Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, S W F C said:

Can someone summarise please in simple terms? 
 

My understanding is that the EFL had agreed that we could include the stadium sale in the accounts but then changed their mind? 
 

What have we actually done wrong? 

Nothing sppesl in post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hopefully because of the EFL making a pigs ear of investing us we can either get off on a technicality or at least have the points deduction reduced.

Also hope this makes Chansiri buck up his ideas of his running of the club.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just finished the 41-page document too, and my God, what a total clusterfck. I suspect an appeal will see us down to just -9 based on an argument of good faith (the document seems to insist that everyone acted in good faith, just on incorrect assumptions), but who knows. I agree with points 2 & 3 that @StudentOwl makes:

 

6 minutes ago, StudentOwl said:

1. The EFL were actively vindictive in their pursuit of us

2. DC, nor any other officials at the club, are at the very least not actively dishonest

3. DC is in no way fit to run a football club

 

However I'm still failing to see the rationale for the first point—I can't see vindictiveness, just incompetence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, S W F C said:

Can someone summarise please in simple terms? 
 

My understanding is that the EFL had agreed that we could include the stadium sale in the accounts but then changed their mind? 
 

What have we actually done wrong? 

 

 

In Summary regarding DC and the EFL

 

1025103226_DCandEFL.jpg.4fd6cacd7c6127093c74508c213ad457.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dr. benway said:

Just finished the 41-page document too, and my God, what a total clusterfck. I suspect an appeal will see us down to just -9 based on an argument of good faith (the document seems to insist that everyone acted in good faith, just on incorrect assumptions), but who knows. I agree with points 2 & 3 that @StudentOwl makes:

 

 

However I'm still failing to see the rationale for the first point—I can't see vindictiveness, just incompetence.

I'd say the EFLs different views on us and Derby certainly indicate some form of vindictiveness towards us.

  • Like 8
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, pazowl55 said:

You mean the sale of the stadium? 

Clubs only found out about that loophole very late on didnt they.


I think the infrastructure caveat has been in the rules all along. Could be wrong 

Edited by Bluesteel
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, dr. benway said:

Just finished the 41-page document too, and my God, what a total clusterfck. I suspect an appeal will see us down to just -9 based on an argument of good faith (the document seems to insist that everyone acted in good faith, just on incorrect assumptions), but who knows. I agree with points 2 & 3 that @StudentOwl makes:

 

 

However I'm still failing to see the rationale for the first point—I can't see vindictiveness, just incompetence.

re point 1... I think the fact that they were inherently assuming active dishonesty from us and trying to make the whole thing come across as far more serious than it necessary was. The attitude that DC was faking his lack of English in order to make things difficult. Even the commission say it's regretful that they were so intent on seeing quite a serious level of "bad" in how we conducted ourselves.

 

I'll add a fourth conclusion though...:

-The 12 point penalty is entirely justified. I agree with you re and appeal and hopefully they will reduce it to -9... but we deserve a points deduction in that ballpark without any shadow of a doubt. 

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

Well, having finished reading that, I've come to three conclusions:

 

1. The EFL were actively vindictive in their pursuit of us

2. DC, nor any other officials at the club, are at the very least not actively dishonest

3. DC is in no way fit to run a football club

Very similar conclusions.

 

Good on us for lodging an appeal, although I cannot see how they can reduce the points deduction. It is - 12 or nothing. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, EcclesallOwl said:

Madness

 

 

A scouser running the EFL and has the nerve to have a pop at Chansiri's grasp of English. Pot calling the kettle.... and all that!

lol

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

It reads very much like the efl were out to get us and DC and played every dirty trick in the book to do so.

Smacks of an 1980s police stitch up. Find them guilty then go and look for some evidence.

Gerrem DC!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Orlando_Trustful said:

Very similar conclusions.

 

Good on us for lodging an appeal, although I cannot see how they can reduce the points deduction. It is - 12 or nothing. 

Suppose it depends on the nature of our appeal. If we are saying 12 is unfair as Birmingham only got 9 we may see it reduced. 

If we are saying the whole thing is wrong we want the 12 points wiped of as it should have been done 2 years ago. I think we may come away still on -12. 

 

I guess our lawyers will be going after which one we think we have more chance of winning.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, StudentOwl said:

re point 1... I think the fact that they were inherently assuming active dishonesty from us and trying to make the whole thing come across as far more serious than it necessary was. The attitude that DC was faking his lack of English in order to make things difficult. Even the commission say it's regretful that they were so intent on seeing quite a serious level of "bad" in how we conducted ourselves.

 

No, that's a reasonable interpretation, and it'll be interesting to see if that makes it into the subsequent appeal.

 

3 minutes ago, StudentOwl said:

I'll add a fourth conclusion though...:

-The 12 point penalty is entirely justified. I agree with you re and appeal and hopefully they will reduce it to -9... but we deserve a points deduction in that ballpark without any shadow of a doubt. 

 

I agree with you that we almost certainly deserve the deduction from a "moral" standpoint—we overspent wilfully and tried a get rich quick scheme to save our skins (and seemingly didn't even put that much thought into it). Though the sticking point I suppose is the EFL giving the go-ahead and then changing their minds.

 

What a mess.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, robowl4life said:


Basically KM grassed DC up... she should’ve said something along the lines of “I thought we were going to breach P&S but I forgot we’d sold the stadium, how silly of me. What am I like!” Followed by an awkward fake laugh.

lol

Link to post
Share on other sites

What a complete shambles.

 

Reading that gives me zero confidence in anyone running a) our club and b) the EFL

 

The fact that we managed to find a loophole to dodge P&S sanctions AND STILL MANAGED TO F IT UP is beyond scary.

 

EFL aren't fit for purpose either, thoroughly depressing.

 

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Point deduction or no point deduction, we’ll always be one step away from a precarious situation with DC as owner. 
 

Extremely slow decision making, inability to communicate effectively with his staff, and on and on. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DesWalker said:

What a complete shambles.

 

Reading that gives me zero confidence in anyone running a) our club and b) the EFL

 

The fact that we managed to find a loophole to dodge P&S sanctions AND STILL MANAGED TO F IT UP is beyond scary.

 

EFL aren't fit for purpose either, thoroughly depressing.

 

 

I don’t get how we managed to f it up... 

 

if they agreed we could do it, but then changed their mind, what have we done wrong? 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, EcclesallOwl said:

Madness

 

 

 

Is that suggesting that the EFL tried to discredit Chansiri by claiming his use of the English language was better than he was portraying? If so, wow, that's some accusation to make and have rejected.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, S W F C said:

I don’t get how we managed to f it up... 

 

if they agreed we could do it, but then changed their mind, what have we done wrong? 

 

We failed to get a legally sound document in place—everyone just assumed what we had was sufficient. Because of the short timescale, no-one drafted in qualified legal advice.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, S W F C said:

I don’t get how we managed to f it up... 

 

if they agreed we could do it, but then changed their mind, what have we done wrong? 

 

Signed heads of terms in August when it had to be done by 31st July being the main issue....

 

Having already declared in May that's what we were going to do.

  • Thanks 1
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...