of the non ground sale, the points sanctions had not been written by the EFL and they were criticised for this by the tribunal. If it had been known that a 12 pointer was coming our way KM could probably have motivated DC to do things in the correct timeframe.

 

The tribunal seems to say that both sides were wrong to try to get the ground sale concluded after the end of July as the oral contract from July 15th was invalid according to law. That seems to be weird in a case where we are discussing EFL rules and not the law of the land.

 

Who is to blame if both sides come away from the August 3rd meeting with different assumptions about what happened, the ruling body or the club? Wouldn't the ruling body produce minutes as is the case in any contentious meeting - not some scribbles that they find 18 months later and haven't passed on to SWFC? Its a complete failure of governance on their part.

 

Loads of issues for NdM to unpick

It didn't appear to me that DC was meddling merely that KM and JR had not undertaken their roles successfully and DC was dragged into trying to sort things out?

 

I would have expected that KM and JR should have been capable to discharge their roles in such a way that we avoided this fiasco.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mattitheowl said:

I think the one thing I've taken from this whole sorry affair is that the EFL don't really care if you break the rules, they simply don't (or didn't) want to have to do anything if you do.  The suggestion from the ex-CEO that we should follow Villa's lead doesn't suggest to me a body keen on employing strict rules of corporate governance for the betterment of the competition as a whole.

 

The EFL are just not fit for purpose.  They come out of this looking like a set of incompetent morons once more (strike 3 now after Bury, Bolton and this).  It feels like they do their best to stop people breaking the rules (suggesting work arounds etc.) then when they do they go after clubs so hard they lose site of the issue and completely balls it up, like they see the red mist or something.  It's really odd.

Its clearly an organization that is more concerned with public perception than actually aiding and governing the game.

 

Simply not fit for purpose.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
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...