Sheff Weds Decision 12 points Next season
Comments
-
Were is the money for this an appeal to come from, with the club on it`s uppers they should just take it on the chin, as very unlikely they can get the decision changed.1
-
I wonder if we'll ever see any proper clarification over the decision, like what CAS released for the Man City decision. Because on the face of it, it seems they've had Wednesday bang to rights regarding putting the stadium 'sale' in the wrong financial year. How on earth did Wednesday appeal this? Surely it's there in their own accounts.
Wrong year, you're guilty, you would've failed FFP that year, end of discussion. How did this get dragged out from November through to 31st July before they gave a verdict? A complete farce.0 -
They were not cleared of any wrong doings as the independent panel made it clear that back dating the sale was illegal in respect of EFL and therefore it took you over the rolling 3 year period. You were cheating.operationpig said:
They were all cleared of any wrong doings.Coyotejohn1947 said:This question may have been asked and answered previously but did these shananigans with the sale of the ground at Sheff Weds occur when Katrien Meire was there? I seem to recall that she, along with Chansiri and the financial director were charged as individuals over this matter as well but those charges were earlier dropped - the substantive charge being brought against the 'club' itself.
But it was flesh and blood people who made the decision to cheat not the nuts and bolts of the stadium, the club name itself or however else you define the club. How can they not be accountable for their actions but the club is?
When Meire left Charlton I remember writing that her brand of football 'marketing' should not be inflicted on any other club in Europe let alone the UK. Little was I to know that Meire, as well as being involved in one Charlton relegation when she was CEO here, is, if not personally responsible, then by some extraordinary twist of fate somehow involved in yet another .
The stadium sale was actually proved to be legit...Derby County will get off scott free you watch!
The punishment is for going over 39M rolling over 3 years.
The EFL are not fit to run a tap.
Chansiri has ruined our club and football in general is corrupt and fucked....the last straw for me.
They do not seem to have even been looking at the rest of your sponsorship cons. You are still cheating. Beyond the pale. Nothing worse than a cheat in sport.
You know, the rest of football knows. It was and is not worth £60m, no money has been paid. You will start next season with the same sham companies sponsoring your shirts and your club.
You are probably right, Derby will get off Scott free.
But that is what it is - getting away with cheating - Scott free.
If you stay up next season there has not been a punishment.
This is not about you, your fans, or about SW, or Derby. It is about the future of football in this country. There is talk about a salary cap to save clubs - what is the point? Owners like yours will simply pay the parents of a player or similar.All fans from all clubs need to put pressure on the government to take charge of football or there will only be a handful of clubs outside the premiership left.6 -
Sheffield Wednesday put the sale in the wrong year, EFL put the deduction in the wrong season.30
-
The decision stinks by any metric.
We are relegated and there is little point getting arsey with Sheffield Wednesday especially their fans.
We have to try to recover our club somehow and accept the situation and count heads.
If other forces change anything it would be a surprise bonus, but frankly the thought of anybody at ESI 1 or ESI 2 putting in an objection given what they are and are doing to us well the thought of it is embarrassing. Anyway they won't succeed.
Sheffield Wednesday have their own challenges now. It would be nice if their supporters were gracious towards us I suppose. Maybe they have a way to help us in our fight
0 -
I've been browsing the regulation out of interest. Two observations:
- Seems inadequate to me that it doesn't account set some parameters around when a points deduction would be applied. If they have it written down then you can't argue with it eg. disciplinary panel hearing must be within 60 days of the complaint and points deduction from disciplinary panel hearings after game week 40 or something will be applied the following season that the club is in the EFL. Valid point earlier in the thread about how messy this would be if Sheff Weds were in the playoffs. They've made their own bed not thinking through how these things would or wouldn't be applied at pinch points in the season.
- Notable that the Disciplinary panel has the power to shorten the 14-day appeal window if there's a compelling reason why the appeal needs to concluded expeditiously, which they obviously haven't invoked. These circumstances seem about as a legitimate-a-reason as is conceivable to conclude any possible expeditiously. The total absence of transparency about the Disciplinary panel's rationale is really poor (EFL statement doesn't say that there is a full report coming?).
As an aside, I think we're clutching at straws with all this stuff and don't deserve ourselves to stay up on the basis of this Sheff Weds stuff (except for the fact Fletcher bought in that period scored against us 3 times!), but it's shone a light on how utterly unacceptable, vague, lacking in transparency and ill-conceived the whole governance framework is.
---------------92 Decisions
92.1 The Disciplinary Commission may at any time make a decision, and may make more than one decision at different times on different aspects of the matters to be determined.
92.2 A decision may:
92.2.1 order a party to do or refrain from doing anything;
92.2.2 order a specific performance;
92.2.3 make a declaration on any matter to be determined;
92.2.4 issue a reprimand or warning as to the future conduct of a party;
92.2.5 order the payment of compensation to The League, any Club, any other club, Player or other person;
92.2.6 order a suspension of membership of The League;
92.2.7 order a deduction of points;
92.2.8 impose a financial penalty payable to The League;
92.2.9 recommend expulsion from membership of The League;
92.2.10 order a withdrawal or loss of benefit otherwise available to members of The League e.g. basic award or ladder payment;
92.2.11 impose an embargo on registration of Players;
92.2.12 order any other sanction as the Disciplinary Commission may think fit; and
92.2.13 order that interest be payable on any sums awarded under this Regulation for such period and at such rates as the Disciplinary Commission thinks fit.
92.3 These sanctions may be imposed immediately or may be deferred or suspended for such period and on such terms as the Disciplinary Commission shall decide.
92.4 At any time a Disciplinary Commission may determine (either of its own accord or as a result of representations from a person, Club or club and in any event in its sole discretion) that if the complaint is upheld, it may wish to exercise the power under Regulation 92.2.5 to award compensation. If the Disciplinary Commission so determines, it shall notify the parties to the proceedings and the potential recipient(s) of this fact. The Disciplinary Commission may then make appropriate directions as to the receipt of evidence of loss from the relevant recipient(s) as well as directions on the receipt of evidence in response from the parties to the proceedings.
92.5 The Disciplinary Commission shall have the power to abridge the time period set out in Regulation 94.3 (time limits for appeal) if there is a compelling reason why the appeal (if any) needs to be concluded expeditiously.
92.6 Any financial sanction and any order for costs shall be paid to The League within 14 days of the date on which the sanction or costs were imposed. Any compensation shall be paid in accordance with the order of the Disciplinary Commission.
....
94 Disciplinary Appeals
94.1 A party to a Disciplinary Commission may appeal against a final order of the Disciplinary Commission (a ‘Disciplinary Appeal’). A preliminary or procedural ruling by a Disciplinary Commission shall not be subject to a Disciplinary Appeal unless:
94.1.1 such ruling is dispositive (i.e. it amounts to a final resolution of the matter); or
94.1.2 such ruling, though not dispositive of itself, is subsequently incorporated into a final decision.
94.2 A Disciplinary Appeal shall be heard by the League Arbitration Panel in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of these Regulations, supplemented by the provisions of this Regulation. In the event of any conflict between Section 9 and this Regulation, this Regulation shall prevail.
94.3 Any party wishing to bring a Disciplinary Appeal must, within 14 days of the making of the final order by the Disciplinary Commission (or such other shorter time period as ordered in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 92.5), serve on The League and any other party to the original proceedings:
94.3.1 written notice of the intention to bring a Disciplinary Appeal; and
94.3.2 a statement setting out the grounds of the Disciplinary Appeal.
94.4 Any party wishing to bring a Disciplinary Appeal shall also lodge with The League a deposit of £1,500 in respect of the costs of the Disciplinary Appeal.
94.5 Any party against whom penalties were imposed under Regulation 92 may apply, initially in writing, to the League Arbitration Tribunal for an order that such penalties be suspended pending the resolution of the Disciplinary Appeal. The League Arbitration Tribunal shall determine any such application having regard to the merits of the Disciplinary Appeal and the representations of the other parties.
94.6 No new evidence shall be admitted in respect of a Disciplinary Appeal unless the League Arbitration Panel determines that:
94.6.1 the evidence was not available at the time of the hearing before notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable diligence by the person seeking to introduce it;
94.6.2 the evidence is credible; and
94.6.3 the evidence is relevant.
94.7 Following a Disciplinary Appeal, the League Arbitration Tribunal shall have the power to:
94.7.1 confirm the decision; or
94.7.2 set aside the decision in whole or in part and substitute a new decision; or
94.7.3 order a rehearing before a differently constituted Disciplinary Commission.
3 -
60 days from the complaint? So why the delay in dealing with it?FatterThanAndyReid said:I've been browsing the regulation out of interest. Two observations:
- Seems inadequate to me that it doesn't account set some parameters around when a points deduction would be applied. If they have it written down then you can't argue with it eg. disciplinary panel hearing must be within 60 days of the complaint and points deduction from disciplinary panel hearings after game week 40 or something will be applied the following season that the club is in the EFL. Valid point earlier in the thread about how messy this would be if Sheff Weds were in the playoffs. They've made their own bed not thinking through how these things would or wouldn't be applied at pinch points in the season.
- Notable that the Disciplinary panel has the power to shorten the 14-day appeal window if there's a compelling reason why the appeal needs to concluded expeditiously, which they obviously haven't invoked. These circumstances seem about as a legitimate-a-reason as is conceivable to conclude any possible expeditiously. The total absence of transparency about the Disciplinary panel's rationale is really poor (EFL statement doesn't say that there is a full report coming?).
As an aside, I think we're clutching at straws with all this stuff and don't deserve ourselves to stay up on the basis of this Sheff Weds stuff (except for the fact Fletcher bought in that period scored against us 3 times!), but it's shone a light on how utterly unacceptable, vague, lacking in transparency and ill-conceived the whole governance framework is.
---------------92 Decisions
92.1 The Disciplinary Commission may at any time make a decision, and may make more than one decision at different times on different aspects of the matters to be determined.
92.2 A decision may:
92.2.1 order a party to do or refrain from doing anything;
92.2.2 order a specific performance;
92.2.3 make a declaration on any matter to be determined;
92.2.4 issue a reprimand or warning as to the future conduct of a party;
92.2.5 order the payment of compensation to The League, any Club, any other club, Player or other person;
92.2.6 order a suspension of membership of The League;
92.2.7 order a deduction of points;
92.2.8 impose a financial penalty payable to The League;
92.2.9 recommend expulsion from membership of The League;
92.2.10 order a withdrawal or loss of benefit otherwise available to members of The League e.g. basic award or ladder payment;
92.2.11 impose an embargo on registration of Players;
92.2.12 order any other sanction as the Disciplinary Commission may think fit; and
92.2.13 order that interest be payable on any sums awarded under this Regulation for such period and at such rates as the Disciplinary Commission thinks fit.
92.3 These sanctions may be imposed immediately or may be deferred or suspended for such period and on such terms as the Disciplinary Commission shall decide.
92.4 At any time a Disciplinary Commission may determine (either of its own accord or as a result of representations from a person, Club or club and in any event in its sole discretion) that if the complaint is upheld, it may wish to exercise the power under Regulation 92.2.5 to award compensation. If the Disciplinary Commission so determines, it shall notify the parties to the proceedings and the potential recipient(s) of this fact. The Disciplinary Commission may then make appropriate directions as to the receipt of evidence of loss from the relevant recipient(s) as well as directions on the receipt of evidence in response from the parties to the proceedings.
92.5 The Disciplinary Commission shall have the power to abridge the time period set out in Regulation 94.3 (time limits for appeal) if there is a compelling reason why the appeal (if any) needs to be concluded expeditiously.
92.6 Any financial sanction and any order for costs shall be paid to The League within 14 days of the date on which the sanction or costs were imposed. Any compensation shall be paid in accordance with the order of the Disciplinary Commission.
....
94 Disciplinary Appeals
94.1 A party to a Disciplinary Commission may appeal against a final order of the Disciplinary Commission (a ‘Disciplinary Appeal’). A preliminary or procedural ruling by a Disciplinary Commission shall not be subject to a Disciplinary Appeal unless:
94.1.1 such ruling is dispositive (i.e. it amounts to a final resolution of the matter); or
94.1.2 such ruling, though not dispositive of itself, is subsequently incorporated into a final decision.
94.2 A Disciplinary Appeal shall be heard by the League Arbitration Panel in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 of these Regulations, supplemented by the provisions of this Regulation. In the event of any conflict between Section 9 and this Regulation, this Regulation shall prevail.
94.3 Any party wishing to bring a Disciplinary Appeal must, within 14 days of the making of the final order by the Disciplinary Commission (or such other shorter time period as ordered in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 92.5), serve on The League and any other party to the original proceedings:
94.3.1 written notice of the intention to bring a Disciplinary Appeal; and
94.3.2 a statement setting out the grounds of the Disciplinary Appeal.
94.4 Any party wishing to bring a Disciplinary Appeal shall also lodge with The League a deposit of £1,500 in respect of the costs of the Disciplinary Appeal.
94.5 Any party against whom penalties were imposed under Regulation 92 may apply, initially in writing, to the League Arbitration Tribunal for an order that such penalties be suspended pending the resolution of the Disciplinary Appeal. The League Arbitration Tribunal shall determine any such application having regard to the merits of the Disciplinary Appeal and the representations of the other parties.
94.6 No new evidence shall be admitted in respect of a Disciplinary Appeal unless the League Arbitration Panel determines that:
94.6.1 the evidence was not available at the time of the hearing before notwithstanding the exercise of reasonable diligence by the person seeking to introduce it;
94.6.2 the evidence is credible; and
94.6.3 the evidence is relevant.
94.7 Following a Disciplinary Appeal, the League Arbitration Tribunal shall have the power to:
94.7.1 confirm the decision; or
94.7.2 set aside the decision in whole or in part and substitute a new decision; or
94.7.3 order a rehearing before a differently constituted Disciplinary Commission.
The hearing was weeks ago. A prompt announcement would have given time for an appeal and hearing.
It all just stinks. 😷9 -
The EFL could appeal the decision to defer the points deduction until next season but they obviously won’t, despite the fact that any appeal from them could be limited to that discrete issue. With the 14 day period to lodge an appeal, followed by the need to constitute a League Arbitration Panel, the appeal would not be determined until after the start of next season on 12 September. Wednesday would also doubtless cross-appeal the 12 point deduction in order to drag things out further.Rather than ensuring that cases are dealt with “justly and expeditiously”, the EFL’s primary concern is to get the fixtures out in a couple of weeks to facilitate the administration of the competition and to keep Sky and its other commercial partners happy. This is, after all, ‘The Sky Bet Championship’.It will be interesting to see what the award says about the rationale behind the deferral but I fear it would be an uphill struggle for Charlton successfully to challenge this through the courts. A judge might well apply the ‘Wednesbury test’, in which event the court would only intervene if it concluded that:
- in making the decision, the Disciplinary Commission took into account factors that ought not to have been taken into account, or
- the Commission failed to take into account factors that ought to have been taken into account, or
- the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable Commission would ever have considerEd imposing it.
In relation to the third limb, was the decision to defer the points deduction so unreasonable that no reasonable Commission could have reached that conclusion ? The fact that some would and some would not is insufficient for a court to substitute its own opinion, provided that the Commission’s decision was within a broad band of reasonableness.
it would, in any event, take months for Charlton to pursue a challenge through the courts. By then, the die will long have been cast.The appalling delays in the case have made the points deferral a self-fulfilling prophesy. Some of the delay is doubtless attributable to Covid-19 but there is no reason why the hearing could not have taken place remotely.The brutal reality is that we are very probably stuck with the consequences of these shambolic proceedings.1 -
I suspect that the reason they will give for deferring the points penalty will be that they wanted to avoid a situation where the actual consequences of their decision are already known. This may be because the Birmingham situation last year made them look stupid because the punishment was effectively no punishment at all (although, in fairness, Birmingham’s fate wasn’t confirmed at the time they issued the deduction, so as ridiculous as that decision was, it could feasibly have relegated them).The irony would be that they’ve got this decision wrong too, but for the opposite reason.At the end of the day, if they were going to defer any points penalty, they should have said that earlier. Then everyone would’ve known where they stood, and challenges from Barnsley, us and anyone else with an interest could’ve been prepared, tabled and dealt with long before the end of the season.
This season really has been the most appallingly heart wrenching season. Hopes dashed time and again. Absolutely everything that could’ve gone wrong for us did go wrong. This is just the final insult in a long list of insults.3 -
Did Sheffield Utd successfully sue West Ham after they avoided relegation even though they were playing invalid players?Maybe we could sue Sheffield Wednesday. They have bags of money so I am sure they would cough.1
- Sponsored links:
-
On this though, “because the Birmingham situation last year made them look stupid because the punishment was effectively no punishment at all”, on one level that’s not the point as the punishment isn’t meant to be definitive relegation. It’s meant to be a proportionate points deduction so if it doesn’t lead to relegation then so be it. The regulation should just state the cut off point at which they’re applied this season/next season and then there’s no issue. In my opinion, the guiding principle should be that applying the deduction sooner is better since the seasons nearer to the crime should be the ones they’re benefiting more from the crime and that unfair benefit should get incrementally less every season. The later you leave it the more your randomly benefitting other clubs who so happen to be in the league at the time, further undermining the credibility of the overall competition. Whether the Birmingham got relegated is n/a if the framework was set out transparently something like that, and they wouldn’t look stupid imo if those were simply the rules and they were applying them. They make themselves need to make awkward godly decisions by not having clear rules.3
-
More importantly, if IPS and Elliott do successfully follow up with their challenge, they will have to pay Uncle Roland £1.5m.msomerton said:Were is the money for this an appeal to come from, with the club on it`s uppers they should just take it on the chin, as very unlikely they can get the decision changed.
Does anyone see them paying money out on the off chance they will win, so will have to pay more money out?
They won't follow up on this threat, it's just bollox.2 -
I see the Wiki page has been locked due to "vandalism".
TBF that is why I went to the Wiki page.9 -
According to a CL friend it’s ‘Only 18k Swiss francs to appeal to the CAS. Just need a pro bono lawyer.‘TellyTubby said:
More importantly, if IPS and Elliott do successfully follow up with their challenge, they will have to pay Uncle Roland £1.5m.msomerton said:Were is the money for this an appeal to come from, with the club on it`s uppers they should just take it on the chin, as very unlikely they can get the decision changed.
Does anyone see them paying money out on the off chance they will win, so will have to pay more money out?
They won't follow up on this threat, it's just bollox.0 -
There is a barrister in the trust. If she could/would do anything we could set up crowd funding to finance it.JamesSeed said:
According to a CL friend it’s ‘Only 18k Swiss francs to appeal to the CAS. Just need a pro bono lawyer.‘TellyTubby said:
More importantly, if IPS and Elliott do successfully follow up with their challenge, they will have to pay Uncle Roland £1.5m.msomerton said:Were is the money for this an appeal to come from, with the club on it`s uppers they should just take it on the chin, as very unlikely they can get the decision changed.
Does anyone see them paying money out on the off chance they will win, so will have to pay more money out?
They won't follow up on this threat, it's just bollox.
3 -
2nd main story in the Times sports supplement yesterday .. if more of the media were to get behind this piss take by the EFL/'independent tribunal' then there is a possibility of a rethink .. or is that just wishful thinking ?
2 -
Any chance of a link, please?Lincsaddick said:2nd main story in the Times sports supplement yesterday .. if more of the media were to get behind this piss take by the EFL/'independent tribunal' then there is a possibility of a rethink .. or is that just wishful thinking ?0 -
It’s the printed supplement.Eynsfordaddick said:
Any chance of a link, please?Lincsaddick said:2nd main story in the Times sports supplement yesterday .. if more of the media were to get behind this piss take by the EFL/'independent tribunal' then there is a possibility of a rethink .. or is that just wishful thinking ?
2 -
you have to be an online subscriber, I buy the paper .. you can try thetimes.co.uk and see how you get on .. you might get a 'trial period' for free ..Eynsfordaddick said:
Any chance of a link, please?Lincsaddick said:2nd main story in the Times sports supplement yesterday .. if more of the media were to get behind this piss take by the EFL/'independent tribunal' then there is a possibility of a rethink .. or is that just wishful thinking ?
OR .. contact Seed J lol1 -
You have my respect for being so optimistic, but I can’t see any way we’ll get anything positive out of this past season. It’s been the perfect storm of corruption, disloyalty, poor decisions, bad luck and incompetence.Lincsaddick said:2nd main story in the Times sports supplement yesterday .. if more of the media were to get behind this piss take by the EFL/'independent tribunal' then there is a possibility of a rethink .. or is that just wishful thinking ?
As much as it would be lovely to get a slice of good news at the end of it, I’m inclined to write this season off as the most demoralising and heartbreaking season I can remember and I want to consign it to history immediately.1 - Sponsored links:
-
I tend to agree .. and wishful thinking is probably the question's answerlordromford said:
You have my respect for being so optimistic, but I can’t see any way we’ll get anything positive out of this past season. It’s been the perfect storm of corruption, disloyalty, poor decisions, bad luck and incompetence.Lincsaddick said:2nd main story in the Times sports supplement yesterday .. if more of the media were to get behind this piss take by the EFL/'independent tribunal' then there is a possibility of a rethink .. or is that just wishful thinking ?
As much as it would be lovely to get a slice of good news at the end of it, I’m inclined to write this season off as the most demoralising and heartbreaking season I can remember and I want to consign it to history immediately.
1 -
This is spooky,I have just been discussing this with my wife(around 65 years service to Charlton each) and we said exactly the same.Every day more depressing news,never a glimmer of hope in the press,should we be here next year,it must be better.lordromford said:
You have my respect for being so optimistic, but I can’t see any way we’ll get anything positive out of this past season. It’s been the perfect storm of corruption, disloyalty, poor decisions, bad luck and incompetence.Lincsaddick said:2nd main story in the Times sports supplement yesterday .. if more of the media were to get behind this piss take by the EFL/'independent tribunal' then there is a possibility of a rethink .. or is that just wishful thinking ?
As much as it would be lovely to get a slice of good news at the end of it, I’m inclined to write this season off as the most demoralising and heartbreaking season I can remember and I want to consign it to history immediately.2 -
Just to be clear, I “liked” your post because I agree with you, not because anything either of us have said about the season is something I actually “like”!thickandthin63 said:
This is spooky,I have just been discussing this with my wife(around 65 years service to Charlton each) and we said exactly the same.Every day more depressing news,never a glimmer of hope in the press,should we be here next year,it must be better.lordromford said:
You have my respect for being so optimistic, but I can’t see any way we’ll get anything positive out of this past season. It’s been the perfect storm of corruption, disloyalty, poor decisions, bad luck and incompetence.Lincsaddick said:2nd main story in the Times sports supplement yesterday .. if more of the media were to get behind this piss take by the EFL/'independent tribunal' then there is a possibility of a rethink .. or is that just wishful thinking ?
As much as it would be lovely to get a slice of good news at the end of it, I’m inclined to write this season off as the most demoralising and heartbreaking season I can remember and I want to consign it to history immediately.
😫1 -
I intend to send the letter below to the EFL later today (due to CV19 restrictions can only do this via e-mail)
CAST and the Club will be sending their own versions plus others but I'm of the opinion that if these matters are raised now with the chair of the EFL (Rick Parry) he might consider the course of action the suggested in this letter - i.e. the EFL can as I understand it, appeal the IDC decision to defer the points deduction rather than risk this dragging into the courts.Mr. R. Parry
Chairman EFL
10-12 West Cliff
PRESTON PR1 8HU cc:matthew.pennycook.mp@parliament.uk cc:chair@castrust.org
02/08/2020
SHEFFIELD WEDNESDAY F.C. POINTS DEDUCTION TO BE DEFERRED UNTIL SEASON 2020-2021
Dear Mr. Parry,
I write in order to welcome the decision of the Independent Disciplinary Commission (IDC) advising the EFL in recommending that the EFL deduct 12 points from Sheffield Wednesday FC as a result of being found guilty of financial misconduct (i.e. breaching the profitability and sustainability rules for the three-season reporting period ending with season 2017-18).
However, I am sure you will share with me and many in the wider football community the sense of outrage that the IDC saw fit also to recommend that the points deduction be deferred until next season. Should the EFL accept the recommendation regarding the deferral then this will send a clear message to any would-be unscrupulous club owners that the gamble to engage in financial misconduct (cheating) could be worth it as the punishment does not fit the ‘crime’.
By way of explanation: as a result of irregularities in Sheffield Wednesday’s financial reporting over the three year period ending in 2017-18 the club was able to accrue and disperse resources (for example in player signings, contracts and wages) for the seasons 2018-19 and 2019-20, over and above that which would have been available had the club been previously compliant with the rules. This means that Sheffield Wednesday were operating at an unfair advantage over all other Championship clubs who stayed within the rules when partaking in the 2018-19 and 2019-20 seasons.
In addition to the seemingly extraordinary amount of time it took for the IDC to come to a conclusion of guilt against Sheffield Wednesday the decision to defer the penalty until next season allows that club to profit yet further into a third season despite the penalty imposed. This is because, not only will Sheffield Wednesday gain financially from finishing in 16th position in the Championship table (rather than 23rd) but they will receive a share of Sky-Bet TV money for next season (2020-21) which will not be received by the club (in this instance Charlton Athletic) who are relegated - effectively as a result of Sheffield Wednesday having cheated and with the punishment for cheating being delayed.
By any accounting method this is patently unfair and will result in a club which followed the profitability and sustainability rules being more heavily punished in financial terms that the club which broke them.
Given all of the above, I urge you to take the necessary steps to appeal the IDC decision relating to the timing of the points deduction and put forward strong arguments as to why the points sanction against Sheffield Wednesday should be imposed this season rather than the next.
Any other course of action would amount to a dereliction of duty and the integrity of the EFL and its Championship competition will surely be brought into total disrepute should it refuse to act in this matter in the way in which the wider football world and even the general public I suspect would agree is required of you.
I have copied this letter to the Member of Parliament for Greenwich and Woolwich whom I know is taking a great interest in this matter (Charlton Athletic FC being in his constituency) and I hope this letter and others he may receive will provide him with the ammunition to air his concerns in Parliament until this matter is resolved in the only satisfactory way in which it can be and that is for justice not to be delayed and for Charlton Athletic not to be relegated and so heavily and unfairly penalised for the failings of another club to keep their house in order.
Yours sincerely
Dr. John P. XXXXXXXXXX BA. FSA
XXXXX X
XXX XXXXXXX
Devon
35 -
Great letter Dr John!1
-
Very Ironic that this article appeared next to a picture of fat frank who also contributed to our relegation.JamesSeed said:
It’s the printed supplement.Eynsfordaddick said:
Any chance of a link, please?Lincsaddick said:2nd main story in the Times sports supplement yesterday .. if more of the media were to get behind this piss take by the EFL/'independent tribunal' then there is a possibility of a rethink .. or is that just wishful thinking ?7 -
Yes, excellent letter.0
-
Really good letter Dr John.Coyotejohn1947 said:I intend to send the letter below to the EFL later today (due to CV19 restrictions can only do this via e-mail)
CAST and the Club will be sending their own versions plus others but I'm of the opinion that if these matters are raised now with the chair of the EFL (Rick Parry) he might consider the course of action the suggested in this letter - i.e. the EFL can as I understand it, appeal the IDC decision to defer the points deduction rather than risk this dragging into the courts.Mr. R. Parry
Chairman EFL
10-12 West Cliff
PRESTON PR1 8HU cc:matthew.pennycook.mp@parliament.uk cc:chair@castrust.org
02/08/2020
SHEFFIELD WEDNESDAY F.C. POINTS DEDUCTION TO BE DEFERRED UNTIL SEASON 2020-2021
Dear Mr. Parry,
I write in order to welcome the decision of the Independent Disciplinary Commission (IDC) advising the EFL in recommending that the EFL deduct 12 points from Sheffield Wednesday FC as a result of being found guilty of financial misconduct (i.e. breaching the profitability and sustainability rules for the three-season reporting period ending with season 2017-18).
However, I am sure you will share with me and many in the wider football community the sense of outrage that the IDC saw fit also to recommend that the points deduction be deferred until next season. Should the EFL accept the recommendation regarding the deferral then this will send a clear message to any would-be unscrupulous club owners that the gamble to engage in financial misconduct (cheating) could be worth it as the punishment does not fit the ‘crime’.
By way of explanation: as a result of irregularities in Sheffield Wednesday’s financial reporting over the three year period ending in 2017-18 the club was able to accrue and disperse resources (for example in player signings, contracts and wages) for the seasons 2018-19 and 2019-20, over and above that which would have been available had the club been previously compliant with the rules. This means that Sheffield Wednesday were operating at an unfair advantage over all other Championship clubs who stayed within the rules when partaking in the 2018-19 and 2019-20 seasons.
In addition to the seemingly extraordinary amount of time it took for the IDC to come to a conclusion of guilt against Sheffield Wednesday the decision to defer the penalty until next season allows that club to profit yet further into a third season despite the penalty imposed. This is because, not only will Sheffield Wednesday gain financially from finishing in 16th position in the Championship table (rather than 23rd) but they will receive a share of Sky-Bet TV money for next season (2020-21) which will not be received by the club (in this instance Charlton Athletic) who are relegated - effectively as a result of Sheffield Wednesday having cheated and with the punishment for cheating being delayed.
By any accounting method this is patently unfair and will result in a club which followed the profitability and sustainability rules being more heavily punished in financial terms that the club which broke them.
Given all of the above, I urge you to take the necessary steps to appeal the IDC decision relating to the timing of the points deduction and put forward strong arguments as to why the points sanction against Sheffield Wednesday should be imposed this season rather than the next.
Any other course of action would amount to a dereliction of duty and the integrity of the EFL and its Championship competition will surely be brought into total disrepute should it refuse to act in this matter in the way in which the wider football world and even the general public I suspect would agree is required of you.
I have copied this letter to the Member of Parliament for Greenwich and Woolwich whom I know is taking a great interest in this matter (Charlton Athletic FC being in his constituency) and I hope this letter and others he may receive will provide him with the ammunition to air his concerns in Parliament until this matter is resolved in the only satisfactory way in which it can be and that is for justice not to be delayed and for Charlton Athletic not to be relegated and so heavily and unfairly penalised for the failings of another club to keep their house in order.
Yours sincerely
Dr. John P. XXXXXXXXXX BA. FSA
XXXXX X
XXX XXXXXXX
Devon
0 -
https://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/business/wigan-charlton-appeals-could-affect-efl-championship-relegations/
Probably nothing new, but thought I'd share it.2 -
There are a lot of fans from across the Football league that are annoyed about this decision, I was amazed just how many. They don’t often achieve much, but has anyone seen a petition to the EFL about this? I’m sure thousands would sign one.1
