Forget Wigan for a mo, what about Macclesfield? If they appealed the decision in that case so Macclesfield got relegated this season, they have to here too, otherwise it looks like they're beholden to the big clubs.
Apparently Wednesday want to appeal the 12 point deduction now. That might be a mistake.
Hmm. Admit your guilt, show plenty of remorse and admit to yourself that you've got off incredibly lightly, or stick two fingers up at every club that played within the rules agreed by the clubs?
Even Katrien knew at the time it was wrong for them to do it
I thought there were financial rules and regulations in place these days that prohibited companies from arbitrarily assigning dates to transactions to stop companies from over inflating/under stating revenue, profit and loss.
Even Katrien knew at the time it was wrong for them to do it
I thought there were financial rules and regulations in place these days that prohibited companies from arbitrarily assigning dates to transactions to stop companies from over inflating/under stating revenue, profit and loss.
There are but they don't apply to Wednesday it seems.
Now they are appealing, there is an opportunity for the league to do what it should have done in the first place. An important point of the punishment has to be a lesson to other clubs.
Reading their statement (admittedly rather quickly) it appears that they are appealing because the 12 point penalty should have happened the season after the transgression (18/19) where, they state, they finished 24 points above the relegation zone and so no danger AT ALL of getting relegated.
It also appears that the EFL had asked the Independent Commission to have the points deducted this season (19/20) but as this was not consistent with Derby's penalty (next season?) the Commission rejected this.
As I said, I only skimmed read it, but it seems that SW want to get away with EVERYTHING.
1.4 A Reporting Period is the period over which a Championship Club is assessed for the purpose of the Fair Play Requirement.For each Season the Reporting Period is (subject to Rule 2.2 or Rule 2.3) the immediately preceding 12 month period recorded in the Championship Club’s Annual Accounts.For example, for those Championship Clubs with a financial year ending in the period May, June or July the Reporting Period for the 2014/15 Season is the 12 month period ending May, June or July 2014.
2 Variations From ‘Standard’ Reporting Periods
2.1 Championship Clubs may not adjust Reporting Periods for subsequent Seasons without the prior written consent of The League, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
2.2 If:
2.2.1 the Annual Accounts for any Championship Club are for a period other than the 12 months described by Rule 1.4, then that Championship Club must prepare 12 Month Accounts (as defined in Rule 2.3); or
2.2.2 any Championship Club has a financial year ending other than during the period May, June or July, then that Championship Club must prepare Additional Accounts (as defined in Rule 2.3).
2.3 The 12 Month Accounts and the Additional Accounts (as applicable) must be an additional set of full accounts (in the same manner and with the same degree of verified detail as if the Championship Club was obliged to lodge those additional accounts at Companies House) reviewed by the Championship Club’s auditor for a 12 month period ending during May, June or July so as to provide The League with a set of accounts aligned to the Reporting Period as defined in Rule 1.4.
So did SWFC get permission to change their accounting year from the EFL?
If they had to submit a separate 12 months of accounts for EFL FFP that surely would only have run up to the end May so they would have been in breech because the sale was lodged after the end of May - is that right?
1.4 A Reporting Period is the period over which a Championship Club is assessed for the purpose of the Fair Play Requirement.For each Season the Reporting Period is (subject to Rule 2.2 or Rule 2.3) the immediately preceding 12 month period recorded in the Championship Club’s Annual Accounts.For example, for those Championship Clubs with a financial year ending in the period May, June or July the Reporting Period for the 2014/15 Season is the 12 month period ending May, June or July 2014.
2 Variations From ‘Standard’ Reporting Periods
2.1 Championship Clubs may not adjust Reporting Periods for subsequent Seasons without the prior written consent of The League, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
2.2 If:
2.2.1 the Annual Accounts for any Championship Club are for a period other than the 12 months described by Rule 1.4, then that Championship Club must prepare 12 Month Accounts (as defined in Rule 2.3); or
2.2.2 any Championship Club has a financial year ending other than during the period May, June or July, then that Championship Club must prepare Additional Accounts (as defined in Rule 2.3).
2.3 The 12 Month Accounts and the Additional Accounts (as applicable) must be an additional set of full accounts (in the same manner and with the same degree of verified detail as if the Championship Club was obliged to lodge those additional accounts at Companies House) reviewed by the Championship Club’s auditor for a 12 month period ending during May, June or July so as to provide The League with a set of accounts aligned to the Reporting Period as defined in Rule 1.4.
So did SWFC get permission to change their accounting year from the EFL?
If they had to submit a separate 12 months of accounts for EFL FFP that surely would only have run up to the end May so they would have been in breech because the sale was lodged after the end of May - is that right?
Is this not fraudulent? At the very least, you would think HMRC would be interested?
I don’t know enough to be sure, but I find it hard to believe they have not broken some kind of law(s).
Ours must be one of the most unlucky/unjust relegations of all time. Not to mention one of the narrowest. One more goal in any of the last six games would have kept us up? Gut wrenching.
1. Birmingham City report made it clear that a decision should be made as early as possible. It only said this was IDEALLY the position so that the club affected had time to improve results. It DID NOT say late decisions can only apply a points deduction the next season if it was a late decision in the season. 2. In the Derby County case EFL have made it clear a points deduction should be next year - as a points deduction this season would have no jeopardy. This is said to set the precedent to be followed for consistency for SW. NO it sets the principle that a penalty should have jeopardy
No mention made of how the Administration deductions e.g Wigan follows the principal also of jeopardy.
Truly a stitch up with the Commission ignoring the EFL submission and only SW arguments.
And what we have to remember is that Wednesday were able to put forward a member of the IDC were they not? Now it would have been impossible not to find them guilty on a matter of fact, but they could influence the punishment. That is why it was flawed to give the IDC power to decide the punishment and surely Wednesday have given the EFL a chance to put that right if they are appealing.
I seem to recall when we have appealed in the past, we have had the punishment increased!
And what we have to remember is that Wednesday were able to put forward a member of the IDC were they not? Now it would have been impossible not to find them guilty on a matter of fact, but they could influence the punishment. That is why it was flawed to give the IDC power to decide the punishment and surely Wednesday have given the EFL a chance to put that right if they are appealing.
I seem to recall when we have appealed in the past, we have had the punishment increased!
The Commission works with an “independent” chair plus an EFL appointee and a respondent (Sheffield Wednesday) apppintee. The joke is that the appointees are supposed to demonstrate independence with no connection to the club yet the transcript of the Commission report clearly shows the SW advocate simply made the case in favour of no penalty whatsoever.
Any appeal is heard by a League Arbitration Tribunal set up under the same rules including purported independence with no connection to the club.
Surely the EFL is appealing so assume Tribunal will hear each side, EFL, CAFC and SW under single appeal.
Reading their statement (admittedly rather quickly) it appears that they are appealing because the 12 point penalty should have happened the season after the transgression (18/19) where, they state, they finished 24 points above the relegation zone and so no danger AT ALL of getting relegated.
It also appears that the EFL had asked the Independent Commission to have the points deducted this season (19/20) but as this was not consistent with Derby's penalty (next season?) the Commission rejected this.
As I said, I only skimmed read it, but it seems that SW want to get away with EVERYTHING.
So, because more clubs cheated, fewer clubs got punished? Ridiculous!
That is interesting as Wigan had the possibility of a points deduction this season or next season to ensure they had the maximum chance of being punished. We should not forget how dodgy the delay was in reaching the decision and I would be pretty confident the Sheffield Wednesday member of the panel was the reason for that.
I agree with @CAFCsayer that Wednesday may be making a mistake by appealing, as it may conceivably trigger a cross-appeal from the EFL on the timing of the points deduction. If Wednesday had not appealed, I strongly suspect that the EFL would have been very content to let matters lie. Indeed, they may well still do so, given that the League fixtures begin in under four weeks and the EFL's primary concern will probably be to keep SkyBet happy, as well as (don't laugh) the integrity and administrative well-being of the Championship. Wednesday's appeal on the 12 point deduction - if it reaches a hearing - will also help to string things out.
The fact that, had the second (unsuccessful) charge not been pursued would have resulted in an earlier hearing is nothing to the point - whilst, as stated in the earlier Birmingham City decision, it is "far from ideal" that relegation or promotion outcomes are potentially affected by points deductions announced in the last few weeks of the season, that is, self-evidently, no bar to the imposition of an immediate deduction. It is also completely fatuous to suggest that Wednesday have been denied the opportunity to improve their position on the field, magnified (in the Commission's erroneous view) by the fact that some of their players declined to play in the last seven games.
I can see why Wednesday's legal team sought to exploit the EFL's perceived inconsistency in relation to the Derby case but they have given it a totally disproportionate level of importance.
The Commission got this one badly wrong and I fear that we shall ultimately be stuck with it.
Does anyone know who made up the independent panel? I have messaged the EFL twice to ask and have not had the courtesy of an acknowledgment.
We don't know the actual names (or rather I don't) but we have had the info before that the panel for each IDC matter is made up of one rep from the EFL, one rep from the alleged offending club (in this case Sheff Wed) and an independent Chairman (is the Chairman a football person or not - who knows?)
Comments
... but they'd fine us instead for a frivolous appeal.
It's a difficult one ...
... unless you're cheating ***** with no morals.
https://www.swfc.co.uk/news/2020/august/club-statement/
This could get messy
It also appears that the EFL had asked the Independent Commission to have the points deducted this season (19/20) but as this was not consistent with Derby's penalty (next season?) the Commission rejected this.
As I said, I only skimmed read it, but it seems that SW want to get away with EVERYTHING.
1.4 A Reporting Period is the period over which a Championship Club is assessed for the purpose of the Fair Play Requirement. For each Season the Reporting Period is (subject to Rule 2.2 or Rule 2.3) the immediately preceding 12 month period recorded in the Championship Club’s Annual Accounts. For example, for those Championship Clubs with a financial year ending in the period May, June or July the Reporting Period for the 2014/15 Season is the 12 month period ending May, June or July 2014.
2 Variations From ‘Standard’ Reporting Periods
2.1 Championship Clubs may not adjust Reporting Periods for subsequent Seasons without the prior written consent of The League, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld.
2.2 If:
2.2.1 the Annual Accounts for any Championship Club are for a period other than the 12 months described by Rule 1.4, then that Championship Club must prepare 12 Month Accounts (as defined in Rule 2.3); or
2.2.2 any Championship Club has a financial year ending other than during the period May, June or July, then that Championship Club must prepare Additional Accounts (as defined in Rule 2.3).
2.3 The 12 Month Accounts and the Additional Accounts (as applicable) must be an additional set of full accounts (in the same manner and with the same degree of verified detail as if the Championship Club was obliged to lodge those additional accounts at Companies House) reviewed by the Championship Club’s auditor for a 12 month period ending during May, June or July so as to provide The League with a set of accounts aligned to the Reporting Period as defined in Rule 1.4.
So did SWFC get permission to change their accounting year from the EFL?
If they had to submit a separate 12 months of accounts for EFL FFP that surely would only have run up to the end May so they would have been in breech because the sale was lodged after the end of May - is that right?
2. In the Derby County case EFL have made it clear a points deduction should be next year - as a points deduction this season would have no jeopardy. This is said to set the precedent to be followed for consistency for SW. NO it sets the principle that a penalty should have jeopardy
Truly a stitch up with the Commission ignoring the EFL submission and only SW arguments.
I seem to recall when we have appealed in the past, we have had the punishment increased!
Any appeal is heard by a League Arbitration Tribunal set up under the same rules including purported independence with no connection to the club.
Having read the Disciplinary Commission's written reasons for their decision on the sanction, I am even more convinced that they misdirected themselves in deciding the defer the points deduction until next season. Paragraphs 33 to 37 set out the matters relied upon and reflect their flawed reasoning - https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/201920/1920-judgements/efl-v-sheffield-wednesday---decision-on-sanction.pdf.
The fact that, had the second (unsuccessful) charge not been pursued would have resulted in an earlier hearing is nothing to the point - whilst, as stated in the earlier Birmingham City decision, it is "far from ideal" that relegation or promotion outcomes are potentially affected by points deductions announced in the last few weeks of the season, that is, self-evidently, no bar to the imposition of an immediate deduction. It is also completely fatuous to suggest that Wednesday have been denied the opportunity to improve their position on the field, magnified (in the Commission's erroneous view) by the fact that some of their players declined to play in the last seven games.
I can see why Wednesday's legal team sought to exploit the EFL's perceived inconsistency in relation to the Derby case but they have given it a totally disproportionate level of importance.
The Commission got this one badly wrong and I fear that we shall ultimately be stuck with it.