Almost speechless with the cheek of Wednesday, they get away with a points deduction and subsequent relegation that was deserved, yet they’re still not happy and want no punishment at all!
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?)
Are they not the 3 names (Foskett, Mesher and Sturman) reflected at the start of the report in the link in Blucher’s post further above?
The Club was disappointed with some of the decisions of the Disciplinary Commission and respectfully disagrees with both the finding that it was in breach of the P&S rules for the 2017/18 season and the sanction of a 12-point deduction to be applied in the 2020/21 season.
It is important to highlight that the Commission did not find that the sale of the stadium was itself prohibited by the P&S rules, nor that the Club acted anything other than in the utmost good faith with respect to that transaction. The Club had been assured by the EFL that the stadium sale could be included in its 2017/18 P&S returns and relied on those assurances. Having discussed the transaction with the EFL, the EFL having approved it and the Club’s auditors having signed off on it, the Club believed, and continues to believe, it was acting properly and in accordance with the rules. It is disappointing, in those circumstances, that the Commission went on to find the Club was nevertheless in breach of Charge 1.
The Club is pleased that Charge 2, which alleged that the Club had deliberately concealed certain matters from the EFL, was dismissed and that it was accepted that the Club acted openly and honestly in its dealings with the EFL. The Club further notes the Disciplinary Commission’s findings that this was a serious allegation that is not to be made lightly and an opportunity should have been afforded to the individuals involved to explain their position before the charge was brought. The Club welcomes the Disciplinary Commission’s suggestion that the EFL should have exercised its power to investigate under Regulations 82.2/3/4 as being a fairer approach rather than to bring the allegations without further investigation.
Despite the EFL’s “sanctioning guidelines” (which it is not accepted apply in this case) providing for any points deduction sanction to take effect in the year following the breach (which in the Club’s case would have been the 2018/19 season when it finished 24 points clear of the relegation zone) and other mitigating factors, the Commission imposed the maximum 12-point deduction for next season. The EFL sought to have the sanction imposed in the 2019/20 season that has just concluded, which would have seen the Club relegated, in stark contrast to the position it adopted in the Derby County disciplinary proceedings where it was content for any sanction to be imposed next season because Derby would not be relegated. The Club is pleased the Commission rejected such an inconsistent approach to sanctioning by the EFL.
Given the findings in respect of Charge 1 and the sanction imposed, the Club shall be appealing the Decision to an EFL League Arbitration Panel, both against the finding with respect to Charge 1 and the sanction. The Club believes its grounds of appeal to be strong. The Club will continue to take all appropriate steps to protect its interests, for the benefit of the Club and its supporters, and looks forward to the appeal being heard by the League Arbitration Panel at the earliest opportunity. While the Club does not set the timetable for the hearing of the appeal it considers it likely that it will take place in autumn 2020.
Chansiri might not be everyones cup of tea up here but the EFL comes out of all of this disgustingly especially with the new revelations on top of the way the EFL have also claimed he can speak better english then he really can.
That remark was one of the strangest remarks that Ive heard from a so called sporting organisation..it's simply a racial comment for me.
@operationpig your scummy fan base, in a shitty part of the city, with a corrupt owner, the list goes on. Just piss off and stop trying to justify this nonsense.
Chansiri might not be everyones cup of tea up here but the EFL comes out of all of this disgustingly especially with the new revelations on top of the way the EFL have also claimed he can speak better english then he really can.
That remark was one of the strangest remarks that Ive heard from a so called sporting organisation..it's simply a racial comment for me.
Everyone on this site is going to agree with you that EFL are not fit for purpose. But you surely have to accept that people at your club did something purposely dodgy to avoid failing FFP. Whether or not EFL have messed up the charging process, you are also in the wrong, and I find the recent appeal disrespectful to all other EFL clubs.
The Club was disappointed with some of the decisions of the Disciplinary Commission and respectfully disagrees with both the finding that it was in breach of the P&S rules for the 2017/18 season and the sanction of a 12-point deduction to be applied in the 2020/21 season.
It is important to highlight that the Commission did not find that the sale of the stadium was itself prohibited by the P&S rules, nor that the Club acted anything other than in the utmost good faith with respect to that transaction. The Club had been assured by the EFL that the stadium sale could be included in its 2017/18 P&S returns and relied on those assurances. Having discussed the transaction with the EFL, the EFL having approved it and the Club’s auditors having signed off on it, the Club believed, and continues to believe, it was acting properly and in accordance with the rules. It is disappointing, in those circumstances, that the Commission went on to find the Club was nevertheless in breach of Charge 1.
The Club is pleased that Charge 2, which alleged that the Club had deliberately concealed certain matters from the EFL, was dismissed and that it was accepted that the Club acted openly and honestly in its dealings with the EFL. The Club further notes the Disciplinary Commission’s findings that this was a serious allegation that is not to be made lightly and an opportunity should have been afforded to the individuals involved to explain their position before the charge was brought. The Club welcomes the Disciplinary Commission’s suggestion that the EFL should have exercised its power to investigate under Regulations 82.2/3/4 as being a fairer approach rather than to bring the allegations without further investigation.
Despite the EFL’s “sanctioning guidelines” (which it is not accepted apply in this case) providing for any points deduction sanction to take effect in the year following the breach (which in the Club’s case would have been the 2018/19 season when it finished 24 points clear of the relegation zone) and other mitigating factors, the Commission imposed the maximum 12-point deduction for next season. The EFL sought to have the sanction imposed in the 2019/20 season that has just concluded, which would have seen the Club relegated, in stark contrast to the position it adopted in the Derby County disciplinary proceedings where it was content for any sanction to be imposed next season because Derby would not be relegated. The Club is pleased the Commission rejected such an inconsistent approach to sanctioning by the EFL.
Given the findings in respect of Charge 1 and the sanction imposed, the Club shall be appealing the Decision to an EFL League Arbitration Panel, both against the finding with respect to Charge 1 and the sanction. The Club believes its grounds of appeal to be strong. The Club will continue to take all appropriate steps to protect its interests, for the benefit of the Club and its supporters, and looks forward to the appeal being heard by the League Arbitration Panel at the earliest opportunity. While the Club does not set the timetable for the hearing of the appeal it considers it likely that it will take place in autumn 2020.
The Club was disappointed with some of the decisions of the Disciplinary Commission and respectfully disagrees with both the finding that it was in breach of the P&S rules for the 2017/18 season and the sanction of a 12-point deduction to be applied in the 2020/21 season.
It is important to highlight that the Commission did not find that the sale of the stadium was itself prohibited by the P&S rules, nor that the Club acted anything other than in the utmost good faith with respect to that transaction. The Club had been assured by the EFL that the stadium sale could be included in its 2017/18 P&S returns and relied on those assurances. Having discussed the transaction with the EFL, the EFL having approved it and the Club’s auditors having signed off on it, the Club believed, and continues to believe, it was acting properly and in accordance with the rules. It is disappointing, in those circumstances, that the Commission went on to find the Club was nevertheless in breach of Charge 1.
The Club is pleased that Charge 2, which alleged that the Club had deliberately concealed certain matters from the EFL, was dismissed and that it was accepted that the Club acted openly and honestly in its dealings with the EFL. The Club further notes the Disciplinary Commission’s findings that this was a serious allegation that is not to be made lightly and an opportunity should have been afforded to the individuals involved to explain their position before the charge was brought. The Club welcomes the Disciplinary Commission’s suggestion that the EFL should have exercised its power to investigate under Regulations 82.2/3/4 as being a fairer approach rather than to bring the allegations without further investigation.
Despite the EFL’s “sanctioning guidelines” (which it is not accepted apply in this case) providing for any points deduction sanction to take effect in the year following the breach (which in the Club’s case would have been the 2018/19 season when it finished 24 points clear of the relegation zone) and other mitigating factors, the Commission imposed the maximum 12-point deduction for next season. The EFL sought to have the sanction imposed in the 2019/20 season that has just concluded, which would have seen the Club relegated, in stark contrast to the position it adopted in the Derby County disciplinary proceedings where it was content for any sanction to be imposed next season because Derby would not be relegated. The Club is pleased the Commission rejected such an inconsistent approach to sanctioning by the EFL.
Given the findings in respect of Charge 1 and the sanction imposed, the Club shall be appealing the Decision to an EFL League Arbitration Panel, both against the finding with respect to Charge 1 and the sanction. The Club believes its grounds of appeal to be strong. The Club will continue to take all appropriate steps to protect its interests, for the benefit of the Club and its supporters, and looks forward to the appeal being heard by the League Arbitration Panel at the earliest opportunity. While the Club does not set the timetable for the hearing of the appeal it considers it likely that it will take place in autumn 2020.
CHEATS
CHEATING CHEATS
To be fair the deduction could not be placed on the club in the 18/19 season as the investigation had not been completed.
Therefore it should have been applied to the 19/20 season.
As it has not been, it can only be applied to the 20/21 season. An appeal might see that increased to a 24 point deduction, of which I hope is the case.
@operationpig your scummy fan base, in a shitty part of the city, with a corrupt owner, the list goes on. Just piss off and stop trying to justify this nonsense.
I'd be very careful what words you use on an internet forum stuff like that could land you in a heap load of trouble.
The Club was disappointed with some of the decisions of the Disciplinary Commission and respectfully disagrees with both the finding that it was in breach of the P&S rules for the 2017/18 season and the sanction of a 12-point deduction to be applied in the 2020/21 season.
It is important to highlight that the Commission did not find that the sale of the stadium was itself prohibited by the P&S rules, nor that the Club acted anything other than in the utmost good faith with respect to that transaction. The Club had been assured by the EFL that the stadium sale could be included in its 2017/18 P&S returns and relied on those assurances. Having discussed the transaction with the EFL, the EFL having approved it and the Club’s auditors having signed off on it, the Club believed, and continues to believe, it was acting properly and in accordance with the rules. It is disappointing, in those circumstances, that the Commission went on to find the Club was nevertheless in breach of Charge 1.
The Club is pleased that Charge 2, which alleged that the Club had deliberately concealed certain matters from the EFL, was dismissed and that it was accepted that the Club acted openly and honestly in its dealings with the EFL. The Club further notes the Disciplinary Commission’s findings that this was a serious allegation that is not to be made lightly and an opportunity should have been afforded to the individuals involved to explain their position before the charge was brought. The Club welcomes the Disciplinary Commission’s suggestion that the EFL should have exercised its power to investigate under Regulations 82.2/3/4 as being a fairer approach rather than to bring the allegations without further investigation.
Despite the EFL’s “sanctioning guidelines” (which it is not accepted apply in this case) providing for any points deduction sanction to take effect in the year following the breach (which in the Club’s case would have been the 2018/19 season when it finished 24 points clear of the relegation zone) and other mitigating factors, the Commission imposed the maximum 12-point deduction for next season. The EFL sought to have the sanction imposed in the 2019/20 season that has just concluded, which would have seen the Club relegated, in stark contrast to the position it adopted in the Derby County disciplinary proceedings where it was content for any sanction to be imposed next season because Derby would not be relegated. The Club is pleased the Commission rejected such an inconsistent approach to sanctioning by the EFL.
Given the findings in respect of Charge 1 and the sanction imposed, the Club shall be appealing the Decision to an EFL League Arbitration Panel, both against the finding with respect to Charge 1 and the sanction. The Club believes its grounds of appeal to be strong. The Club will continue to take all appropriate steps to protect its interests, for the benefit of the Club and its supporters, and looks forward to the appeal being heard by the League Arbitration Panel at the earliest opportunity. While the Club does not set the timetable for the hearing of the appeal it considers it likely that it will take place in autumn 2020.
CHEATS
CHEATING CHEATS
To be fair the deduction could not be placed on the club in the 18/19 season as the investigation had not been completed.
Therefore it should have been applied to the 19/20 season.
As it has not been, it can only be applied to the 20/21 season. An appeal might see that increased to a 24 point deduction, of which I hope is the case.
The offence was in the 18/19 season - 12 point penalty. The club was still offending in the 19/20 season - another 12 point penalty.
Penalties can't be back-dated to prior seasons so apply one penalty this season (relegation) and the other next season (start on -12).
Can't say fairer than that.
A punishment must be a penalty to the club involved and a deterrent to others.
Delaying Derby's penalty until next season makes sense as application in the 19/20 season does nothing to them so give them a handicap next year instead.
To be honest, there is a flaw in points deductions where there is a capacity to escape punishment. Other leagues just relegate which makes far more sense for things like this.
It’ll be so funny if EFL relegated them on appeal can’t imagine the amount They’ll wine and cry about it. It was bad enough when we had the audacity to win the league one title off them. Surprised they didn’t appeal to F A over that.
@operationpig your scummy fan base, in a shitty part of the city, with a corrupt owner, the list goes on. Just piss off and stop trying to justify this nonsense.
I'd be very careful what words you use on an internet forum stuff like that could land you in a heap load of trouble.
Scummy fan base, are you going to send the big boys round.
STICK YOUR CORRUPT CLUB UP YOUR ARSE, and piss off while you're doing it.
Whilst I can understand Charlton fans anger in the manner you got relagated ( last second goal by Barnsley, injury time goal for Wednesday at hillsboro) what I will say is we all have to stick to the facts, and the facts are the EFL have tried their best to relegate us over this however due to their own balls up and the fact they okayed everything it has made them look tits...as a result of collateral damage Charlton now find them playing in L1 again ( if it ever starts)
Wednesday will be appealing this 'agenda' against us and hopefully justice will result in us getting the 12 points wiped off next season ...but I wont hold my breath.
Whilst I can understand Charlton fans anger in the manner you got relagated ( last second goal by Barnsley, injury time goal for Wednesday at hillsboro) what I will say is we all have to stick to the facts, and the facts are the EFL have tried their best to relegate us over this however due to their own balls up and the fact they okayed everything it has made them look tits...as a result of collateral damage Charlton now find them playing in L1 again ( if it ever starts)
Wednesday will be appealing this 'agenda' against us and hopefully justice will result in us getting the 12 points wiped off next season ...but I wont hold my breath.
It's not justice to get away with cheating because the EFL made a mistake or that your club may have tricked them into making a mistake.
Whilst I can understand Charlton fans anger in the manner you got relagated ( last second goal by Barnsley, injury time goal for Wednesday at hillsboro) what I will say is we all have to stick to the facts, and the facts are the EFL have tried their best to relegate us over this however due to their own balls up and the fact they okayed everything it has made them look tits...as a result of collateral damage Charlton now find them playing in L1 again ( if it ever starts)
Wednesday will be appealing this 'agenda' against us and hopefully justice will result in us getting the 12 points wiped off next season ...but I wont hold my breath.
That’s a very privileged view to have considering the mistreatment and near demise (demise in Bury’s case) of so many EFL clubs over the past few years.
I’ve actually enjoyed most of your posts and views on Charlton Life over the years, and looked out for your thoughts and opinions on football in general, but after this I’ll sadly choose to skip past when see you posting in future.
"...The Club had been assured by the EFL that the stadium sale could be included in its 2017/18 P&S returns and relied on those assurances. Having discussed the transaction with the EFL, the EFL having approved it and the Club’s auditors having signed off on it, the Club believed, and continues to believe, it was acting properly and in accordance with the rules..."
surely this is a simple question of fact? If these assurances took place, they will have been recorded, it's not like SW underestimated the significance. If SW produced that record at the hearing, then SW is acquitted, case closed. If SW didn't produce that record then it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist then all the panel had to appraise was SW's credibility v EFL's credibility in alleging that assurance was made or rebutting the same. As I see it, if SW didn't produce the record of the assurance then it didn't exist cos the assurance was never made. SW has always maintained that EFL rubber stamped the (blatantly misleading) accounting treatment. I'm also surprised SW is making such a fuss now - SW got away scot free with massive overspending in breach of the regulations, EFL has only focused on the one simplistic bit of book cooking, when the world and his wife knows that there are numerous entirely fictitious income streams in plain sight all around SW's operation - the fake taxi firm just the first example of Chansiri pumping money into SW and making up bullshit sources to fit the letter of EFL's citeria. Add to that the elephant in the room that the mickey mouse sale proceeds (~£60M) to SW from the pre-natal company that (on paper) bought Hillsborough a year before the company even existed, are still outstanding on SW's subsequent accounts. Essentially SW loaned a company that didn't yet exist £60M to buy Hillsborough from itself and a further year on, that bill has not been paid - it's almost as if the sale never took place! Heaven forbid! If there's no record EFL said what SW says it said, then Chansiri stands to make a whole heap more trouble for himself by attracting all this attention and scrutiny. If EFL did indeed allow SW to believe the crooked bullshit bookkeeping was fine then 2 things: 1) all those at EFL who have dragged out this bullshit have to be sacked and 2) the whole gamut of spending and financial regulations in EFL are dust, worthless
There is quite a significant distinction with the Derby chicanery, not just the timing issue. We know that the ground sale only ever existed 'on paper'. For Derby to subsequently use Pride Park as security for subsequent finance is a matter for the lender and the lender alone. If that lender accepts that PP, owned by a 2nd party, is valuable collateral for Derby County debt, that's up to that lender. It's bullshit obviously but nobody else's business. We know the ground sales to connected parties are all crooked bullshit to pull the wool over the dim eyes of the complicit sucker morons at EFL but they (SW's timing apart) fit the spending rules as they are currently written.
EFL has made a balls up of this whole matter in a fashion even the current ruling administration in Westminster would struggle to match.
Whilst I can understand Charlton fans anger in the manner you got relagated ( last second goal by Barnsley, injury time goal for Wednesday at hillsboro) what I will say is we all have to stick to the facts, and the facts are the EFL have tried their best to relegate us over this however due to their own balls up and the fact they okayed everything it has made them look tits...as a result of collateral damage Charlton now find them playing in L1 again ( if it ever starts)
Wednesday will be appealing this 'agenda' against us and hopefully justice will result in us getting the 12 points wiped off next season ...but I wont hold my breath.
An even more deluded fanbase than Liverpool. Quite the achievement!
To be honest, there is a flaw in points deductions where there is a capacity to escape punishment. Other leagues just relegate which makes far more sense for things like this.
This for me. But it's not. Theres got to be a timeframe and consistency. Surely you can't just apply the points deduction when we want. If Sheffield Wednesday had finished second this season, I hazard a guess 2nd and 7th in the league would have taken legal action and the deduction would of been this season.
Whilst I can understand Charlton fans anger in the manner you got relagated ( last second goal by Barnsley, injury time goal for Wednesday at hillsboro) what I will say is we all have to stick to the facts, and the facts are the EFL have tried their best to relegate us over this however due to their own balls up and the fact they okayed everything it has made them look tits...as a result of collateral damage Charlton now find them playing in L1 again ( if it ever starts)
Wednesday will be appealing this 'agenda' against us and hopefully justice will result in us getting the 12 points wiped off next season ...but I wont hold my breath.
That’s a very privileged view to have considering the mistreatment and near demise (demise in Bury’s case) of so many EFL clubs over the past few years.
I’ve actually enjoyed most of your posts and views on Charlton Life over the years, and looked out for your thoughts and opinions on football in general, but after this I’ll sadly choose to skip past when see you posting in future.
The abuse I have received just by commenting on this forum is one of the main reasons I stopped posting, some good views and posters on here I'll admit however there are some bitter narrowminded people on here now ...like I said in the main post I have posted facts and Wednesday have not cheated the system this is why we are appealing...Chansiri might have his faults and do I like him - no but the EFL need to be held accountable over this handling.
Regarding Bury FC case ...another fuck up by the EFL, they are a fucking joke mate.
BTW anyone ( apart from wiltspig) is welcome to have an opinion over on Owlstalk re this subject there are some good guys that can have a logical debate rather then telling someone to piss off just because he supports another club.
Whilst I can understand Charlton fans anger in the manner you got relagated ( last second goal by Barnsley, injury time goal for Wednesday at hillsboro) what I will say is we all have to stick to the facts, and the facts are the EFL have tried their best to relegate us over this however due to their own balls up and the fact they okayed everything it has made them look tits...as a result of collateral damage Charlton now find them playing in L1 again ( if it ever starts)
Wednesday will be appealing this 'agenda' against us and hopefully justice will result in us getting the 12 points wiped off next season ...but I wont hold my breath.
An even more deluded fanbase than Liverpool. Quite the achievement!
To be honest, there is a flaw in points deductions where there is a capacity to escape punishment. Other leagues just relegate which makes far more sense for things like this.
This for me. But it's not. Theres got to be a timeframe and consistency. Surely you can't just apply the points deduction when we want. If Sheffield Wednesday had finished second this season, I hazard a guess 2nd and 7th in the league would have taken legal action and the deduction would of been this season.
It isn't because you support another club, it is because you come on here trying to tell us your club is innocent when it is just a cheating club that has been found guilty and got off too lightly. You will not win your appeal because the crime was as clear as day.
"...The Club had been assured by the EFL that the stadium sale could be included in its 2017/18 P&S returns and relied on those assurances. Having discussed the transaction with the EFL, the EFL having approved it and the Club’s auditors having signed off on it, the Club believed, and continues to believe, it was acting properly and in accordance with the rules..."
surely this is a simple question of fact? If these assurances took place, they will have been recorded, it's not like SW underestimated the significance. If SW produced that record at the hearing, then SW is acquitted, case closed. If SW didn't produce that record then it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist then all the panel had to appraise was SW's credibility v EFL's credibility in alleging that assurance was made or rebutting the same. As I see it, if SW didn't produce the record of the assurance then it didn't exist cos the assurance was never made. SW has always maintained that EFL rubber stamped the (blatantly misleading) accounting treatment. I'm also surprised SW is making such a fuss now - SW got away scot free with massive overspending in breach of the regulations, EFL has only focused on the one simplistic bit of book cooking, when the world and his wife knows that there are numerous entirely fictitious income streams in plain sight all around SW's operation - the fake taxi firm just the first example of Chansiri pumping money into SW and making up bullshit sources to fit the letter of EFL's citeria. Add to that the elephant in the room that the mickey mouse sale proceeds (~£60M) to SW from the pre-natal company that (on paper) bought Hillsborough a year before the company even existed, are still outstanding on SW's subsequent accounts. Essentially SW loaned a company that didn't yet exist £60M to buy Hillsborough from itself and a further year on, that bill has not been paid - it's almost as if the sale never took place! Heaven forbid! If there's no record EFL said what SW says it said, then Chansiri stands to make a whole heap more trouble for himself by attracting all this attention and scrutiny. If EFL did indeed allow SW to believe the crooked bullshit bookkeeping was fine then 2 things: 1) all those at EFL who have dragged out this bullshit have to be sacked and 2) the whole gamut of spending and financial regulations in EFL are dust, worthless
There is quite a significant distinction with the Derby chicanery, not just the timing issue. We know that the ground sale only ever existed 'on paper'. For Derby to subsequently use Pride Park as security for subsequent finance is a matter for the lender and the lender alone. If that lender accepts that PP, owned by a 2nd party, is valuable collateral for Derby County debt, that's up to that lender. It's bullshit obviously but nobody else's business. We know the ground sales to connected parties are all crooked bullshit to pull the wool over the dim eyes of the complicit sucker morons at EFL but they (SW's timing apart) fit the spending rules as they are currently written.
EFL has made a balls up of this whole matter in a fashion even the current ruling administration in Westminster would struggle to match.
Quite simply points 1 and 2 seem to be the case otherwise Chansiri would just accept the 12 points deduction and move on from this total mess.
Comments
It is important to highlight that the Commission did not find that the sale of the stadium was itself prohibited by the P&S rules, nor that the Club acted anything other than in the utmost good faith with respect to that transaction. The Club had been assured by the EFL that the stadium sale could be included in its 2017/18 P&S returns and relied on those assurances. Having discussed the transaction with the EFL, the EFL having approved it and the Club’s auditors having signed off on it, the Club believed, and continues to believe, it was acting properly and in accordance with the rules. It is disappointing, in those circumstances, that the Commission went on to find the Club was nevertheless in breach of Charge 1.
The Club is pleased that Charge 2, which alleged that the Club had deliberately concealed certain matters from the EFL, was dismissed and that it was accepted that the Club acted openly and honestly in its dealings with the EFL. The Club further notes the Disciplinary Commission’s findings that this was a serious allegation that is not to be made lightly and an opportunity should have been afforded to the individuals involved to explain their position before the charge was brought. The Club welcomes the Disciplinary Commission’s suggestion that the EFL should have exercised its power to investigate under Regulations 82.2/3/4 as being a fairer approach rather than to bring the allegations without further investigation.
Despite the EFL’s “sanctioning guidelines” (which it is not accepted apply in this case) providing for any points deduction sanction to take effect in the year following the breach (which in the Club’s case would have been the 2018/19 season when it finished 24 points clear of the relegation zone) and other mitigating factors, the Commission imposed the maximum 12-point deduction for next season. The EFL sought to have the sanction imposed in the 2019/20 season that has just concluded, which would have seen the Club relegated, in stark contrast to the position it adopted in the Derby County disciplinary proceedings where it was content for any sanction to be imposed next season because Derby would not be relegated. The Club is pleased the Commission rejected such an inconsistent approach to sanctioning by the EFL.
Given the findings in respect of Charge 1 and the sanction imposed, the Club shall be appealing the Decision to an EFL League Arbitration Panel, both against the finding with respect to Charge 1 and the sanction. The Club believes its grounds of appeal to be strong. The Club will continue to take all appropriate steps to protect its interests, for the benefit of the Club and its supporters, and looks forward to the appeal being heard by the League Arbitration Panel at the earliest opportunity. While the Club does not set the timetable for the hearing of the appeal it considers it likely that it will take place in autumn 2020.
Why didn't anyone explain this before?
Chansiri might not be everyones cup of tea up here but the EFL comes out of all of this disgustingly especially with the new revelations on top of the way the EFL have also claimed he can speak better english then he really can.
That remark was one of the strangest remarks that Ive heard from a so called sporting organisation..it's simply a racial comment for me.
To be fair the deduction could not be placed on the club in the 18/19 season as the investigation had not been completed.
Therefore it should have been applied to the 19/20 season.
As it has not been, it can only be applied to the 20/21 season. An appeal might see that increased to a 24 point deduction, of which I hope is the case.
A member of this forum commenting on a thread isn't 'butting in'.
The club was still offending in the 19/20 season - another 12 point penalty.
Penalties can't be back-dated to prior seasons so apply one penalty this season (relegation) and the other next season (start on -12).
Can't say fairer than that.
A punishment must be a penalty to the club involved and a deterrent to others.
Delaying Derby's penalty until next season makes sense as application in the 19/20 season does nothing to them so give them a handicap next year instead.
Scummy fan base, are you going to send the big boys round.
STICK YOUR CORRUPT CLUB UP YOUR ARSE, and piss off while you're doing it.
Wednesday will be appealing this 'agenda' against us and hopefully justice will result in us getting the 12 points wiped off next season ...but I wont hold my breath.
surely this is a simple question of fact?
If these assurances took place, they will have been recorded, it's not like SW underestimated the significance.
If SW produced that record at the hearing, then SW is acquitted, case closed.
If SW didn't produce that record then it doesn't exist. If it doesn't exist then all the panel had to appraise was SW's credibility v EFL's credibility in alleging that assurance was made or rebutting the same.
As I see it, if SW didn't produce the record of the assurance then it didn't exist cos the assurance was never made.
SW has always maintained that EFL rubber stamped the (blatantly misleading) accounting treatment.
I'm also surprised SW is making such a fuss now - SW got away scot free with massive overspending in breach of the regulations, EFL has only focused on the one simplistic bit of book cooking, when the world and his wife knows that there are numerous entirely fictitious income streams in plain sight all around SW's operation - the fake taxi firm just the first example of Chansiri pumping money into SW and making up bullshit sources to fit the letter of EFL's citeria. Add to that the elephant in the room that the mickey mouse sale proceeds (~£60M) to SW from the pre-natal company that (on paper) bought Hillsborough a year before the company even existed, are still outstanding on SW's subsequent accounts. Essentially SW loaned a company that didn't yet exist £60M to buy Hillsborough from itself and a further year on, that bill has not been paid - it's almost as if the sale never took place! Heaven forbid!
If there's no record EFL said what SW says it said, then Chansiri stands to make a whole heap more trouble for himself by attracting all this attention and scrutiny.
If EFL did indeed allow SW to believe the crooked bullshit bookkeeping was fine then 2 things:
1) all those at EFL who have dragged out this bullshit have to be sacked and
2) the whole gamut of spending and financial regulations in EFL are dust, worthless
There is quite a significant distinction with the Derby chicanery, not just the timing issue.
We know that the ground sale only ever existed 'on paper'. For Derby to subsequently use Pride Park as security for subsequent finance is a matter for the lender and the lender alone. If that lender accepts that PP, owned by a 2nd party, is valuable collateral for Derby County debt, that's up to that lender. It's bullshit obviously but nobody else's business.
We know the ground sales to connected parties are all crooked bullshit to pull the wool over the dim eyes of the complicit sucker morons at EFL but they (SW's timing apart) fit the spending rules as they are currently written.
EFL has made a balls up of this whole matter in a fashion even the current ruling administration in Westminster would struggle to match.
But it's not.
Theres got to be a timeframe and consistency.
Surely you can't just apply the points deduction when we want.
If Sheffield Wednesday had finished second this season, I hazard a guess 2nd and 7th in the league would have taken legal action and the deduction would of been this season.
Regarding Bury FC case ...another fuck up by the EFL, they are a fucking joke mate.
BTW anyone ( apart from wiltspig) is welcome to have an opinion over on Owlstalk re this subject there are some good guys that can have a logical debate rather then telling someone to piss off just because he supports another club.