Martinez1986
Vital Squad Member
Had there punishment cut to six points jammy twohats
sheff wed
- Thread starter Martinez1986
- Start date
moonay
Vital Football Legend
jeffs right
Vital Football Hero
Just about right. Let off like Bolton were over two postponed games.
FrancosLoveChild
Vital Football Hero
Honestly it feels like every club around us does something to warrant punishment and get away with it, and alot of sympathy while Wigan get the no nonsense full punishment for something that is beyond our control, all while clubs who get rewarded for the EFLs screw up rub it in our face while we're down.
hindleymonwafc
Vital Champions League
Make it all the more satisfying when we beat um all again on the way back up.
Made in Wigan
Vital Champions League
I bet Barnsley are spewing. So it’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Mighty Bongsmon
Vital Squad Member
Latics "crime" & Sheff Weds are 2 completely different things - it's like comparing assault with burglary & they have different punishments too
Unfortunately for us, entering administration is the only thing under the rules of the EFL competition that has a set punishment regardless of the circumstances of entering administration with the exception of a narrow definition of force majeure. If you enter administration it's a 12 point penalty under the rules of the competition & they are rules that Latics signed up to.
When Blackpool didn;t get deducted points they were able to argue that whilst they were put in to administration it wasn't an administrative event (it was ordered by the judge to allow the other fella to purchase the club after he'd been diddled by the Oystons)
Whilst we argue that what happened wasn't our fault & it was dodgy as hell (both true), our owner deliberately put us in to administration as a result of a decision that he was no longer prepared to cover our losses. We can, rightfully IMO, argue about his motives for doing so but under the rules of the EFL the owner and club are one & the same so the punishment was applied as it stands under the rules.
IMO what Sheff Weds did is far worse but there is no set punishment for it which is why the independent tribunal can decide to change what that punishment was if they felt it was unduly harsh. I believe that it was acknowledged in the original case that they didn't do it deliberately to flout rules but the EFL were merely unhappy with the timing of it
Bolton were able to use the rules of the EFL around players below a certain age to argue that they were just following them.
So whilst Hampton says Latics are the only club to appeal & not get a points reduction, it's because the rules of the EFL don't give any room for manoeuvre around the administration punishment. Its 12 points & the club/administrators always said that it would either be a zero point reduction coz they'd gotten around the EFL admin definition or it would be 12 points & there wasn't any scope for a sliding scale of reduction. No other club has appealed an administration penalty and got the 12 points reduced
Unfortunately for us, entering administration is the only thing under the rules of the EFL competition that has a set punishment regardless of the circumstances of entering administration with the exception of a narrow definition of force majeure. If you enter administration it's a 12 point penalty under the rules of the competition & they are rules that Latics signed up to.
When Blackpool didn;t get deducted points they were able to argue that whilst they were put in to administration it wasn't an administrative event (it was ordered by the judge to allow the other fella to purchase the club after he'd been diddled by the Oystons)
Whilst we argue that what happened wasn't our fault & it was dodgy as hell (both true), our owner deliberately put us in to administration as a result of a decision that he was no longer prepared to cover our losses. We can, rightfully IMO, argue about his motives for doing so but under the rules of the EFL the owner and club are one & the same so the punishment was applied as it stands under the rules.
IMO what Sheff Weds did is far worse but there is no set punishment for it which is why the independent tribunal can decide to change what that punishment was if they felt it was unduly harsh. I believe that it was acknowledged in the original case that they didn't do it deliberately to flout rules but the EFL were merely unhappy with the timing of it
Bolton were able to use the rules of the EFL around players below a certain age to argue that they were just following them.
So whilst Hampton says Latics are the only club to appeal & not get a points reduction, it's because the rules of the EFL don't give any room for manoeuvre around the administration punishment. Its 12 points & the club/administrators always said that it would either be a zero point reduction coz they'd gotten around the EFL admin definition or it would be 12 points & there wasn't any scope for a sliding scale of reduction. No other club has appealed an administration penalty and got the 12 points reduced
moonay
Vital Football Legend
That's not strictly true MB. You're obviously correct that the automatic penalty is a 12 points deduction, but on appeal, the panel had the ability to vary that penalty.
12.18 The League Arbitration Panel shall have the power to:
12.18.1 confirm the deduction of 12 points; or
12.18.2 set aside the deduction of 12 points and substitute a deduction of such lower number of points as it shall deem appropriate; or
12.18.3 order that there shall be no sanction at all.
I still can't believe the decision. Given the circumstances at the time - outside the normal season, & no crowds - even if the panel thought that the act of us going into administration didn't come under the definition of "force majeure", surely, the surrounding circumstances justified them using their option to give a decision under 12.18.2.
It's still scandalous.
Mighty Bongsmon
Vital Squad Member
I was just going off what the admin and the lawyer said. It was either no points or 12. I might be wrong but I’m sure the efl said it too
That aside, Covid had absolutely nothing to do with the decision to put us in administration. The whole sale was about getting us off IEC & Choi’s hands. And the fact that au Young bought us 3 months in to the lockdown and was looking to liquidate us before he even had sole control made his argument that it was Covid related look as pathetic as a kid telling his teacher that the dog ate his homework
We were shafted good and proper. I know that, you know that, the efl know that and the panel at the appeal knew that but ultimately the owner made deliberately moved us into administration and there was no way on earth that it was force majeure
moonay
Vital Football Legend
You're quite right that's what they said MB (re it being 12 or nowt), but reading the EFL's regulations, it clearly offers the option for a reduction, so I'm not really sure why they said that.
As for Covid, I simply meant that in delaying the season, and then crowds not being permitted, Covid had a part to play in the circumstances in which the season was finished, and by implication, the decision by the owners to stop funding the club whilst they had no matchday income. I'm not even saying that we were alone in experiencing these circumstances ................... simply that they existed.
We didn't go into admin because of Covid ................ but having no money coming in probably played a part in the decision to put us into admin................. and the reason we had no money coming in was because of Covid.
Regardless, even purely looking at the force majeure decision, the panel still had the option to vary the penalty. If these weren't considered appropriate circumstances for such a variance to be applied, I'd love for someone to explain what circumstances might be more deserving of a little "leniency".
As for Covid, I simply meant that in delaying the season, and then crowds not being permitted, Covid had a part to play in the circumstances in which the season was finished, and by implication, the decision by the owners to stop funding the club whilst they had no matchday income. I'm not even saying that we were alone in experiencing these circumstances ................... simply that they existed.
We didn't go into admin because of Covid ................ but having no money coming in probably played a part in the decision to put us into admin................. and the reason we had no money coming in was because of Covid.
Regardless, even purely looking at the force majeure decision, the panel still had the option to vary the penalty. If these weren't considered appropriate circumstances for such a variance to be applied, I'd love for someone to explain what circumstances might be more deserving of a little "leniency".
Made in Wigan
Vital Champions League
The efl have provided loans to I believe 6 or 7 clubs in the last month to stop them going bust (into admin). I’m not suggesting they shouldn’t have done so but the fact the governing body is providing these loans to stop administration I’m not sure where this falls under the regulations. If they’d have done similar for us - even a months worth, the circumstances of our club would have been far different given a buyer was ready to do the deal if we’d remained a championship club (if one can believe krasner).
The penalty we suffered was unjust and disproportionate given the circumstances of what occurred.
The penalty we suffered was unjust and disproportionate given the circumstances of what occurred.
Mighty Bongsmon
Vital Squad Member
You're right that it existed but it just didn't/doesn't stack up as the reason he did what he did
If he'd bought us in February, then I think we'd have had a strong case for arguing that it was covid.
The fact that he bought us in partnership with Choi during covid & then took complete control even later during covid (presumably at his request). He could have pulled out an any point & didn't so for him to claim that it was why he looked for the liquidation & then administration was never gonna get bought by the appeal panel
Looking at what you posted about the options open to the EFL & appeals panel I can't say why they stated varying the deductions wasn't an option even before the appeal but as I see it we relied on a business man to provide the shortfall between income & expenditure & as soon as he withdrew that support and said not a penny more we were screwed - regardless of whether he was trying to pull some sort of scam or he did it coz the club had no income coz of covid, the long & short of it is that as a club we were spending more than we earned.
The appeals panel even said as much in their findings & if you do that & that backing is withdrawn you very quickly become unable to pay your creditors & you enter administration
That's why I don't want a new owner who bankrolls anything. I want the club to live within its means & do the best it can on those resources - if that means we never get out of Lge1 again (upwards anyway) then so be it. At least I'll still have a club to support
moonay
Vital Football Legend
Who knows why he did what he did, when he did? More to the point, who's to say that having to play beyond the end of the "normal" season, with no matchday income didn't have any kind of influence ............ it certainly was worthy of consideration, that;s all I'm saying.
It sounds like you (reluctantly?) agree MB that (regardless of what our appeal team said) the option for variation seemed to be available to the panel.
Can't and won't argue re our spending pattern ..........and so I totally agree with your last para MB.
It sounds like you (reluctantly?) agree MB that (regardless of what our appeal team said) the option for variation seemed to be available to the panel.
Can't and won't argue re our spending pattern ..........and so I totally agree with your last para MB.
jocklatic
Vital 1st Team Regular
Seems it's the EFL trademark / MO....do as they want, when they want & to whoever they want. A law unto themselves only me thinks.
Mighty Bongsmon
Vital Squad Member
Who knows why he did what he did, when he did? More to the point, who's to say that having to play beyond the end of the "normal" season, with no matchday income didn't have any kind of influence ............ it certainly was worthy of consideration, that;s all I'm saying.
It sounds like you (reluctantly?) agree MB that (regardless of what our appeal team said) the option for variation seemed to be available to the panel.
Can't and won't argue re our spending pattern ..........and so I totally agree with your last para MB.
And I can't understand those that seem desperate for the new guy to come in and throw money around Now you've pointed out that the option was available then yes I'd agree it was.
Going of the EFL's narrow parameters around administration though I don't think our case was exceptional enough to warrant them doing that for the first administration case, as gutted as I am about that.
When they were appealing I assumed that there was some secret weapon up their sleeve that nobody knew about or some twist on interpreting the rules so was really disappointed when their wasn't and it just felt like a massive waste of time and more importantly money
king_dezeeuw06
Vital Champions League
The only standards the EFL have are double standards. It's a joke we got punished for getting raped by the owner they waved through while Sheff Wed deliberetly cheat and get slap on the wrist by comparison.
Bunch of *****.
Bunch of *****.
Hampton
Vital Football Hero
I'm of the opinion that the EFL are actually on a vendetta against us. One bourne out of the fact that (mainly) supporters of our club have proven without doubt their incompetence and then our club had the temerity to take them on legally.
That our takeover is now being extended in it's due diligence despite our prospective new owners being supported by la liga snacks of ironic retribution to me.
Meanwhile Derby escape scot free following their blatant disregard for FFP.
I'm convinced they are actively looking to ensure we get a further 15pt deduction as a final demonstration of their "support".
If they are proven to have prevented admin events at other clubs by loaning money whilst not deducting points then there's yet another example of double standards.
Would love to win L1 next year and have our club turn it's back on the trophy presentation
UTFT
That our takeover is now being extended in it's due diligence despite our prospective new owners being supported by la liga snacks of ironic retribution to me.
Meanwhile Derby escape scot free following their blatant disregard for FFP.
I'm convinced they are actively looking to ensure we get a further 15pt deduction as a final demonstration of their "support".
If they are proven to have prevented admin events at other clubs by loaning money whilst not deducting points then there's yet another example of double standards.
Would love to win L1 next year and have our club turn it's back on the trophy presentation
UTFT
This should be seen as a positive not a negative. Have these people shown proof of their own funds yet or not?
I'm gonna say this once more because it seems that people on here still don't get it. The EFL did not reduce Sheff Wed's punishment. They deducted 12 points from Sheff Wed, who subsequently appealed the decision via an independent panel separate to the EFL, who have made the ruling that 6 points are to be chalked off the deduction.
We got put into admin because the owner wanted rid of us. He'd made steps towards washing his hands of us late in 2019 with the formation of Next Leader Funds. Even without Covid, we'd have still been put into administration. Folk can moan and whinge at the EFL, but ultimately they got played, just like Jonathan Jackson, just like Darren Royle and just like the fans. You want to waste your breath blaming someone, blame the bastard that did it.
Last edited:
