EFL rules, sanctions & embargos are unfair?

We're getting unfairly hammered for DC's ineptitude?

https://www.change.org/SetSWFCfree 

The rules were the rules before we broke them. Fair cop, points deductions should happen, embargos should happen.

The only decisions I have issue with are that they prevented us signing other loans with zero wages and zero transfer fees. Add another 3 or 4 players of Amass' quality to the squad and we'd be contesting more failure in a properly competitve league. As it is we're barely able to field a squad and the EFL's decision is risking significant injuries to a threadbare squad

Would a better punishment for our Ex be that he only gets 10p in the pound . 

That way he is penalised for his actions. 

Should be fined instead and deducted off his creditor payment

36 minutes ago, nethertonowl said:

If the clowns that supported him had seen the light earlier it might not have been so bad. He was to blame but some people are so stupid. 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing....we move on and no need to try to blame our fans. The bucj stopped with DC, he gone lets look forwatd to a more harmonious future.

I don't really buy the ‘rules are rules’ line of reasoning.

Clubs vote on rules that are proposed to them, and I've no doubt they can all sound reasonable and sensible enough on the face of it.

But it's the real life cases that actually see the rules implemented and the punishments meted out, and—as I think it does in our case—expose the rules as not really working as either the correct punishment or even the correct deterrent.

I'll fully expect the new owners to lobby hard on this matter with the EFL, and though I can't imagine they'd relax all the punishments, I'd be hopeful of getting them reduced. We'll see.

New owners need to talk to Man City owners . They seem to be expert at avoiding P L rules .(115). Perhaps they may give us a few tips on breaking a few more to gain more ' advantage ' .

1 hour ago, cowl said:

I don't really buy the ‘rules are rules’ line of reasoning.

 

Clubs vote on rules that are proposed to them, and I've no doubt they can all sound reasonable and sensible enough on the face of it.

 

But it's the real life cases that actually see the rules implemented and the punishments meted out, and—as I think it does in our case—expose the rules as not really working as either the correct punishment or even the correct deterrent.

 

I'll fully expect the new owners to lobby hard on this matter with the EFL, and though I can't imagine they'd relax all the punishments, I'd be hopeful of getting them reduced. We'll see.

I genuinely wonder if the EFL could have envisioned that one owner could be so awful. My guess is that the rules are as they are to close all the loopholes. Eg pay HMRC but default on transfer payments, default on loans but make sure the wages are paid etc.

The problem arises when a monumental fool breaks all the rules at the same time. No one else in history had 6 umbongos all at once. We’re punished 6 times for the same idiot. 
And by we, I mean the players, staff, supporters and new owners, none of whom have done anything wrong

To put the tin hat on things, the new owners have to fund the incompetence of the old owner. 
Surely this wasn’t the intentioned outcome when the clubs (including us) voted in the rules. 

1 hour ago, cowl said:

I don't really buy the ‘rules are rules’ line of reasoning.

 

Clubs vote on rules that are proposed to them, and I've no doubt they can all sound reasonable and sensible enough on the face of it.

 

But it's the real life cases that actually see the rules implemented and the punishments meted out, and—as I think it does in our case—expose the rules as not really working as either the correct punishment or even the correct deterrent.

 

I'll fully expect the new owners to lobby hard on this matter with the EFL, and though I can't imagine they'd relax all the punishments, I'd be hopeful of getting them reduced. We'll see.

Clubs clearly behave in line with the owners behaviour. It’s been night and day how the club have been since he left. Communication. Paying bills. I’m sure the club have been much more cooperative with the authorities under admin. So who is to blame the club or the individual making all the decisions?

39 minutes ago, alan48 said:

New owners need to talk to Man City owners . They seem to be expert at avoiding P L rules .(115). Perhaps they may give us a few tips on breaking a few more to gain more ' advantage ' .

This annoys me. It's like the charges against Man City have been permanently frozen.

Arguably their charges are far worse than ours - they've won multiple trophies through cheating the FFP rules.

7 minutes ago, Lawrie’s Left Peg said:

I genuinely wonder if the EFL could have envisioned that one owner could be so awful. My guess is that the rules are as they are to close all the loopholes. Eg pay HMRC but default on transfer payments, default on loans but make sure the wages are paid etc.

The problem arises when a monumental fool breaks all the rules at the same time. No one else in history had 6 umbongos all at once. We’re punished 6 times for the same idiot. 
And by we, I mean the players, staff, supporters and new owners, none of whom have done anything wrong

To put the tin hat on things, the new owners have to fund the incompetence of the old owner. 
Surely this wasn’t the intentioned outcome when the clubs (including us) voted in the rules. 

Aye, I don't think I can really blame the EFL for having rules that do at least actually ‘look’ serviceable enough—in fact, I'm not sure that you could simply replace the rules with different ones to guard against what Chansiri did. Certainly not in so far as you'd want rules to act as a deterrent.

The rules, reasonably, assume a rational actor. Chansiri proved to be anything but.

Still, I think there's a chance here for the EFL to set a precedent for how to deal with such situations in the future. It makes no sense whatsoever to disincentivise prospective new owners with all the transfer embargoes we've been imposed with. It's sins of the father stuff, really. So, I am hopeful we'd be able to successfully argue for leniency. 

16 minutes ago, TamworthWednesdayite said:

Clubs clearly behave in line with the owners behaviour. It’s been night and day how the club have been since he left. Communication. Paying bills. I’m sure the club have been much more cooperative with the authorities under admin. So who is to blame the club or the individual making all the decisions?

Yep, that's it in a nutshell.

The EFL, and other football authorities too, can say what they like about wanting to weed out rogue owners, and they should indeed make their rules consistent with that aim, but then when that aim is achieved, and the culprit fled the scene, it shouldn't be the club he fled that bears the brunt.

If the rules can't justly punish the responsible, then they shouldn't just pass that punishment on to whoever next stands up to take responsibility. That's not justice; it's a flaw in the rules.

8 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

Yep, that's it in a nutshell.

 

The EFL, and other football authorities too, can say what they like about wanting to weed out rogue owners, and they should indeed make their rules consistent with that aim, but then when that aim is achieved, and the culprit fled the scene, it shouldn't be the club he fled that bears the brunt.

 

If the rules can't justly punish the responsible, then they shouldn't just pass that punishment on to whoever next stands up to take responsibility. That's not justice; it's a flaw in the rules.

If I run someone over in my car and sell my car does that mean the punishment for running that person over passes to the new owner of the car?