Embargos, HMRC Payment defaults, non payment of wages, the usual under Dai Wrongge

[Ascotexgunner]

Talkshite confirm. 1 point deduction with further points suspended. It never ends.

[PieEater]

Also somewhat bemused by the idea of fining someone (personally) who has been unable to pay.

You fine someone for being unwilling to pay.

Why the personal attack on Dai - ie what cause have they to charge him personally rather than the club.

[Snowball]

Also somewhat bemused by the idea of fining someone (personally) who has been unable to pay.

You fine someone for being unwilling to pay.

Why the personal attack on Dai - ie what cause have they to charge him personally rather than the club.

RACISM

[Snowflake Royal]

Also somewhat bemused by the idea of fining someone (personally) who has been unable to pay.

You fine someone for being unwilling to pay.

Why the personal attack on Dai - ie what cause have they to charge him personally rather than the club.

Because the fukwit is the problem and hasn't acted with integrity and transparency with the FL.

We've got off lightly there. The independent panel sound like they've gone rogue (it happens) and deviated from guidance and precedent in a way the FL aren't happy with.

Pretty likely the suspended 3 will be applied at some point before long.

Points deductions three seasons in a row. Dai really is killing the club.

[Mid Sussex Royal]

Why have we been treated differently to Wigan?

They paid wages late three times and only got a suspended penalty.

We've got an immediate deduction....

Looks the same - their owner also refused to pay money into a side account to cover wages

[One Beer is never enough.]

I think that the smaller points deduction than expected, and also smaller compared to other recidivists is down to the fact that the club/ Dai have been able to prove to the Independent panel that they have the funds, have tried to get them out of China but have been thwarted due to factors beyond their control.

Personally I have no funds in China and no knowledge of how easy/ difficult it is to get that money out of the country.

[Sutekh]

Why have we been treated differently to Wigan?

They paid wages late three times and only got a suspended penalty.

We've got an immediate deduction....

Looks the same - their owner also refused to pay money into a side account to cover wages

Agree. It appears to be a different penalty for the same offences as Wigan, surely the club can call the lawyers in on this and get it overturned. Whether the punishment is right or wrong it's patently not right to treat clubs differently over the same offences.

Trouble is we know Dai will fail to open the additional accout with the required funds so the club is going to get done by losing the additional three points as well. However if the Chinese government have put things in place which makes it more or less impossible for Chinese club owners to comply as the FL demand then it's inherently wrong to penalise clubs for that failure.

Perhaps the club should change it's name to Chelsea then everything would be OK.

[Mid Sussex Royal]

Why have we been treated differently to Wigan?

They paid wages late three times and only got a suspended penalty.

We've got an immediate deduction....

Looks the same - their owner also refused to pay money into a side account to cover wages

Agree. It appears to be a different penalty for the same offences as Wigan, surely the club can call the lawyers in on this and get it overturned. Whether the punishment is right or wrong it's patently not right to treat clubs differently over the same offences.

Trouble is we know Dai will fail to open the additional accout with the required funds so the club is going to get done by losing the additional three points as well. However if the Chinese government have put things in place which makes it more or less impossible for Chinese club owners to comply as the FL demand then it's inherently wrong to penalise clubs for that failure.

Perhaps the club should change it's name to Chelsea then everything would be OK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66522805

This is interesting...looks like the EFL wanted an immediate 4 point deduction but the club quoted Wigan & Southend as recent cases.... seems like they have it in for us now.

I'd hope we'd have enough cash for Aug given we've had 3 league games (by then) and maybe got a couple off the books as per other threads.

[Snowflake Royal]

Why have we been treated differently to Wigan?

They paid wages late three times and only got a suspended penalty.

We've got an immediate deduction....

Looks the same - their owner also refused to pay money into a side account to cover wages

Because we've done a lot of other naughty shit on top?

[Mid Sussex Royal]

Why have we been treated differently to Wigan?

They paid wages late three times and only got a suspended penalty.

We've got an immediate deduction....

Looks the same - their owner also refused to pay money into a side account to cover wages

Because we've done a lot of other naughty shit on top?

Wigan have got previous too....administration for starters

[Snowflake Royal]

Why have we been treated differently to Wigan?

They paid wages late three times and only got a suspended penalty.

We've got an immediate deduction....

Looks the same - their owner also refused to pay money into a side account to cover wages

Because we've done a lot of other naughty shit on top?

Wigan have got previous too....administration for starters

In 2020 from a quick google. We've had points deductions in 2022 and 2023. Plus transfer embargos of soft or hard nature for about 3 or 4 seasons. And we continue to offend by not paying tax, not paying loan fees etc.

If, for example, there's a three year limit on considering previous behaviour, Wigan may have been just outside the limit.

The difference between the two sanctions is 1 point not being suspended. Its fairly minimal.

And the decision was made by an independent panel. Anyone expecting to get off the same as Wigan did is pretty naive given our circumstances.

[Who Moved The Goalposts?]

Why have we been treated differently to Wigan?

They paid wages late three times and only got a suspended penalty.

We've got an immediate deduction....

Looks the same - their owner also refused to pay money into a side account to cover wages

Agree. It appears to be a different penalty for the same offences as Wigan, surely the club can call the lawyers in on this and get it overturned. Whether the punishment is right or wrong it's patently not right to treat clubs differently over the same offences.

Trouble is we know Dai will fail to open the additional accout with the required funds so the club is going to get done by losing the additional three points as well. However if the Chinese government have put things in place which makes it more or less impossible for Chinese club owners to comply as the FL demand then it's inherently wrong to penalise clubs for that failure.

Perhaps the club should change it's name to Chelsea then everything would be OK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/66522805

This is interesting...looks like the EFL wanted an immediate 4 point deduction but the club quoted Wigan & Southend as recent cases.... seems like they have it in for us now.

I'd hope we'd have enough cash for Aug given we've had 3 league games (by then) and maybe got a couple off the books as per other threads.

From what I've heard, the EFL wanted a 6 point deduction...

[Hound]

Also somewhat bemused by the idea of fining someone (personally) who has been unable to pay.

You fine someone for being unwilling to pay.

Why the personal attack on Dai - ie what cause have they to charge him personally rather than the club.

Because the fukwit is the problem and hasn't acted with integrity and transparency with the FL.

We've got off lightly there. The independent panel sound like they've gone rogue (it happens) and deviated from guidance and precedent in a way the FL aren't happy with.

Pretty likely the suspended 3 will be applied at some point before long.

Points deductions three seasons in a row. Dai really is killing the club.

They haven’t gone rogue. They’ve taken in all the info and suggested the penalty

Everyone should just accept it and move on. EFL stirring the pot is unnecessary and unhelpful and makes them look vindictive

[Lower West]

Dai seems to have no problem finding the money to fund the legal costs to fight the EFL.

[One Beer is never enough.]

The full decision. Makes for interesting reading - we clearly have an incredibly competent lawyer...

https://s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/gc-media-assets.gc.eflservices.co.uk/6882a630-3c35-11ee-8889-71ca1029c2af.pdf

[Brogue]

The full decision. Makes for interesting reading - we clearly have an incredibly competent lawyer...

https://s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/gc-media-assets.gc.eflservices.co.uk/6882a630-3c35-11ee-8889-71ca1029c2af.pdf

Kendra Potts, and yes she is. I was just talking to a few senior people at the club this morning and they are very impressed with the job she’s doing for us.

[Hound]

The full decision. Makes for interesting reading - we clearly have an incredibly competent lawyer...

https://s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/gc-media-assets.gc.eflservices.co.uk/6882a630-3c35-11ee-8889-71ca1029c2af.pdf

Definitely interesting and in need of another read

Clear the EFL wanted to punish us plenty more (4+4 suspended)

Going back to their earlier quote, will be charitable and say I’ve misread it slightly and it’s actually that they’ll review their own guidelines as they are rubbish

[Brogue]

The full decision. Makes for interesting reading - we clearly have an incredibly competent lawyer...

https://s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/gc-media-assets.gc.eflservices.co.uk/6882a630-3c35-11ee-8889-71ca1029c2af.pdf

Definitely interesting and in need of another read

Clear the EFL wanted to punish us plenty more

Going back to their earlier quote, will be charitable and say I’ve misread it slightly and it’s actually that they’ll review their own guidelines as they are rubbish

Our whole argument was based around this

‘the central purpose of the sanction for non-payment was to prevent clubs obtaining a competitive advantage by maintaining squads which they could not properly afford..." Clearly Reading FC did NOT do this

[Clyde1998]

The full decision. Makes for interesting reading - we clearly have an incredibly competent lawyer...

https://s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/gc-media-assets.gc.eflservices.co.uk/6882a630-3c35-11ee-8889-71ca1029c2af.pdf

Definitely interesting and in need of another read

Clear the EFL wanted to punish us plenty more (4+4 suspended)

Going back to their earlier quote, will be charitable and say I’ve misread it slightly and it’s actually that they’ll review their own guidelines as they are rubbish

It also appears the EFL wanted to treat each non-payment as a separate offences, despite treating offences by Southend, Macclesfield and Wigan as single offences at the point of the first sanction related to the issue.

The points deduction appears to be due to failure to reach an agreed decision, as opposed to failure to pay players on time (which is what the suspended penalty is for).

[windermereROYAL]

So what are the chances of Dai depositing the 125% of funds into the club accounts by Sept 13th? if recent history is anything to go by I`m not hopeful. 13 points could well become 16, when on earth will this ever end?