Bits & Bobs - Page 60

NORTHERNSOUL · 14-08-2020, 09:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twenty Eight

I ask again. Look at the offence(s) committed by the respective clubs.
Now give me one good reason for the basis to compare the two cases.

Yes one involved a few thousand quid of wages paid a couple of weeks late the other involved millions of pounds in a ground purchase scam by an already very dodgy owner.

Yet the team commiting the way more serious offence are given in effect 12 months to put measures into place to negate the effects of the punishment.

andyd · 14-08-2020, 09:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by NORTHERNSOUL

Yes one involved a few thousand quid of wages paid a couple of weeks late the other involved millions of pounds in a ground purchase scam by an already very dodgy owner.

Yet the team commiting the way more serious offence are given in effect 12 months to put measures into place to negate the effects of the punishment.

Stinks.

NORTHERNSOUL · 14-08-2020, 09:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chewbacca

The band on City was not suspended, it was for 2020/21 and 2021/22. City were found not guilty of the main charge.

The case took 4 months to be heard.

Macc have already entered into binding arbitration according to the EFL, which is what Cas is.

It was Maccs 4th offense this season, and they already had a previous deduction reduced, and they were clearly guilty as charged. They can't argue that the points reduction is harsh for a 4th offence.

The binding arbitration only applies to the actual late wages and mal administration charges it doesnt cover anything else like the PPG points deduction issue.

And the whole point is that the FL should start persuing the owners rather than persecuting the clubs where the only people who get hurt are the fans who are totally inocent and did nothing It was the owner who refused to sign the wages cheque it wasnt the guys employed to run the club or indeed definitely not the fans on the terraces.

And the FL shouldnt be going round appealing decisions just because the Stevenage owner pulled strings with his mate Nixon who garnered a number of lower league clubs to support Wallaces call for an appeal against the original decision.

andyd · 17-08-2020, 07:31

Nothing against Oldham but came to light yesterday players wages not being paid again, wonder how the random points deduction system used by the EFL will work on this one, Macclesfield not happy I believe.

Twenty Eight · 17-08-2020, 08:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyd

Stinks.

So its ok for a club to fail to fulfill two fixtures and to attempt to play in a stadium with no safety certificate ?

andyd · 17-08-2020, 09:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twenty Eight

So its ok for a club to fail to fulfill two fixtures and to attempt to play in a stadium with no safety certificate ?

No it isn't but the EFL is too inconsistent apparently they wanted Wednesday relegated but cocked up preparing wrong case and were late bringing the right one so Wednesday escaped from the drop, Derby well that's anyone's guess.

Chewbacca · 17-08-2020, 10:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by NORTHERNSOUL

The binding arbitration only applies to the actual late wages and mal administration charges it doesnt cover anything else like the PPG points deduction issue.

And the whole point is that the FL should start persuing the owners rather than persecuting the clubs where the only people who get hurt are the fans who are totally inocent and did nothing It was the owner who refused to sign the wages cheque it wasnt the guys employed to run the club or indeed definitely not the fans on the terraces.

And the FL shouldnt be going round appealing decisions just because the Stevenage owner pulled strings with his mate Nixon who garnered a number of lower league clubs to support Wallaces call for an appeal against the original decision.

If the points fine was taken after PPG Macc end up with 27.76 compared to Stevenage's 28.11.

Not an issue in the end.

Twenty Eight · 17-08-2020, 14:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyd

No it isn't but the EFL is too inconsistent apparently they wanted Wednesday relegated but cocked up preparing wrong case and were late bringing the right one so Wednesday escaped from the drop, Derby well that's anyone's guess.

So why compare the two cases ?
Poor old Macclesfield this and that - they deserved to get hammered.
Suggesting that leniency has been applied to SWFC because they're a "big club" is ridiculous.
They might have avoided the drop .... but get ready.

Twenty Eight · 17-08-2020, 14:24

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53792727

andyd · 17-08-2020, 14:32

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twenty Eight

So why compare the two cases ?
Poor old Macclesfield this and that - they deserved to get hammered.
Suggesting that leniency has been applied to SWFC because they're a "big club" is ridiculous.
They might have avoided the drop .... but get ready.

I never said poor old Macclesfield but in a world where if you can afford a better lawyer has crept into football it is because it is dripping money at the top end any one breaking the games rules should be punished rightly so but all the same and consistency should be implemented, too many people sucking money out of the game.

Twenty Eight · 17-08-2020, 15:54

So now its the Lawyers fault ? .......... I give up.
Rules are rules.

andyd · 17-08-2020, 16:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Twenty Eight

So now its the Lawyers fault ? .......... I give up.
Rules are rules.

Rules broken should have set punishment procedure,s followed quite simply with no need for costly appeals unless you are found wrongly guilty which Wednesday weren't in the original charge which if done quickly would have seen them rightfully relegated.

Twenty Eight · 17-08-2020, 16:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by andyd

Rules broken should have set punishment procedure,s followed quite simply with no need for costly appeals unless you are found wrongly guilty which Wednesday weren't in the original charge which if done quickly would have seen them rightfully relegated.

Andy - get your facts right. Sheffield Wednesday were found totally innocent of the initial charge, hence a defence requiring the assistance of Lawyers.
Had they not done so then they would have been found guilty of a very serious charge with ramifications well beyond 12 points deduction.