Wycombe want Derby relegated

[Shetland Owl]

Wycombe aim to relegate Derby with Sheffield Wednesday and Rotherham United | Yorkshire Post. They want 12 point deduction to apply to this season not next.

[S72 Owl]

This is going to become a regular thing in the next few years.
 

Teams trying to delay points deductions and other teams trying to get teams docked points when it suits them. 

[Guest wilyfox]

Not sure they’d succeed. Ours carried over because it would have relegated us without time to respond on the pitch. There was a key difference though; last season carried beyond the ending contracts of Fletcher, Fox, and FF. The case was argued we were disadvantaged. Derby can’t claim that. Messy.

[matthefish2002]

This is maybe related to the subject Paul Warne didn't want to get into in his interview on Saturday.

Guess as we finished bottom it doesn't really effect us.

[Manwë]

There's no way that this would be applied, because it would give Derby zero chance of being able to recover on the field because all games have been played.

 

Good luck to Wycombe though, I hope they succeed.  

 

Cheats (like us), shouldn't prosper.  

[striker]

This is a massive mess, caused by EFL. The whole process takes way too long. It needs to be done much quicker. 

 

Two seasons in a row teams relegated (us and Wigan) have only done so because of points deductions. Not a great look for a sporting competition supposed to be played on the pitch.

 

[darra]

5 minutes ago, Shetland Owl said:

Wycombe aim to relegate Derby with Sheffield Wednesday and Rotherham United | Yorkshire Post. They want 12 point deduction to apply to this season not next.

Discussing Derby on Talksport this morning saying how they are in big trouble what with failed takeover bids, big debts, players not being paid and a points deduction which by the sounds will be 12 points if they can get it reduced on appeal. Also mentioned more than once that if it wasn't for our points deduction they'd be down.

[SiJ]

Shambolic.

 

Whole thing is a complete mess.

 

 

[nethertonowl]

2 minutes ago, matthefish2002 said:

This is maybe related to the subject Paul Warne didn't want to get into in his interview on Saturday.

Guess as we finished bottom it doesn't really effect us.

Why not if they had announced Derby deduction they wouldn’t have had any to fight for and so we could claim we might have won

[Manwë]

1 minute ago, striker said:

Two seasons in a row teams relegated (us and Wigan) have only done so because of points deductions. Not a great look for a sporting competition supposed to be played on the pitch.

 

I think cyclists should be able to have blood transfusions, and athletes take growth hormones.   It happens off the track/field and if they can afford it, they shouldn't be stopped.

 

Or, alternatively, clubs that break rules off the field should be punished for it because it alters how competitive they are on the field.   

[Bluewings]

Derbys situation is the same as ours last season.

 

Wycombe did pretty well this season considering the size and budget of the club

Held a decent account of themselves, always looked like they was fighting to stay in with a

shout right to the end, but like Charlton they just wasn't good enough...

Best thing Wycombe can do is brush themselves down and build on what they

have got to get back to the Championship, stronger, asap.

 

Derby are literally like Wednesdays twin brother.

[darra]

2 minutes ago, Manwë said:

 

I think cyclists should be able to have blood transfusions, and athletes take growth hormones.   It happens off the track/field and if they can afford it, they shouldn't be stopped.

 

Or, alternatively, clubs that break rules off the field should be punished for it because it alters how competitive they are on the field.   

Seen it mentioned a couple of times recently that in cases like ours and Derby's it's the owners who should be fined as it's their mistake and the players and fans shouldn't be punished.

[matthefish2002]

Just now, darra said:

Seen it mentioned a couple of times recently that in cases like ours and Derby's it's the owners who should be fined as it's their mistake and the players and fans shouldn't be punished.

 

But you could also argue that fans of other clubs are being punished as clubs like Derby and Wednesday have had an unfair advantage.

If only fined owners it wouldnt really be deterrent as these blokes are Muti millionaires so a £100k fine is like 10p to me.

[striker]

14 minutes ago, Manwë said:

 

I think cyclists should be able to have blood transfusions, and athletes take growth hormones.   It happens off the track/field and if they can afford it, they shouldn't be stopped.

 

Or, alternatively, clubs that break rules off the field should be punished for it because it alters how competitive they are on the field.   

I'm not sure of your argument. IMO FFP is a flawed system, but the rules are the rules. 

 

My point was that the EFL preferably should have a better system in place, but also deal with infractions much quicker. 

 

I'm not sure incompetent admin and some owners not spending money as efficiently as others equates to athletes cheating. 

 

The EFL actively encourage inequality and an unfair competition sucking up to the EPL, compounded by FFP rules which are not clear, robust or easily interpreted, as per regular appeals and often adjustment in sanctions. 

 

Is it fair to allow half a dozen clubs with parachute payments to be able to spend freely when half of the remaining clubs are under transfer embargoes and even when lifted have a fraction of the spending power, not limited by access to funds, but arbitrary limits applied which prevent clubs  competing with other clubs?

[FreshOwl]

I honestly cant deal with all this football politics anymore. Sick to the back teeth of it 

[A47Owl]

34 minutes ago, matthefish2002 said:

This is maybe related to the subject Paul Warne didn't want to get into in his interview on Saturday.

Guess as we finished bottom it doesn't really effect us.

Unless they give us our 6 points back. 

Get DC's legal team on the job. 

EFL total chaos. 

[A47Owl]

8 minutes ago, striker said:

Is it fair to allow half a dozen clubs with parachute payments to be able to spend freely when half of the remaining clubs are under transfer embargoes and even when lifted have a fraction of the spending power, not limited by access to funds, but arbitrary limits applied which prevent clubs  competing with other clubs?

This ^^^^

[Manwë]

2 minutes ago, striker said:

I'm not sure of your argument. IMO FFP is a flawed system, but the rules are the rules. 

 

My point was that the EFL preferably should have a better system in place, but also deal with infractions much quicker. 

 

I'm not sure incompetent admin and some owners not spending money as efficiently as others equates to athletes cheating. 

 

The EFL actively encourage inequality and an unfair competition sucking up to the EPL, compounded by FFP rules which are not clear, robust or easily interpreted, as per regular appeals and often adjustment in sanctions. 

 

Is it fair to allow half a dozen clubs with parachute payments to be able to spend freely when half of the remaining clubs are under transfer embargoes and even when lifted have a fraction of the spending power, not limited by access to funds, but arbitrary limits applied which prevent clubs  competing with other clubs?

 

Parachute payments are nothing to do with the EFL.  The EPL decide on parachute payments, not the EFL.   Parachute payments are legitimate income streams for clubs.  If Wednesday got promoted to the Prem, and came back down, we'd be using the parachute payments too.   Clubs like Wednesday created the EPL so we didn't have the EFL interfering with our money making schemes.  You may as well have a rule that clubs can't make as much money as possible on shirt sales, that's got nothing to do with the EFL too.

 

The EFL is basically its members, not some secret society that is out to get us all.  If the clubs of the EFL are in favour of something, then it'll be voted on favourably.  If the EFL suck up to the EPL, that's because the majority of clubs suck up to the EPL.  That's because most clubs in the EFL want to be in the EPL.    

 

As for timing, then its virtually impossible in a sport where the clock is always ticking (except pre-season, ie after the season is over), where accounts are a year or so later than the present day, and where clubs will fight tooth and nail (rightly so, that is fair in a just system) for the best possible outcome.  It's not realistic to be able to get complex things heard using hundreds of documents, numerous people, questioned and considered by independent people and put together to be determined in a quick manner where it doesn't affect the clock.  It takes time.  

[Steelman]

I want to retire tomorrow but it aint gonna happen.

 

 

[Sultan_Pepper]

If this was a new decision it would be next season but it's appeal against the case Derby won a year ago. I think there would be grounds for them to apply to the season just gone. Good news for Wycombe. Bad news for clubs run as badly as ours