ContinueWe use cookies to ensure that you get the best experience on our website; if you continue without changing your settings - or dismiss this message - we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on Forums.Football Web Pages.co.uk

Borochat

Return to front page

Newest article: Re: Newton ? by TazToday 01:39Today at 01:39:43view thread

Oldest article: The Times by GarstonBoro7/4 11:49Tue Apr 7 11:49:43 2020view thread

MenuSearch

Next thread: For us oldies. Favourite Subbuteo team bought. by Borojim26/6 17:03Fri Jun 26 17:03:46 2020view thread

Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By Rotterdamboro27/6 13:34Sat Jun 27 13:34:02 2020

Views: 1380

Says ‘several’ League 2 clubs want the EFL to appeal against the disciplinary commission decision to only deduct two points. A slither of hope but welcome news all the same

reply to this article | return to the front page

2 people like this 2 people

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By AndyC27/6 14:33Sat Jun 27 14:33:47 2020In response to Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 1190

https://theathletic.co.uk/1896025/2020/06/27/league-two-clubs-to-appeal-after-macclesfield-spared-relegation/

Anyone able to post the full article?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By Nate (thedrinksbreak)27/6 15:31Sat Jun 27 15:31:40 2020In response to Re: Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 1045

Several League Two clubs want the English Football League to appeal against a disciplinary commission’s decision to deduct only two points from Macclesfield Town for the late payment of wages and misuse of an EFL loan — a ruling that narrowly saved the club from relegation at the expense of Stevenage.

Macclesfield were charged by the EFL on May 27 for failing to pay their players and staff the money they were owed for March, despite receiving a loan of almost £85,000 from the league to settle those debts “in the first instance”. It was the sixth time this season the Cheshire-based club had been late with wages and the third time the EFL had taken them to an independent disciplinary panel.

The three-man panel, which was chaired by Murray Rosen QC, heard the case on June 12, three days after clubs in League One and League Two voted to settle the season on a points-per-game basis, and issued its 18-page verdict a week later.

This meant Macclesfield Town went into the hearing knowing anything worse than a two-point sanction would take them below Stevenage into last place, sending them back to the National League two years after their promotion from the fifth tier.

Given the fact they have also failed to fulfil two league fixtures as scheduled this season, face a winding-up petition from HM Revenue and Customs and still owe former manager Sol Campbell money, many in the game, including the EFL board, expected the club to lose at least three points, sending them down and reprieving Stevenage.

But in a verdict that has caused fury at Stevenage and widespread shock elsewhere, the panel decided Macclesfield were guilty of both main charges but should only lose the two points suspended from their previous sanction in May, with a further four-point sanction suspended for all of next season.

The Athletic understands Carlisle United director John Nixon, the League Two clubs’ representative on the EFL board, was so annoyed he considered resigning and another League Two club chairman has written to the league telling them they must appeal against the verdict so they and several other clubs can make submissions to the judge, calling for a far more severe penalty than just two points.

The EFL is understood to be taking legal opinion on whether an appeal is worthwhile or not, and the league has another week to mull it over.

Meanwhile, Stevenage owner Phil Wallace is considering his options, too, although he has made it very clear he believes the EFL should appeal.

One League Two chairman, who wished to remain nameless, told The Athletic: “I was stunned by the ruling — it’s ridiculous. How can a panel come to that conclusion and then give them that punishment?

“What’s the point of giving a repeat offender another suspended sentence? I thought penalties were meant to increase if you keep breaking the rules — the leniency of these panels is beyond a joke. I think it’s time we made these penalties automatic so every time a club is late with its wages, bang, three points.

“It’s just like Bury last year. Everyone knew they had signed players they couldn’t afford and yet they were allowed to go up to League One, cheating Mansfield out of promotion, and then go bust that summer. Mansfield should’ve sued last year and I wouldn’t be surprised if Stevenage sue this year.”

There are some clubs in the league, though, that back the panel’s decision to let “sporting matters” such as relegations be decided on the pitch and not in arbitration hearings.

They point to the fact that Macclesfield Town did lose a total of 13 points this season but that was effectively rounded up to 16 points because of the effect of using a points-per-game calculation, and if Stevenage could only win three games all season, they only have themselves to blame.

One source even said Stevenage should not forget they faced their own EFL disciplinary charge this season for postponing a game against Oldham Athletic in November when they claimed three of their players had been called up for international duty. If clubs lose more than two players to international call-ups, they are entitled to ask for a postponement.

As it happened, Stevenage defender Luther James-Wildin did not travel abroad, as there was a question mark over his fitness, and there was some confusion over whether or not the call-up was rescinded by the national team in question, in this case Antigua and Barbuda.

The EFL believed the club manipulated the situation to avoid playing Oldham at a time when they had injury problems but the club strongly denied any wrongdoing and the charges were dismissed.

And it should also be pointed out that the Macclesfield situation is different to Bury’s, as Macclesfield did not bring in lots of particularly expensive players and in fact had a very modest budget this season. It is just that their owner, Amar Alkadhi, has been unable to fund the team. That fact is laid out in embarrassing detail in Rosen’s verdict.

Referring to “significant financial shortfalls and mismanagement”, Rosen writes the club has been “living a particularly hand-to-mouth existence”, which meant it faced “a moveable feast — or, rather, famine”.

The ruling also reveals that because one of Alkadhi’s bank accounts had been frozen, he had a habit of “sweeping” money out of the club’s accounts, whether it was really his, the club’s, the taxman’s or owed to somebody else, just so he could keep his hands on some cash, a manoeuvre Rosen described as “juggling”.

And this was effectively what happened to the £85,000 loan the club received from the league on April 14. Instead of using it to pay the outstanding wages he owed players and staff, he paid 80 per cent of their wages and settled a few smaller bills.

On the same day, a sum of £50,000 arrived from another source, which is redacted in the ruling, but £20,000 of this was sent to the club secretary, only for them to immediately send it back, while another £20,000 went to one of Alkadhi’s accounts. Three days later, the players were paid the rest of their wages but the staff had to wait another three weeks. In the meantime, Alkadhi sent £20,000 back to the club account.

Utterly fed up, the league felt it had no choice but to charge the club again, despite the last disciplinary commission in May, when Macclesfield were given a seven-point deduction, saying it was aware of the late payment of the March wage bill but did not believe a charge was necessary under the circumstance the entire country has faced with the coronavirus crisis.

This most recent panel, however, acknowledged that a charge was justified and described Alkadhi’s testimony as “not completely accurate” and said the club “has risked and still risks disaster” under his control.

But despite this “egregious misconduct”, the panel still believed relegating the club would be “disproportionate, unduly harsh and unnecessary”, hence the decision, which it admitted is unusual, to punish the club by activating a suspended sanction from May and impose a new penalty on next season but suspend that, too.

It also imposed a £20,000 fine, ordered the club to pay the EFL’s £7,000 legal bill and demanded a “professionally prepared business plan” by the end of July. This will be drawn up by former Macclesfield Town chairman Mark Blower, who has returned to the club in recent months to help save them. The club believe the judgment to be a fair one and are now concentrating on putting plans in place by the end of next month.

Whether this will work or not remains to be seen but the fact Alkadhi had to borrow £10,000 from the supporters’ trust to pay April’s wage bill does not bode well.

As one rival chairman put it: “Why does the panel think this time will be any different?”

reply to this article | return to the front page

2 people like this 2 people

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By Freemo27/6 16:11Sat Jun 27 16:11:44 2020In response to Re: Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 937

"I think it’s time we made these penalties automatic so every time a club is late with its wages, bang, three points."

I was under the impression that was meant to happen anyway and it was the EFL/disciplinary panels that kept mucking about with it?

The 'decided on the pitch' thing is the same thick shit that was said around the Sheffield United/Tevez thing, as though the entire point of having rules for off the pitch isn't because they influence things on it.

We might as well just let down all our opponent's tires and plough up their training pitch and then when we win go SETTLED ON THE FIELD OF PLAY NOT OUR PROBLEM.

Edited by Freemo at 16:12:16 on 27th June 2020

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By Owen B27/6 16:23Sat Jun 27 16:23:23 2020In response to Re: Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 878

the entire point of having rules for off the pitch isn't because they influence things on it

Absolutely bang on the money.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By AndyC27/6 16:02Sat Jun 27 16:02:43 2020In response to Re: Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 909

Thanks! Pretty damning on them but seems it's only a couple willing to speak up

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By Sev27/6 16:23Sat Jun 27 16:23:10 2020In response to Re: Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 914

Says the Carlisle chairman is on the EFL board and he seems pretty outraged, so hopefully he can convince enough board members to appeal it.

(But I've already accepted relegation and looking forward to a new challenge in the National League).

Edited by Sev at 16:27:32 on 27th June 2020

reply to this article | return to the front page

3 people like this 3 people

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By Pete (PeteH)27/6 17:29Sat Jun 27 17:29:34 2020In response to Re: Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 829

Should relegate Macclesfield as well.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By East Coast Boro27/6 18:30Sat Jun 27 18:30:53 2020In response to Re: Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 732

......Or a typical British fudge ..... keep both of us up, and even promote a 3rd NL team, giving a 26 x teams in L2 = 25 home games a season rather than the current 23 = thus more gate revenue for the bottom EFL league teams ? (As for fixture congestion return the EFL trophy to a straight drawn Cup competitition! with B sides away)
In future season make it 3 up / 3 down between all the EFL leagues and between L2 & NL and adopt the NL playoff system to the EFL .
Oh and set in the EFL rules the actual rules as to set points deductions (Plus an increasing suspended points deduction scale) for financial misconduct, so no need for 'independent' commissions getting involved whilst every one will know the penalties awaiting them.

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By Baldock (BALDOCKBORO)27/6 19:10Sat Jun 27 19:10:14 2020In response to Re: Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 715

Why are we even speculating.

We're down.

If that changes by some miracle I'll have a tattoo of the EFL logo on my arse cheek and you can all throw a dart at it.

(This post does not constitute a legally binding agreement)

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By East Coast Boro28/6 09:24Sun Jun 28 09:24:14 2020In response to Re: Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 487

(This post does not constitute a legally binding agreement)

Which would be good news for all nearby watching.... my darts is crap and lives (& eyes) would be at risk! ;-)

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By Paulio27/6 19:34Sat Jun 27 19:34:02 2020In response to Re: Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 700

Farley bet.

reply to this article | return to the front page

1 person likes this 1 person

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By Owen B27/6 17:59Sat Jun 27 17:59:04 2020In response to Re: Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 788

That's what I said. I've got nothing against us being relegated, we've been woeful.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By Mr Happy SFC27/6 23:02Sat Jun 27 23:02:02 2020In response to Re: Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 582

I wouldn't had we finished the season.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By Owen B27/6 15:35Sat Jun 27 15:35:50 2020In response to Re: Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 927

What an absolute shit show. Incredible.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By Paulio27/6 14:20Sat Jun 27 14:20:10 2020In response to Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 1056

They can’t appeal 🤷‍♂️

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By AndyC27/6 14:26Sat Jun 27 14:26:36 2020In response to Re: Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 1032

Why not?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By Paulio27/6 14:31Sat Jun 27 14:31:55 2020In response to Re: Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 1044

If we can’t appeal, why could another league two club?

Edit: misread that they want the EFL to appeal. Not they want to appeal.

Edited by Paulio at 14:32:25 on 27th June 2020

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By Jonnym827/6 14:03Sat Jun 27 14:03:56 2020In response to Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 1062

Does it name which clubs?

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By Hitchin Callling27/6 16:26Sat Jun 27 16:26:14 2020In response to Re: Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 887

Only now just realise what fully happened re the loan.
It was legally the club who asked for the loan and the terms must have fully been agreed on how it should be used.So surely EFL have to appeal.Especially when you add this to all the other stuff
I appreciate internally their chairman/other officials may be to blame but ultimately they were acting on behalf of the club.

reply to this article | return to the front page

Re: Story by Matt Slater in The Athletic

By Deano (deanos13)27/6 19:57Sat Jun 27 19:57:28 2020In response to Re: Story by Matt Slater in The AthleticTop of thread

Views: 701

I know nothing about this Athletic person. I have my views that shall remain in my head.

The 2 paragraphs about our charge have no fucking bearing whatsoever.

We won. The EFL paid costs. Luther was called up. We had 3 letters. The EFL sanctioned it. The problem was Alex Reid (shock) posted a pic on Insta of Luther at a youth game.

reply to this article | return to the front page

2 people like this 2 people

Previous thread: Interviews by Stevenage FC Interviews27/6 23:04Sat Jun 27 23:04:53 2020view thread