The point here is that the independent panel made a decision that meant Macclesfield would have stayed up, as part of the points deduction against them was suspended.
The EFL appealed against that decision, as is their right, seeking a harsher punishment. The EFL won their appeal, the suspended points deduction was changed to apply immediately, thus relegating Macclesfield.
In the Sheffield Wednesday case, the EFL could have appealed seeking a harsher punishment. Seemingly, they chose not to.
An EFL statement said: "An independent arbitration panel has upheld
the EFL's appeal in respect of the outcome of an independent
disciplinary commission who in June 2020 had considered misconduct
charges brought against Macclesfield Town.
"The charges related to
failing to pay a number of players on the applicable payment dates due
in March 2020, failing to act with utmost good faith in respect of
matters with the EFL and for breaching an order, requirement, direction
or instruction of the league.
"The arbitration panel confirmed
that the two-point suspended sporting sanction activated on 19 June 2020
from previous proceedings will stand and in addition the four-point
deduction, originally suspended in the latest proceedings and only to be
activated in the event of a further breach of regulation 63.7 during
season 2020-21, will be activated immediately and applied to the 2019-20
table.
"Today's outcome leaves Macclesfield Town in 24th position
in the table on 19 points with a points per game (PPG) total of 23.62,
resulting in the club's relegation into the National League."
Stevenage
only managed to win three of 36 completed games in League Two in
2019-20, but now have the chance to try and effect a major improvement
on the pitch in the new season.
The news of the appeal verdict
came one month before the 2020-21 EFL season is due to get underway, on
the weekend of 12-13 September.
Macclesfield timeline
The Silkmen's relegation ends a two-year stay in League Two, after they were promoted from the National League in 2018.
The
club finished 22nd in their first season back in the EFL since 2012,
but their ill-fated second campaign saw them receive a series of
penalties.
19 December 2019: A 10-point deduction is
imposed, with four suspended, for non-payment of salaries and failing to
fulfil a fixture against Crewe. In March, this was reduced to seven
points with three suspended after Macclesfield appealed. It meant the
club were deducted four points with immediate effect.
23 April 2020: Macclesfield put players and staff on the government furlough scheme because of coronavirus.
7 May 2020:
A seven-point deduction follows for failing to play a match against
Plymouth and non-payment of wages, with the suspended three points from
the first case being applied. That took the total deduction for the
season to 11 points. A further two-point deduction was suspended.
9 June 2020: Players accuse the EFL of "trying their best to throw Macclesfield out of the league",
19 June 2020: The
two-point deduction is activated for a third breach - taking the
season's total deduction to 13 points, plus a further four-point
suspended deduction.
4 August 2020: Majority shareholder Amar Alkadhi steps down as Macclesfield chairman and plans to sell his stake in the club.
11 August 2020: The suspended four-point penalty is enforced immediately following the EFL's successful appeal and Macclesfield are relegated.
Can anyone from the club ( I guess Chris Parkes) actually tell us whether we have appealed this Sheff Weds decision or not. I haven't seen anything on the official sites anywhere that suggests we have. It seems rather an important issue !!!
The point here is that the independent panel made a decision that meant Macclesfield would have stayed up, as part of the points deduction against them was suspended.
The EFL appealed against that decision, as is their right, seeking a harsher punishment. The EFL won their appeal, the suspended points deduction was changed to apply immediately, thus relegating Macclesfield.
In the Sheffield Wednesday case, the EFL could have appealed seeking a harsher punishment. Seemingly, they chose not to.
EFL could have chosen to appeal the timing of SW's punishment, not just the number of points. EFL chose not to. A starkly different attitude to that taken with Macc, Birmingham and Wigan Macc have been guilty of late payments. No suggestion of short changing or swerving liabilities, unlike Wigan.
SW is convicted of overspending - same as Birmingham. SW penalty deferred - Brum immediate. Birmingham were guilty of a subsequent breach, after the overspending conviction - the promised penalty for that subsequent breach was waived entirely. MT have a series of transgressions and EFL stick the boot in to the fullest extent and go back for another go when the club is on its knees - Brum let off.
EFL's position is indefensible. Timing of penalties either matters or it doesn't - no picking and choosing. Subsequent transgressions either get punished as described, or they don't - no picking and choosing. MT have been shafted while SW and Brum have been let off scot free. What distinction or justification do you see?
I know 'Danny' didn't email me with anything other than the stock 'go away and be quiet we don't give a damn' but I've dropped him another line today in light of EFL's cowardly assault on Macc after their complicit mollycoddling of Brum and SheffW.
Danny
Thank you for your reply. It is disappointing on a number of levels. It is the exact same stock reply that has been received by numerous supporters contacting EFL over the Sheffield Wednesday (SW) disciplinary matter. It addresses none of the matters I raised. It labours a point about the quite distinct and entirely separate Wigan affair, which I hadn't raised at all. All of which adds up to the very clear assertion that EFL cares not one jot for the genuine concerns of we supporters nor the integrity of the Championship competition.
My original email addressed the timing of penalties and EFL's assertion that it was essential for them to fall within the then current season's timeframe. I also highlighted the disparity in EFL's attitude to the 'Independent Panel's' judgement on SW's transgressions compared to those of Macclesfield Town (MT). Yesterday's announcement of Macclesfield's treatment makes an absolute mockery of EFL's earlier stated position and indeed its credibility as a whole. EFL is guilty of a simplistic and grievous double standard.
I would be fascinated to read any clarification at all that EFL can provide on how the punishment of each club is even handed or how timing is relevant in one case and not the other.
The point here is that the independent panel made a decision that meant Macclesfield would have stayed up, as part of the points deduction against them was suspended.
The EFL appealed against that decision, as is their right, seeking a harsher punishment. The EFL won their appeal, the suspended points deduction was changed to apply immediately, thus relegating Macclesfield.
In the Sheffield Wednesday case, the EFL could have appealed seeking a harsher punishment. Seemingly, they chose not to.
EFL could have chosen to appeal the timing of SW's punishment, not just the number of points. EFL chose not to. A starkly different attitude to that taken with Macc, Birmingham and Wigan Macc have been guilty of late payments. No suggestion of short changing or swerving liabilities, unlike Wigan.
SW is convicted of overspending - same as Birmingham. SW penalty deferred - Brum immediate. Birmingham were guilty of a subsequent breach, after the overspending conviction - the promised penalty for that subsequent breach was waived entirely. MT have a series of transgressions and EFL stick the boot in to the fullest extent and go back for another go when the club is on its knees - Brum let off.
EFL's position is indefensible. Timing of penalties either matters or it doesn't - no picking and choosing. Subsequent transgressions either get punished as described, or they don't - no picking and choosing. MT have been shafted while SW and Brum have been let off scot free. What distinction or justification do you see?
I'm not sure if your question was rhetorical or directed to me. If it was the latter, then I don't see any distinction or justification: I was making clear the discrepancy between the EFL's behaviour in each case.
In the case of Macclesfield, the EFL chose to appeal a decision that would have seen Macclesfield avoid relegation. In the case of Sheffield Wednesday, the EFL seemingly chose not to appeal a decision that has seen Wednesday escape relegation. Absent any explanation from the EFL, this is manifestly unfair.
The point here is that the independent panel made a decision that meant Macclesfield would have stayed up, as part of the points deduction against them was suspended.
The EFL appealed against that decision, as is their right, seeking a harsher punishment. The EFL won their appeal, the suspended points deduction was changed to apply immediately, thus relegating Macclesfield.
In the Sheffield Wednesday case, the EFL could have appealed seeking a harsher punishment. Seemingly, they chose not to.
EFL could have chosen to appeal the timing of SW's punishment, not just the number of points. EFL chose not to. A starkly different attitude to that taken with Macc, Birmingham and Wigan Macc have been guilty of late payments. No suggestion of short changing or swerving liabilities, unlike Wigan.
SW is convicted of overspending - same as Birmingham. SW penalty deferred - Brum immediate. Birmingham were guilty of a subsequent breach, after the overspending conviction - the promised penalty for that subsequent breach was waived entirely. MT have a series of transgressions and EFL stick the boot in to the fullest extent and go back for another go when the club is on its knees - Brum let off.
EFL's position is indefensible. Timing of penalties either matters or it doesn't - no picking and choosing. Subsequent transgressions either get punished as described, or they don't - no picking and choosing. MT have been shafted while SW and Brum have been let off scot free. What distinction or justification do you see?
It would now appear, in the Football League's eyes, that a few late payments to players is a much more serious crime than systematic cheating and financial fraud.
But if Sheff Wednesday had been reasonable and pleaded guilty, they would have got relegated as 9 points would have done that. So they have effectively been rewarded for not being reasonable.
Can anybody definitely say that the EFL are not going to appeal the IDC decision?
I'm still clutching at the straw that the EFL are awaiting the IDC reasons before deciding their next course of action.
That was the position of the EFL on 2nd August (10 days ago) see below:
Thank you for taking the trouble to write.
It might be an idea to wait until the Commission publishes its reasons before reaching conclusions.
But just a couple of observations initially
- the IDC is not "advising" the EFL. The IDC is exactly what its name says. It makes the decision; the EFL doesn't.
I have requested info from the EFL on at least 3 separate occasions since 2nd August requesting when we might see the IDC reasons and have posted many times on CL about when the timing of the reasons might occur (with suspicion that it will be at a time when other footballing stories will dominate).
There are only 3 scenarios:
1) if the EFL haven't yet received the decision making process from the IDC which means the penalty is not ratified and is still in play
2) If the EFL have received them and are deliberating on an appeal then its still in play (comparable to Macclesfield situation where EFL challenged IDC decision).
3) If they have received them and have accepted the decisions (points and timing) without challenge then its all over.
so, 10 days on and still nothing from the EFL to clarify the current state of play unless anyone has heard/seen anything different.
Of course the EFL have seen the IDC report & reasons why they decided to apply a points deduction next season. The EFL just dont want to come clean about it.
Once the fixtures are released (must be pretty soon) then thats it I'm afraid. You cant go round buggeting up 2 divisions fixtures once they've been announced. The very simple fact that we are always at home when Millwall are away & vice versa means that the fixtures cant easily be changed. It's not like they can insert our name into SW Championship fixtures.
But a Charlton one could. I think we ought to look at a legal challenge from fans on this. Wednesday, unlike Macclesfield were able to select a member of the panel. This surely negates the claim that the panel was truly independent.
It has been public knowledge for ages what Wednesday were found guilty of and it is either a fact or untrue. That aspect hardly needed more than a day or two being generous. And it would be impossible for the Wednesday representative to argue with a matter of fact detail which the whole charge rested on. But they could influence the punishment.
It may be possible that the length of time this took, to come to a conclusion we all knew before may have been disagreement on details of the punishment. This is absolutely an angle where the Wednesday representative could have mitigated the severity of the punishment. We need the details of the hearing out there as I believe the potential independence of it could be blown out of the water.
At least it looks like we might actually play next season at all now, regardless of the division. Plus a romp to promotion in L1 is going to be more fun than a relegation battle in the Championship anyway!
Of course the EFL have seen the IDC report & reasons why they decided to apply a points deduction next season. The EFL just dont want to come clean about it.
Once the fixtures are released (must be pretty soon) then thats it I'm afraid. You cant go round buggeting up 2 divisions fixtures once they've been announced. The very simple fact that we are always at home when Millwall are away & vice versa means that the fixtures cant easily be changed. It's not like they can insert our name into SW Championship fixtures.
Sadly an EFL appeal aint going to happen.
The FL fixtures have to be linked in with the Premier League as there are clubs that need to be kept apart e.g. Sheffield United and Sheffield Wednesday.
If the FL wanted to give themselves a bit of flexibility regarding a possible appeal then they could pair Charlton with Chef Wendy i.e. both sides have home matches in the same round of fixtures and ensure that Sheff Utd and the Spanners are paired with the opposite fixture profile. That way it wouldn't matter if us and the Massive (Cheats) are switched.
I agree, however, that a FL appeal won't happen; a eunuch has more balls than the FL.
We've surely got a good case here and I think we should be pursuing it purely from a money perspective.
There's pretty much zero chance we would get them to relegate Wednesday instead of us now (and honestly I think we need a season in L1) but I'm sure we can still challenge the decision and seek compensation via that way or by way of if were any process breaches by the EFL given the extraordinary amount of time the whole thing has taken.
We've surely got a good case here and I think we should be pursuing it purely from a money perspective.
There's pretty much zero chance we would get them to relegate Wednesday instead of us now (and honestly I think we need a season in L1) but I'm sure we can still challenge the decision and week compensation via that way or by way of if were any process breaches by the EFL given the extraordinary amount of time the whole thing has taken.
But not half as much as the Massive (Cheats).
Being in Division Three doesn't overly bother me (it's OK to visit once in a while but wouldn't want to go there too often or stay too long) but Wendies staying up as a result of this is a big problem as it sends out the wrong message.
I'd rather Division Two ran with 23 teams next season and Division Three had 25 instead of us swapping places with the cheats; at least that way the Massives get the punishment their conduct deserves and we don't get our arse handed to us on a plate each week in the Championship!
They are cheats, straight up! Cheats prosper in the short term and although they are generally rubbished for the "massive" bollocks, that label will stick. That may not register with the thick Yorkshire twats but it does give me some satisfaction.
Let's be honest, we had chances to stay up and at key points failed to take them. We are a basket case of a club, only capable of signing injury prone players and with a string of corrupt owners rinsing us dry... BUT we ain't Sheffield bloody Wednesday, and thank fuck for that!
No club should simply roll over and just accept an injustice such as this. They took vital points from us by cheating. That isn't sport. Allow it to happen and the game becomes a mockery. There is no guarantee we'll get out of League One quickly, we could be down there for years.
Latest e-mail from EFL today suggests (or at least implies) that they have not yet reached a conclusion on whether or not to appeal the Sheff Wed decision. This was in response to my letter to Rick Parry at the head of this page.
Just a one-liner: but says 'will take' not 'have taken'
The board will take several factors into account, uppermost being counsel's recommendation and assessment of the prospects of success. As we do in all cases, not least Macclesfield.
Latest e-mail from EFL today suggests (or at least implies) that they have not yet reached a conclusion on whether or not to appeal the Sheff Wed decision. This was in response to my letter to Rick Parry at the head of this page.
Just a one-liner: but says 'will take' not 'have taken'
The board will take several factors into account, uppermost being counsel's recommendation and assessment of the prospects of success. As we do in all cases, not least Macclesfield.
So what they mean is that they will listen to who makes the most noise in the meantime and then consider who will make the most fuss (legal action) in the long term and then they will take the easier option.
Latest e-mail from EFL today suggests (or at least implies) that they have not yet reached a conclusion on whether or not to appeal the Sheff Wed decision. This was in response to my letter to Rick Parry at the head of this page.
Just a one-liner: but says 'will take' not 'have taken'
The board will take several factors into account, uppermost being counsel's recommendation and assessment of the prospects of success. As we do in all cases, not least Macclesfield.
So what they mean is that they will listen to who makes the most noise in the meantime and then consider who will make the most fuss (legal action) in the long term and then they will take the easier option.
They will only listen to noise from parties who pay to be heard and fuel the gravy train i.e. sponsors Integrity of the game ignored They’ve proved they can act swiftly but they’re opaquely selective when
Yes, it is a cop out. Something a stable club could really have a go at. Maybe not to get our place back but to get compensation. Would rather this is done by new owners for obvious reasons. I recall West Ham had to pay Sheffield United millions.
Latest e-mail from EFL today suggests (or at least implies) that they have not yet reached a conclusion on whether or not to appeal the Sheff Wed decision. This was in response to my letter to Rick Parry at the head of this page.
Just a one-liner: but says 'will take' not 'have taken'
The board will take several factors into account, uppermost being counsel's recommendation and assessment of the prospects of success. As we do in all cases, not least Macclesfield.
Why do people with legal responsibility for taking decisions, and appointed because they presumably have the knowledge and skills to take the decisions, ask lawyers to make the decisions for them.
It happens at the top level of management boards all the time, when the right decision isn't the convenient one. Advisers are briefed to provide justification for making the decision that suits their interests.
In this case, easy one is to get the lawyers to "assess the prospects of success" and rely on the fact there will be enough to justify not appealing.
I hope I'm wrong and the EFL are looking for justification to pursue an appeal.
They are guilty. We have known they are guilty. It would be impossible to win an appeal on a matter of fact. The EFL should merely threaten further action should they wish to appeal.
They are guilty. We have known they are guilty. It would be impossible to win an appeal on a matter of fact. The EFL should merely threaten further action should they wish to appeal.
Original verdict: Guilty. Punishment from Independent Disciplinary Committee: slap on the wrists (12 point deduction in the 2020/21 season).
What should happen ... FL appeal the punishment, punishment upgraded to 12 point deduction in the 2019/20 season i.e. relegation.
If Sheffield Wednesday appeal the original verdict ... New verdict: Still effin' guilty you cheating mugs. New punishment: Penalties upgraded due to "frivolous" appeal, now stands at automatic relegation in 2019/20 and start 2020/21 on -12 points.
THE EFL wanted to relegate Sheffield Wednesday — but bungled how they handled the case.
An explosive report by an independent disciplinary commission explains why the Owls escaped with a Financial Fair Play penalty that was suspended to next season.
Sheffield Wednesday survived at Charlton's expenseCredit: Getty Images - Getty
It went against the EFL’s push for a full 12 points to be stripped from Wednesday for going £18million above their limit during a three-year period.
Such a punishment would have put Wednesday in the Championship’s bottom three and saved Charlton from the drop.
Instead the IDC panel let off the Owls because the EFL took too long to bring charges — as well as pursuing the wrong case first.
The governing body initially wanted Wednesday officials to be sanctioned for their part in owner Dejphon Chansiri buying the Hillsborough stadium.
That case was dismissed and by the time their focus turned to the FFP offence, it was too late for them to handle it quickly.
The report said the penalty for the first breach should have been imposed before the end of the 2018-19 season. However, that would not have sent the club down in that campaign — so the EFL went after them in the season just ended.
Football chiefs also revealed they planned to dock points from Derby if they are found guilty of a similar offence and apply that penalty next season too.
INCONSISTENCY
The inconsistency in the EFL’s punishments has also been hammered in the report, which will be published tomorrow.
The commission felt the eventual Wednesday hearing was held so late, it would have been unfair to dock them points this season.
It said: “If the penalty had been applied at a very much earlier stage, the club would have had the opportunity to improve its position by performance. Because of the delayed hearing it will have been deprived of that opportunity.
“The evidence indicates that the club resumed with a reduced squad as some players would not play beyond June 30, leading to an under-strength team.
THE EFL wanted to relegate Sheffield Wednesday — but bungled how they handled the case.
An explosive report by an independent disciplinary commission explains why the Owls escaped with a Financial Fair Play penalty that was suspended to next season.
It went against the EFL’s push for a full 12 points to be stripped from Wednesday for going £18million above their limit during a three-year period.
Such a punishment would have put Wednesday in the Championship’s bottom three and saved Charlton from the drop.
Instead the IDC panel let off the Owls because the EFL took too long to bring charges — as well as pursuing the wrong case first.
The governing body initially wanted Wednesday officials to be sanctioned for their part in owner Dejphon Chansiri buying the Hillsborough stadium.
That case was dismissed and by the time their focus turned to the FFP offence, it was too late for them to handle it quickly.
The report said the penalty for the first breach should have been imposed before the end of the 2018-19 season. However, that would not have sent the club down in that campaign — so the EFL went after them in the season just ended.
Football chiefs also revealed they planned to dock points from Derby if they are found guilty of a similar offence and apply that penalty next season too.
INCONSISTENCY
The inconsistency in the EFL’s punishments has also been hammered in the report, which will be published tomorrow.
The commission felt the eventual Wednesday hearing was held so late, it would have been unfair to dock them points this season.
It said: “If the penalty had been applied at a very much earlier stage, the club would have had the opportunity to improve its position by performance. Because of the delayed hearing it will have been deprived of that opportunity.
“The evidence indicates that the club resumed with a reduced squad as some players would not play beyond June 30, leading to an under-strength team.
Christ what an absolute load of rubbish.
The whole point of a penalty is to punish them.
They've moved the points deduction so that the punishment isn't unfair?! What on earth
Comments
The EFL appealed against that decision, as is their right, seeking a harsher punishment. The EFL won their appeal, the suspended points deduction was changed to apply immediately, thus relegating Macclesfield.
In the Sheffield Wednesday case, the EFL could have appealed seeking a harsher punishment. Seemingly, they chose not to.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53744939
An EFL statement said: "An independent arbitration panel has upheld the EFL's appeal in respect of the outcome of an independent disciplinary commission who in June 2020 had considered misconduct charges brought against Macclesfield Town.
"The charges related to failing to pay a number of players on the applicable payment dates due in March 2020, failing to act with utmost good faith in respect of matters with the EFL and for breaching an order, requirement, direction or instruction of the league.
"The arbitration panel confirmed that the two-point suspended sporting sanction activated on 19 June 2020 from previous proceedings will stand and in addition the four-point deduction, originally suspended in the latest proceedings and only to be activated in the event of a further breach of regulation 63.7 during season 2020-21, will be activated immediately and applied to the 2019-20 table.
"Today's outcome leaves Macclesfield Town in 24th position in the table on 19 points with a points per game (PPG) total of 23.62, resulting in the club's relegation into the National League."
Stevenage only managed to win three of 36 completed games in League Two in 2019-20, but now have the chance to try and effect a major improvement on the pitch in the new season.
The news of the appeal verdict came one month before the 2020-21 EFL season is due to get underway, on the weekend of 12-13 September.
Macclesfield timeline
The Silkmen's relegation ends a two-year stay in League Two, after they were promoted from the National League in 2018.
The club finished 22nd in their first season back in the EFL since 2012, but their ill-fated second campaign saw them receive a series of penalties.
It seems rather an important issue !!!
Macc have been guilty of late payments. No suggestion of short changing or swerving liabilities, unlike Wigan.
SW is convicted of overspending - same as Birmingham. SW penalty deferred - Brum immediate.
Birmingham were guilty of a subsequent breach, after the overspending conviction - the promised penalty for that subsequent breach was waived entirely. MT have a series of transgressions and EFL stick the boot in to the fullest extent and go back for another go when the club is on its knees - Brum let off.
EFL's position is indefensible. Timing of penalties either matters or it doesn't - no picking and choosing. Subsequent transgressions either get punished as described, or they don't - no picking and choosing. MT have been shafted while SW and Brum have been let off scot free. What distinction or justification do you see?
Danny
In the case of Macclesfield, the EFL chose to appeal a decision that would have seen Macclesfield avoid relegation. In the case of Sheffield Wednesday, the EFL seemingly chose not to appeal a decision that has seen Wednesday escape relegation. Absent any explanation from the EFL, this is manifestly unfair.
Wonderful.
I'm still clutching at the straw that the EFL are awaiting the IDC reasons before deciding their next course of action.
That was the position of the EFL on 2nd August (10 days ago) see below:
Thank you for taking the trouble to write.
It might be an idea to wait until the Commission publishes its reasons before reaching conclusions.
But just a couple of observations initially
- the IDC is not "advising" the EFL. The IDC is exactly what its name says. It makes the decision; the EFL doesn't.
I have requested info from the EFL on at least 3 separate occasions since 2nd August requesting when we might see the IDC reasons and have posted many times on CL about when the timing of the reasons might occur (with suspicion that it will be at a time when other footballing stories will dominate).
There are only 3 scenarios:
1) if the EFL haven't yet received the decision making process from the IDC which means the penalty is not ratified and is still in play
2) If the EFL have received them and are deliberating on an appeal then its still in play (comparable to Macclesfield situation where EFL challenged IDC decision).
3) If they have received them and have accepted the decisions (points and timing) without challenge then its all over.
so, 10 days on and still nothing from the EFL to clarify the current state of play unless anyone has heard/seen anything different.
Once the fixtures are released (must be pretty soon) then thats it I'm afraid. You cant go round buggeting up 2 divisions fixtures once they've been announced. The very simple fact that we are always at home when Millwall are away & vice versa means that the fixtures cant easily be changed. It's not like they can insert our name into SW Championship fixtures.
Sadly an EFL appeal aint going to happen.
It has been public knowledge for ages what Wednesday were found guilty of and it is either a fact or untrue. That aspect hardly needed more than a day or two being generous. And it would be impossible for the Wednesday representative to argue with a matter of fact detail which the whole charge rested on. But they could influence the punishment.
It may be possible that the length of time this took, to come to a conclusion we all knew before may have been disagreement on details of the punishment. This is absolutely an angle where the Wednesday representative could have mitigated the severity of the punishment. We need the details of the hearing out there as I believe the potential independence of it could be blown out of the water.
If the FL wanted to give themselves a bit of flexibility regarding a possible appeal then they could pair Charlton with Chef Wendy i.e. both sides have home matches in the same round of fixtures and ensure that Sheff Utd and the Spanners are paired with the opposite fixture profile. That way it wouldn't matter if us and the Massive (Cheats) are switched.
I agree, however, that a FL appeal won't happen; a eunuch has more balls than the FL.
There's pretty much zero chance we would get them to relegate Wednesday instead of us now (and honestly I think we need a season in L1) but I'm sure we can still challenge the decision and seek compensation via that way or by way of if were any process breaches by the EFL given the extraordinary amount of time the whole thing has taken.
Being in Division Three doesn't overly bother me (it's OK to visit once in a while but wouldn't want to go there too often or stay too long) but Wendies staying up as a result of this is a big problem as it sends out the wrong message.
I'd rather Division Two ran with 23 teams next season and Division Three had 25 instead of us swapping places with the cheats; at least that way the Massives get the punishment their conduct deserves and we don't get our arse handed to us on a plate each week in the Championship!
Let's be honest, we had chances to stay up and at key points failed to take them. We are a basket case of a club, only capable of signing injury prone players and with a string of corrupt owners rinsing us dry... BUT we ain't Sheffield bloody Wednesday, and thank fuck for that!
There is no guarantee we'll get out of League One quickly, we could be down there for years.
Just a one-liner: but says 'will take' not 'have taken'
The board will take several factors into account, uppermost being counsel's recommendation and assessment of the prospects of success. As we do in all cases, not least Macclesfield.
Integrity of the game ignored
They’ve proved they can act swiftly but they’re opaquely selective when
It happens at the top level of management boards all the time, when the right decision isn't the convenient one. Advisers are briefed to provide justification for making the decision that suits their interests.
In this case, easy one is to get the lawyers to "assess the prospects of success" and rely on the fact there will be enough to justify not appealing.
I hope I'm wrong and the EFL are looking for justification to pursue an appeal.
Punishment from Independent Disciplinary Committee: slap on the wrists (12 point deduction in the 2020/21 season).
What should happen ...
FL appeal the punishment, punishment upgraded to 12 point deduction in the 2019/20 season i.e. relegation.
If Sheffield Wednesday appeal the original verdict ...
New verdict: Still effin' guilty you cheating mugs.
New punishment: Penalties upgraded due to "frivolous" appeal, now stands at automatic relegation in 2019/20 and start 2020/21 on -12 points.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sport/football/12413633/efl-relegate-wednesday-bungled-charlton/
THE EFL wanted to relegate Sheffield Wednesday — but bungled how they handled the case.
An explosive report by an independent disciplinary commission explains why the Owls escaped with a Financial Fair Play penalty that was suspended to next season.
It went against the EFL’s push for a full 12 points to be stripped from Wednesday for going £18million above their limit during a three-year period.
Such a punishment would have put Wednesday in the Championship’s bottom three and saved Charlton from the drop.
Instead the IDC panel let off the Owls because the EFL took too long to bring charges — as well as pursuing the wrong case first.
The governing body initially wanted Wednesday officials to be sanctioned for their part in owner Dejphon Chansiri buying the Hillsborough stadium.
That case was dismissed and by the time their focus turned to the FFP offence, it was too late for them to handle it quickly.
The report said the penalty for the first breach should have been imposed before the end of the 2018-19 season. However, that would not have sent the club down in that campaign — so the EFL went after them in the season just ended.
Football chiefs also revealed they planned to dock points from Derby if they are found guilty of a similar offence and apply that penalty next season too.
INCONSISTENCY
The inconsistency in the EFL’s punishments has also been hammered in the report, which will be published tomorrow.
The commission felt the eventual Wednesday hearing was held so late, it would have been unfair to dock them points this season.
It said: “If the penalty had been applied at a very much earlier stage, the club would have had the opportunity to improve its position by performance. Because of the delayed hearing it will have been deprived of that opportunity.
“The evidence indicates that the club resumed with a reduced squad as some players would not play beyond June 30, leading to an under-strength team.
The whole point of a penalty is to punish them.
They've moved the points deduction so that the punishment isn't unfair?! What on earth