Methinks Stevenage will be safe from relegation this season.One87One wrote:Macclesfield Town have been charged by the EFL on three counts:
- Late payment of March wages
- Failing to act with utmost good faith in respect of EFL matters
- Breaching order, requirement, direction or instruction of the League
Independent panel to take next steps.
Think the will be regardless of whatever happens to Macclesfield - only way someone gets relegated is if they are kicked out IMO.Sutekh wrote:Methinks Stevenage will be safe from relegation this season.One87One wrote:Macclesfield Town have been charged by the EFL on three counts:
- Late payment of March wages
- Failing to act with utmost good faith in respect of EFL matters
- Breaching order, requirement, direction or instruction of the League
Independent panel to take next steps.
by Winston Biscuit » 01 Jul 2020 16:55
01 Jul 2020 16:55They have a very tough job on their hands but it's by no means certain they will go down.Silver Fox wrote:Desperate times I guess as that pretty much ensures their relegation
They will lose the points this season if they finish above 22nd. Therefore they are technically currently 4 points away from safety given they are 8 points ahead of Hull (currently 22nd).Winston Biscuit wrote:They have a very tough job on their hands but it's by no means certain they will go down.Silver Fox wrote:Desperate times I guess as that pretty much ensures their relegation
This points deduction puts them 4 points below 4th from bottom but with a much better GD than anyone else down there. They have won 6 of their last 7 games without conceding a goal and of their 6 remaining games 3 are against teams also fighting relegation.
It's a shame for them that they have Brentford next as that good run, and their positive momentum, is likely to be ended there.
by Winston Biscuit » 01 Jul 2020 20:54
01 Jul 2020 20:54I think we are agreeing with each other, unless I misunderstand summatSutekh wrote:They will lose the points this season if they finish above 22nd. Therefore they are technically currently 4 points away from safety given they are 8 points ahead of Hull (currently 22nd).Winston Biscuit wrote:They have a very tough job on their hands but it's by no means certain they will go down.Silver Fox wrote:Desperate times I guess as that pretty much ensures their relegation
This points deduction puts them 4 points below 4th from bottom but with a much better GD than anyone else down there. They have won 6 of their last 7 games without conceding a goal and of their 6 remaining games 3 are against teams also fighting relegation.
It's a shame for them that they have Brentford next as that good run, and their positive momentum, is likely to be ended there.
by Snowflake Royal » 03 Jul 2020 11:15
03 Jul 2020 11:15Seems to be a suggestion of shady goings on with dodgy relegation bets...6ft Kerplunk wrote:They got taken over a month or so ago didn't they? Guess the EFL had put the fit and proper owner tester on furlough.
by dizzynewheights » 03 Jul 2020 15:28
03 Jul 2020 15:28Like QPR did ?Sutekh wrote:If Villa and Bournemouth get relegated are they likely to have FFP problems thrown at them by the FL for overspending to get promoted?
Quality work from UEFA there then, what took them so long to charge City and if it takes 5+ years to unravel the various strands of a club’s finance what exactly is the point in putting a limit on it in the first place?Sanguine wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jul/28/verdict-that-kept-manchester-city-in-europe-delivers-some-glancing-blows-cas-judgment
CAS reveals the reasons for its lifting of sanctions on City, and doesn't vindicate the club's position at all. In essence, CAS found that UEFA was right to conclude that 'sponsorship' payments made in 2012/13 were in fact equity monies from Etihad, but that UEFA had broken their own rules in prosecuting these as they were time-barred (five years) - UEFA tried to get around this by badging the irregularities as having taken place in 2014. The additional twist of course is that these only came to light through leaked emails in 2018.
In short - City cheated, but UEFA's own rules barred them from punishing the club.
Seems to me a simple tweak to rules would be to remove any time bar whatsoever.
Good luck taking a backdated rule through the courts.Sutekh wrote:Quality work from UEFA there then, what took them so long to charge City and if it takes 5+ years to unravel the various strands of a club’s finance what exactly is the point in putting a limit on it in the first place?Sanguine wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/football/2020/jul/28/verdict-that-kept-manchester-city-in-europe-delivers-some-glancing-blows-cas-judgment
CAS reveals the reasons for its lifting of sanctions on City, and doesn't vindicate the club's position at all. In essence, CAS found that UEFA was right to conclude that 'sponsorship' payments made in 2012/13 were in fact equity monies from Etihad, but that UEFA had broken their own rules in prosecuting these as they were time-barred (five years) - UEFA tried to get around this by badging the irregularities as having taken place in 2014. The additional twist of course is that these only came to light through leaked emails in 2018.
In short - City cheated, but UEFA's own rules barred them from punishing the club.
Seems to me a simple tweak to rules would be to remove any time bar whatsoever.
The other question is could UEFA remove the time bar and then charge City again?
by Old Man Andrews » 30 Jul 2020 09:16
30 Jul 2020 09:16Users browsing this forum: dogmark01, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 16 guests