|
Post by rickyqpr on Jun 9, 2020 18:12:31 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52705124Relegation will be decided by the Disciplinary Hearing. Macclesfield 3 points clear with 2 further penalty points suspended at present - but they are appealing the new issue. If they get one point plus the suspended points, Stevenage still go down. 2 plus2 and Macclesfield go down. Play Off Final 29th June.
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Jun 13, 2020 13:00:16 GMT
National League promotions & relegations just a little confusing...…………... www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/football/article-8417031/National-League-risk-wrath-EFL-owners-points-game-proposals-finish-season-passed.htmlEXCLUSIVE: National League risk wrath of EFL owners if their points-per-game proposals to finish the season is passed with clubs threatening to make moves to block a second promotion to League Two Monday's non-league vote over only relegating Chorley has raised eyebrows The plan also includes halving promotion spots from four to two in the divisions But an inconsistency in promotion and relegation has dismayed some EFL clubs By Jack Gaughan for MailOnline Published: 10:25, 13 June 2020 | Updated: 11:43, 13 June 2020 The National League are risking a potentially explosive collision course with EFL owners if their favoured points-per-game proposals to finish this season are passed. Monday's non-league vote over only relegating Chorley from the fifth tier and halving promotion spots from four to two in the sixth tier's regional divisions has raised eyebrows. The plan also includes National League play-offs continuing as normal, with the eventual winners joining champions Barrow in the EFL next season. But an inconsistency in promotion and relegation across those leagues has dismayed a number of EFL clubs, who are threatening to make moves to block a second promotion to League Two. In a row that could escalate and inflict ever-lasting damage, dissenting EFL voices are suggesting that promotion to League Two should be kept at one indefinitely if Monday's motion is carried. Owners argue that sporting integrity was retained by the EFL when they vetoed the idea of halting relegation from League Two and are aggrieved the National League are not appearing to follow suit. York City, currently first in National League North, stand to lose the most in non-league if the preferred vote hits a 17-club majority. An inconsistency in promotion and relegation across those leagues has dismayed EFL clubs The points-per-game method would see Kings Lynn leapfrog them to become champions. Playoffs in the sixth tier are set to be abandoned for financial reasons. York had tabled an alternative season resolution centred on the top two teams in the regional leagues winning promotion, saying in a statement that will maintain sporting integrity. That plan would have in turn relegated AFC Fylde, Maidenhead United and Ebbsfleet United from the fifth tier. Wealdstone and Havant & Waterlooville would have earned promotion from the southern section. The amendment had support among some EFL clubs.
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Jun 13, 2020 13:13:55 GMT
A bit clearer...………….. National League plans to end 2019/20 season National League proposals to end the 2019/20 season via the points-per-game method could see AFC Fylde given a reprieve from relegation. Under the plans, which will be voted on, only one side would be relegated meaning Fylde, who would finish second bottom, would escape the drop to the National League North. With nine games remaining, the Coasters currently sit four points adrift of safety. Chorley would be the side to face relegation while Barrow would be crowned champions, Ian Evatt sealing a return to the Football League for the first time in almost half a decade for the Bluebirds. A second promotion place to the EFL would be decided by the play-offs, which will still go ahead. However, there will be no play-offs in the National League North or National League South - with only the champions going up. That would see Wealdstone win the National League South title while Kings Lynn would leapfrog York City to take top spot in the National League North. National League clubs voted to end their season in April after it was suspended in mid-March because of the coronavirus pandemic. Clubs have until Monday to decide whether to support the motion, with the National League indicating that if it does not go through they will next consider declaring the leagues null and void. Only one side will be coming down from League Two after Bury's expulsion from the EFL in August so, if approved, the plans would see 24 teams in the National League and a return to 72 teams competing in the EFL. All National League clubs will have a vote, with the North and South divisions having four votes each. A majority of 51 per cent would be required but any decision still has to be ratified by the FA Council.
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Jun 13, 2020 13:39:21 GMT
Meanwhile, Macclesfield fans face an anxious wait. The club is back in court on Wednesday 17th, facing another winding up order The EFL disciplinary board was due to meet yesterday to consider their most recent alleged transgression - although it is thought that any decision may be postponed until after Thursday. Stevanage's case is that they are solvent and should be allowed to stay up, there does seem to be a fair sway of opinion that Macclesfield if they survive may well not see the new season out. Presumably, any decision will be appealed anyway. It maybe that neither are relegated to the National League because the EFL require evidence of a plan that the National League will be able to start the new season. In response, the National League informed its members on Monday that the plan is to start the new season in 'September 2020'. The issue being that as there is no streaming service available at Level 5, playing games behind closed doors generate zero revenue.
Macclesfield Supporters Trust - 2nd June 2020 Dear all The news of further charges from the English Football League (EFL) has come as another huge hammer blow to our wonderful little club and its small, passionate and long suffering supporters. The behaviour of the EFL is taking on the appearance of a witch hunt, especially given that the charges appear to contradict the advice of their own independent panel. It needs to be remembered that Macclesfield Town Football Club’s (MTFC) last home game was played on 29th February 2020, and that we missed out on the income from three (3) home games in March 2020 as a consequence of the Covid-19 pandemic; something which would undoubtedly also have a massive financial impact on much bigger clubs than ourselves, let alone a club with our limited resources. Once again it would appear that it is easier to punish the innocent victims in this awful situation; the staff and supporters of MTFC who only two years ago achieved a miracle greater than when Leicester City won the English Premier League in 2016 to return once again as one of the elite 92 clubs in English football. The Silkmen Supporters Trust (SST) believe that the EFL’s apparent lack of any robust governance to deal with bad ownership is central to MTFC’s plight with an indication that the EFL are maliciously prosecuting MTFC in order to expel the owner. We believe that such an approach would ultimately have a massive negative impact upon MTFC, and seriously jeopardise its long term future. The SST have consistently highlighted to the EFL our concerns about the mismanagement of MTFC by Mr. AlKadhi and the subsequent profound detrimental impact on the physical and mental health of our fantastic playing and non-playing staff. We believe that there is also evidence of a deliberate campaign by a League Two club with everything to gain by further points charges against MTFC to utilise the ‘old boys network’ within EFL League 2 to heap huge pressure on the EFL which they have clearly bowed down to. We will of course be contacting the EFL for further clarification, and we would be interested to know exactly what the potential points deduction could be; something which the EFL have mysteriously avoided giving us any information about thus far. Indeed, I am sure that the conspiracy theorists amongst us may well be thinking that it would be enough to ensure that the worst football club in the EFL on the pitch is saved from a thoroughly deserved relegation, whilst arguably the worst football club off the pitch, is plunged into a very uncertain future. With regards to several questions posted on social media, I hereby answer with absolute honesty below: The SST board had NO awareness that any other charges were pending when we made the 11th hour decision to loan the £10,000 on the 14th May 2020. We were only advised that this was to cover the April wages and hopefully help to prevent further punitive charges. We can only assume that the £10,000 paid to cover April has prevented further charges for late payment. In light of the issues surrounding the club over the course of the last few months, the SST board have previously held preliminary discussions about the possibility of a phoenix club in collaboration with other agencies. It was always hoped that this would be a last resort, and that ideally the club would be sold to someone with a genuine interest in seeing the club thrive such as Joe Sealey. The next few weeks will of course provide a much clearer picture of where we will be, but the concept of a phoenix club is one which definitely must be considered as a potential option for the future. Yours Sincerely Andy Worth Chairperson of the Silkmen Supporters Trust
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Jun 17, 2020 11:06:52 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53077859Macclesfield winding up order hearing adjourned for an 11th time until the 9th September. Pretty incredible legal situation. However, the EFL disciplinary hearing from last Friday is yet to announce their decision. Something of a domino effect maybe? Waiting for each other to decide it seems. EFL will have to announce a decision now. But could be that Macclesfield start the new season in League 2 with a winding up order hanging over them.
|
|
|
Post by bowranger on Jun 17, 2020 11:38:00 GMT
Related to this, one rumour/theory I heard on the last QPR podcast is that the Prem may try and use this situation to leverage their long term goal of academy/B teams being admitted to league 1 and 2.
Logic being that the government have pretty much signalled that there is no more sports-related bail outs coming (e.g. like they did for Rugby League), so the onus then falls on the Prem to put their hand in their pocket. But as we saw with EPPP, they tied acceptance of that to an increase in the Prem solidarity fund payments. If they do indeed have to step in to help clubs next season (particularly as plenty of clubs lower down the pyramid are effectively dead in the water if any new season was coupled with BCD), it seems unlikely that they wouldn't attach strings to the deal.
Hopefully that's tinfoil hat thinking, but I wouldn't put it past them.
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Jun 17, 2020 13:02:33 GMT
Related to this, one rumour/theory I heard on the last QPR podcast is that the Prem may try and use this situation to leverage their long term goal of academy/B teams being admitted to league 1 and 2. Logic being that the government have pretty much signalled that there is no more sports-related bail outs coming (e.g. like they did for Rugby League), so the onus then falls on the Prem to put their hand in their pocket. But as we saw with EPPP, they tied acceptance of that to an increase in the Prem solidarity fund payments. If they do indeed have to step in to help clubs next season (particularly as plenty of clubs lower down the pyramid are effectively dead in the water if any new season was coupled with BCD), it seems unlikely that they wouldn't attach strings to the deal. Hopefully that's tinfoil hat thinking, but I wouldn't put it past them. I also saw /heard about this idea. It will be interesting to see the sequence of events that could lead to this. Starting with outrage and rejection, then, as the fourth tier starts to disintegrate, the options possibly could be: a) Some sort of merging with the National League, possibly with regional splits. b) Insolvent teams adopted by Prem League giants - then evolved into academies. c) The 4th / 5th tiers allow Prem academy teams to join the league in their own right (and provide funding to the league). I hope though that any decision making include some vision as to how this will look in a few years time and what it will do for the economics of the game. Lower league teams are very dependent on the loan system from teams in the higher divisions. This is likely to stop / reduce if the best academy players are retained for their own teams, who will then dominate the league. How would FFP / financial governance work with the Academy teams financed by the Prem. How can this ever be fair? I cannot even start to get my head around Fit and Proper owners acquiring community outfits selling on and selling out. But I follow the Macclesfield story with interest because in many ways it is a test case. Last season we had the EFL handling of Bury and Bolton. The Macclesfield story is in every way as poor as the Bury saga and the key question is what has the EFL learnt and is there a policy for the future. Clubs throughout the pyramid are going to have unprecedented problems now. By now there should be a plan for BCD 20/21 and also for crowd return. By September, I would expect from level 5 downwards that supporters will be able to watch games (unless a significant second wave). It is hard to see how clubs will survive without it though. But there does need to be a plan for defaulting clubs throughout the pyramid - it cannot be a shock when it happens. But once we get to League one and Two, there does need to be a structure for dealing with the likely issues ahead. We could have a number of teams like Macclesfield who could be facing winding up, legal consequences and also breaching the EFL current rules along the way. Eleven court adjournments for Macclesfield and countless EFL infringements. No announcements about why or what could happen - the fans despise the owners but supporters have donated funds to the club- the club has already drawn down advanced EFL payments - should they be allowed to start the new season? After all this, assuming they do not get relegated through the disciplinary hearing, the owners need to present a compliance plan to the EFL with some sort of surety secured from the owners. If they cannot provide the reassurance, then they should not be allowed to start the season as Bury discovered 10 months ago. But if the EFL bottle it and just wait for September 9th hearing, then find that there is no Macclesfield, then the EFL deserve a bloody good kicking. IMHO. Will Macclesfield even have enough players to start the season as who is going to sign for them? I fear there will be many other cases to follow.
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Jun 18, 2020 12:55:56 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Jun 19, 2020 19:02:04 GMT
Dean Parrett should never have left and gone to Spuds. It shows that real talent can be snuffed out in the name of glory. He really needed 3 or 4 seasons here to establish himself and then move on. But no, Big club comes in, whooosh, career goes nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Jun 20, 2020 9:02:10 GMT
Macclesfield deducted 2pts but avoid relegation by one point. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53028810I must be honest, I cannot decide if this is the correct decision or not. On the one hand, the owners have behaved appallingly and do not deserve to survive. They have told the EFL that they intend to raise funds by selling shares. Those shares would only be sold if the club avoided relegation. The fans are the ones who would suffer and we know how that feels. But, with so many other lower league clubs in likely peril, some leniency and support is going to be necessary going forward. So I hope that it was the right decision.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Jun 20, 2020 9:18:54 GMT
Dean Parrett should never have left and gone to Spuds. It shows that real talent can be snuffed out in the name of glory. He really needed 3 or 4 seasons here to establish himself and then move on. But no, Big club comes in, whooosh, career goes nowhere. My understanding was that QPR were desperate for the money and could get Parrett out the door fast enough. I can't recall where I got that from and therefore if it is reliable onfo or not.
|
|
|
Post by Roller on Jun 20, 2020 9:20:27 GMT
Macclesfield deducted 2pts but avoid relegation by one point. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53028810I must be honest, I cannot decide if this is the correct decision or not. On the one hand, the owners have behaved appallingly and do not deserve to survive. They have told the EFL that they intend to raise funds by selling shares. Those shares would only be sold if the club avoided relegation. The fans are the ones who would suffer and we know how that feels. But, with so many other lower league clubs in likely peril, some leniency and support is going to be necessary going forward. So I hope that it was the right decision. Ricky, do you know if there is some sort of agreed tariff for point deductions for these offenses?
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Jun 20, 2020 11:08:04 GMT
Macclesfield deducted 2pts but avoid relegation by one point. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53028810I must be honest, I cannot decide if this is the correct decision or not. On the one hand, the owners have behaved appallingly and do not deserve to survive. They have told the EFL that they intend to raise funds by selling shares. Those shares would only be sold if the club avoided relegation. The fans are the ones who would suffer and we know how that feels. But, with so many other lower league clubs in likely peril, some leniency and support is going to be necessary going forward. So I hope that it was the right decision. Ricky, do you know if there is some sort of agreed tariff for point deductions for these offenses? There appears not Roller. In the case of Macclesfield, they were docked a total of 13 points net across the 19/20 season. It is a net figure because they won an appeal to reduce the number of points. They have a further 4 points suspended - www.efl.com/news/2020/june/efl-statement-macclesfield-town-sanctioned/But the outcome is that they escaped relegation by one penalty point and yet again it seems the penalty was calculated with exactly that in mind. So if I were Stevenage, I think I would feel a little peeved. The Macclesfield owners claimed that there was no case to answer this time because the panel had previously penalised them for non payment of wages and recognised in their deliberations that the players were late being paid for March. So to bring another action specifically for March seemed odd, and then to find them guilty and slap extra points on but without consequence just makes it all barmy IMHO. In the end, for all those transgressions, Macclesfield will start next season unscathed apart from a 4 point suspension that can be avoided by paying players on time. I feel sorry for the supporters as the current owner has refused to sell to interested parties but has put the fans through hell. But it seems that to avoid the winding up order in September he has said that he will raise cash through the sale of shares. But back to your question, the penalties are decided by an 'Independent Enquiry Panel' and the EFL accept the outcome, but the club has the right to appeal to the EFL (Board). Hence the reduction to the total points. But IMHO, the EFL duck it every time and there should be an upfront 'rate card' for indiscretions and it would be for clubs to argue mitigation against the rate card and the ultimate ruling published and set a s a precedent..
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Jun 20, 2020 11:13:05 GMT
I think the whole thing's a joke. The 2 point deduction is just to say "look, we've taken action". There's no consequence to it.
|
|
|
Post by Lonegunmen on Jun 20, 2020 18:29:05 GMT
I watched Northampton v Cheltenham - is that a playoff game from last season?
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Jun 25, 2020 9:19:54 GMT
Ian Evatt is said to be leaving newly promoted Barrow and joining Bolton as their new manager. Not a jump I would fancy!
|
|
|
Post by terryb on Jun 25, 2020 9:25:35 GMT
I watched Northampton v Cheltenham - is that a playoff game from last season? Yes. Northampton won the second leg 3-0 after losing 2-0 at home. They will now play Exeter at Wembley next Monday in the final.
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Jun 25, 2020 16:12:24 GMT
I watched Northampton v Cheltenham - is that a playoff game from last season? Yes. Northampton won the second leg 3-0 after losing 2-0 at home. They will now play Exeter at Wembley next Monday in the final. Yes, with Home advantage reduced right down, I think they could have got away with one tie on neutral ground this year. But I suppose, 2 TV fees are better than one!
|
|
|
Post by terryb on Jun 25, 2020 16:33:39 GMT
I was very surprised that the play offs are two legged this year. I would have them as a one off match every season!
I wouldn't have had neutral grounds though, the higher placed club to have home advantage would be my choice.
|
|
|
Post by Marc on Jun 25, 2020 16:37:27 GMT
I was very surprised that the play offs are two legged this year. I would have them as a one off match every season! I wouldn't have had neutral grounds though, the higher placed club to have home advantage would be my choice. I've been saying that for years. If they wanted extra tv money, i'd split the difference and give the team finishing 3rd a bye to the final leaving the other three to a round robin, home advantage to the team that finished highest.
|
|
|
Post by rickyqpr on Jul 4, 2020 13:26:20 GMT
And on it goes...................https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53278818
Macclesfield Town: EFL to appeal against independent panel decision
The English Football League has said it will appeal against the sanctions imposed on Macclesfield Town in June.
The Silkmen were given a two-point deduction, which had been suspended from a previous charge, after failing to pay wages on time in March.
Macclesfield were docked 13 points in total in the 2019-20 season, which was curtailed early after a vote by clubs because of the coronavirus pandemic.
The club says it is "shocked and profoundly disappointed" at the news.
Town added they "will vigorously refute the perceived notion that the commission's previous judgment was is in any way invalid".
Stevenage finished bottom of League Two, a point adrift of Macclesfield.
The Hertfordshire club is set to be relegated to the National League, providing the EFL receives assurances that the top tier of non-league football will go ahead in 2020-21.
Soon after the independent panel's decision regarding Macclesfield's case on 19 June, Stevenage chairman Phil Wallace said his club were not ready to give up on their fight for survival.
An EFL statement on Friday said: "The EFL board has determined the League will appeal against the outcome of an independent disciplinary commission in respect of misconduct charges brought against Macclesfield Town.
"Those 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.
"As advised by the EFL on 19 June 2020, the commission ruled that the club was to be deducted a further two points from the 2019-20 League Two table and fined £20,000."
In addition to those penalties, the independent panel ruled that a further four points should be deducted but suspended, and only activated if the club does not pay its players on time during next season.
The panel's original decision stated that Macclesfield's misconduct did "not necessitate a sporting sanction which would result in its relegation from League Two" and added that the points-per-game calculation used to decide final positions in the table had adversely affected the club, as the 13 points deducted would be equivalent to approximately 16 over a 46-game season.
|
|