Macclesfield | Page 10 | Vital Football

Macclesfield

Chesterimp

Vital 1st Team Regular
I have no issue with Macclesfield being punished. I take issue with how Sheffield Wednesday and Bolton were not properly punished.
This: it's the lack of consistency which is a major part of the problem, the punishement 'menu' Impartiality set out earlier gives clarity. So it won't happen, unfortunately.
 

Scotimp

Vital Football Legend
The EFL used a flawed PPG calculation, which, because of Macc's deductions, ended up punishing them by more points than they should have done.

Even with the new deductions, I think they'd have survived.
I suspect they would still have gone down, Luke. Barney, can you check this out? I am not a mathematician. I think the only question is whether or not the points deductions were commensurate with the club's misconduct, and that is a bit of a grey area because they were determined by an independent commission, rather than on a published scale.

There is no doubt that Macclesfield have been run appallingly, and they don't have any real defence there. Further to being a football club, it is essentially a business which is contracted to pay its employees in the same way as any other employer: Macclesfield have repeatedly failed to do that, causing hardship to staff and their families. It is a shame for their fans, but that is the base line here.

At the end of the day, the problem is that the town isn't big enough to support League football with Manchester nearby, and the club cannot be a viable entity without input from its owner. Macclesfield had the opposite: when the owner either cannot or will not put money in, everything collapses. Ergo, the salary cap.
 

plumbob

Vital Football Hero
Full statement:
“The charges related to failing to pay a number of players on the applicable payment dates due in March 2020, failing to act with utmost good faith in respect of matters with the EFL and for breaching an order, requirement, direction or instruction of the League."
Wasn't similar implied with regard to Manchester City in their appeal to UEFA? What happened there?
I know its not the EFL, but as usual the big boys can do as they please regardless of who is supposed to call the shots.
 

Luke Imp

Alert Team
Staff member
I suspect they would still have gone down, Luke. Barney, can you check this out? I am not a mathematician. I think the only question is whether or not the points deductions were commensurate with the club's misconduct, and that is a bit of a grey area because they were determined by an independent commission, rather than on a published scale.

There is no doubt that Macclesfield have been run appallingly, and they don't have any real defence there. Further to being a football club, it is essentially a business which is contracted to pay its employees in the same way as any other employer: Macclesfield have repeatedly failed to do that, causing hardship to staff and their families. It is a shame for their fans, but that is the base line here.

At the end of the day, the problem is that the town isn't big enough to support League football with Manchester nearby, and the club cannot be a viable entity without input from its owner. Macclesfield had the opposite: when the owner either cannot or will not put money in, everything collapses. Ergo, the salary cap.
Yeah, I quoted my own post further down, I think they'd have gone down by around 0.5 points.
 
Yeah, I quoted my own post further down, I think they'd have gone down by around 0.5 points.
I think Lincoln City proposed an amendment to the EFL proposals for points per game to be the deciding factor. Our proposal highlighted that point deductions being applied to a clubs total before the average points per game calculation had the effect of increasing the punishment even further.

Taking the Macclesfield scenario, without the deduction, they would have achieved an expected points total of 36pts/37 games x 46 = 44.757 pts. Deduct the 17 point punishment from that, and Macc would have finished on 27.757 pts.

Using the EFL formula, Macc's expected points total is now 19pts/37 games x 46 = 23.622 points.

This means the punishment was increased from 17 points deducted from the total had the season been completed properly to 21.135 pts by the end of the 46th game.

Despite this obvious anomaly, Lincoln's proposal was thrown out.

However, Luke is quite right. Even with the Lincoln proposal giving Macclesfield 27.757 points, Stevenage would have finished with 22pts/36 games x 46 = 28.111 pts, leaving Macc to be relegated by 0.354 points anyway !
 

buckielugger

Vital 1st Team Regular
I think Lincoln City proposed an amendment to the EFL proposals for points per game to be the deciding factor. Our proposal highlighted that point deductions being applied to a clubs total before the average points per game calculation had the effect of increasing the punishment even further.

Taking the Macclesfield scenario, without the deduction, they would have achieved an expected points total of 36pts/37 games x 46 = 44.757 pts. Deduct the 17 point punishment from that, and Macc would have finished on 27.757 pts.

Using the EFL formula, Macc's expected points total is now 19pts/37 games x 46 = 23.622 points.

This means the punishment was increased from 17 points deducted from the total had the season been completed properly to 21.135 pts by the end of the 46th game.

Despite this obvious anomaly, Lincoln's proposal was thrown out.

However, Luke is quite right. Even with the Lincoln proposal giving Macclesfield 27.757 points, Stevenage would have finished with 22pts/36 games x 46 = 28.111 pts, leaving Macc to be relegated by 0.354 points anyway !

Top maths there !
No surprise!!
 

Barney Imp

Vital Football Hero
I suspect they would still have gone down, Luke. Barney, can you check this out? I am not a mathematician. I think the only question is whether or not the points deductions were commensurate with the club's misconduct, and that is a bit of a grey area because they were determined by an independent commission, rather than on a published scale.

There is no doubt that Macclesfield have been run appallingly, and they don't have any real defence there. Further to being a football club, it is essentially a business which is contracted to pay its employees in the same way as any other employer: Macclesfield have repeatedly failed to do that, causing hardship to staff and their families. It is a shame for their fans, but that is the base line here.

At the end of the day, the problem is that the town isn't big enough to support League football with Manchester nearby, and the club cannot be a viable entity without input from its owner. Macclesfield had the opposite: when the owner either cannot or will not put money in, everything collapses. Ergo, the salary cap.
I see Cotty has done a fine job already - it is curious how they would have been relegated whether the reduction was applied before or after the calculation on ppg...
 

S6Ian

Vital Youth Team
I wonder who the other club is? Maybe Southend.
If that is true, looks like a bit more mud to sling around yet
Not sure it will be Southend , as although it is well known they have defaulted on payments to players, staff and just about everybody else,the article mentions no sanctions have been brought. Southend have been dealt with for those non payments by means of suspended points deduction, which is effective for the next year I believe.
 

clanfordimp

Vital Squad Member
Can't rumble on for much longer!

Pretty sure the NL confirmed 3rd October start date, so that ends that avenue for them.
What Macc are saying is that the National League usually starts a week before the Football League. If the National League have confirmed their start date as Oct.3 that is 3 weeks after the Football League and a month after usually when the league would start. If the Football League deem it unreasonable for the National League to be starting their League late then Macc should be retained in the Football League and Harrogate will remain in the National League.

Theres about as much chance as that happening as Steve Evan's never going into McDonald's again