Alleged Wycombe Breach 3rd Party Rules - Getting Relegated?

Also, the dates that certain things became known are interesting...for example, Torquay dropped 6 points after April 10th, (three of which Wycombe took off them...)

Smith is suddenly whistle blowing tben i vuess he deserves his ban as he seems party to what has gone on

As for Rovers have we accused Wycombe of anything with any facts.? We seem to be saying Wycombe have admitted irregularities and you( the Fa and FL) diidnt look into it properly

We seeem to be being led by an unhappy agent with an axe to grind regarding his ban, who suddenly knows of dodgy dealings going on. Which as i say kind of suggests he deserves to be banned if he is telling the truth

Wycombe say there is no case to answer. Would that be because they beleive they have already gone throuvh it with the FA and FL

Perhaps. But if the shoe was on the other foot and their club just ignored it I'm sure they wouldn't be happy.

However I think we're guaranteed to lose as it's Wycombe.

My musings for what it's worth....


Yes we are bound to lose "friends" over this and yes, it does make us look desperate and look like sore losers.

HOWEVER

I'm actually with the board on this one. Clearly Wycombe broke the laws and clearly that led to them getting an advantage last season (through the money received via a sell-on clause of a player illegaly transferred). Given that we were only relegated on goal difference, any advantage whatsoever would have impacted our chances of survival.

There is no way in relaity we will be re-instated, but we could well be due some compensation as a direct result of Wycombe breaking the rules; and why shouldn't they be punished (severly) for that and we be compensated? The money would certainly help in terms of building a new team to challenge in the Conference.

That said, there is part of me that wonders the following:

Any positive result from this is likely to require Wycombe paying us a fairly significant amount of compensation to us. Given that, would they maybe calculate it would be cheaper if they just took relegation instead...?

One things for sure, this has certainly livened up an otherwise dull end of season break thus far!

So if this situation was reversed and we had broken the rules are you saying Wycombe would not of lodged a complaint ? Bolloxs to bad p r , if those cheating scum have broken the rules they should be punished.

My problem with the 'PR' is this. Apparently we published the statement on the OS because the press had found the story. Fine, let them run it and issue a 'no comment' or an 'it's with our lawyers' comment. To come out with the details (and the way it was worded) makes even me think we sound like whiny little girls in the school playground who have had our hair pulled by a boy.

Wycombe may be in trouble over the issue, but so far (in public) they have handled it more professionally.

Bristol Rovers launch legal challenge to keep club in Football League


By The Bristol Post | Posted: May 28, 2014

Bristol Rovers have launched a dramatic legal challenge in an attempt to reclaim their place in the football league. The Pirates, who were relegated from Sky Bet League Two on the final day of the season, claim rivals Wycombe Wanderers broke transfer rules which should have seen them drop into the Conference instead.

The teams were separated only by goal difference following the final round of fixtures on May 3, with Rovers losing 1-0 to Mansfield and Wycombe beating Torquay 3-0 to retain their football league status.

But Rovers allege Wycombe should have had points deducted or faced transfer sanctions for breaching Football Association rules on transfer dealings and third party ownership of players.

The accusations centre on the transfer of Wycombe player Matt Phillips to Blackpool four years ago.

But Rovers believe the club received an unfair advantage this season, when the player was sold by Blackpool to QPR in August for a fee in the region of £5 million.

The contentious part of the deal hinges on a portion of the 25 per cent sell-on fee which was due to be paid to Phillips' agent Phil Smith.

A week ago Wycombe, who are now under new ownership, were found guilty of arranging payment to Mr Smith through a percentage of a future sell-on fee.

The club was fined £10,000 for a breach of FA rules while Mr Smith was banned for two years.

But the Pirates have suggested Phillips may not have been the only player at the club with a contract containing outlawed third party ownership arrangements.

Last night, Rovers released a statement and published a letter to the Football League on its website.

The club has demanded Wycombe respond to the allegations by 5pm today, or else they will consider legal action.

The statement said: "It has come to the attention of Bristol Rovers FC that Wycombe Wanderers FC appear to have breached FA rules on Third Party Ownership.

"Its current chairman, in giving evidence at a recent FA Disciplinary Hearing, appears to have admitted a serious breach in respect of the player, Matt Phillips (and possibly other players).

"The result of this led to Wycombe wrongfully obtaining a competitive advantage over Bristol Rovers.

"Without this, Wycombe rather than Bristol Rovers could have been relegated.

"Bristol Rovers were relegated merely on goal difference, and as the breach, if proven, would have almost certainly led to a points deduction, Bristol Rovers have instructed specialist sports lawyers together with Nick De Marco, a leading sports barrister, to draft and send a complaint to both The Football League and The Football Association."

In a letter of complaint to the Football League, the club has claimed:

● Mr Smith has informed them that at the hearing in April into the breaches involving Phillips, allegations were made about Wycombe's involvement in "other serious breaches of the prohibition on Third Party Investment in English football".

● Don Woodward, current Wycombe chairman, is understood to have told the hearing that 100 per cent of the sell-on fee from the sale of Phillips would go to the club's former chairman Steve Hayes to pay a debt owed to him by the club.

● Wycombe may have seriously breached the rules and regulations of the FA and Football League

● When the alleged breaches were disclosed at the hearing in April, the FA ought to have investigated the alleged breaches and informed the Football League of them

● The FA and Football League may be liable for any losses if it is found that action ought to have already been taken
ADVERTISEMENT

The letter calls on Wycombe to disclose to the FA and Football League any written agreements in which third parties have interests in sell on fees of their current or former players

The letter said: "It is obvious, given the nature and seriousness of the conduct Wycombe itself has admitted, that, had disciplinary action been taken promptly, one consequence would have been a points deduction against Wycombe... Had a points deduction been applied, or if it is applied now, Bristol Rovers would not be relegated.

"Further, other sanctions that ought to have been applied, for example a transfer embargo or financial penalties, would have made it more difficult for Wycombe to survive relegation, in place of Bristol Rovers."

The move has come out of the blue to the club's supporters, who were expecting the Gas to be playing non-league football next season.

Last night, many of them took to the Post website to respond to the unexpected developments.

One said: "we might be staying up, what a result" while another posted: "All gasheads give brfc your full backing. A points deduction will be justice!"

Other supporters were less convinced, with one fan writing: "Utter,Utter,Utter, Joke. We were relegated due to being poor not because of wycombe so say cheating."

When the Post contacted the Rovers' chairman Nick Higgs, he said he did not want to comment further.

In a statement issued to counter Rovers' claims, Wycombe Wanderers said: "We will, as always, fully cooperate with the Football League and the Football Association in any investigation into this matter, but we are fully confident that there is no case to answer.

"There will be no further comment from the club at this stage."

Read more at www.bristolpost.co.uk/ROVERS-RETURN/story-21150496-detail/story.html

I realise that not many will agree with me but I just can't be bothered with the legal and financial side of football, it's all bollox. So what if they had a bit of extra finance from a slightly dodgy deal done in 2010. I couldn't care less. Half the teams in the premiership are financed by the ill gotten gains from morally corrupt foreign governments, corporations and organised crime. That doesn't seem to bother anyone.

The fact is on the football pitch they were better than us (very marginally). We therefore deserve to be relegated and actually I was quite looking forward to the prospect of winning a few games and maybe even challenging in the conference. I fear now that this will impact so much on our pre-season preparations that we will struggle whichever league we end up playing in.

We have now made it to the NFL UK Forum!


Below are comments from a Wycombe fan:


As a Wycombe fan I will give you the details on this spurious claim.

Wycombe were owned by a property developer Steve Hayes. He loaned the club a certain amount of money as the owner which he claimed at the time was an investment/gift. After he pulled out of the club when his planned property deal fell through, it was taken over by the supporters.

In August of this year, former Wycombe player Matt Phillips moved from Blackpool to QPR in a deal where Wycombe were supposed to receive a percentage of that deal. Unbeknownst to the board, the deal was not actually to Wycombe Wanderers football club but to Steve Hayes which comes under third party ownership rules. Don Woodward (Wycombe's current chairman) reported the club for this violation (from the former owner) and Wycombe received a 10,000 fine.

This Bristol Rovers claim is mixing this with the deals for Charles Dunne and Stuart Beavon in which Wycombe have an automatic deal with Hayes that any money gained from the sell-on clause from these players will go to paying off the outstanding loan Wycombe Wanderers has with this "word removed by censor".

In this case, the money goes to Wycombe but will then go straight to Hayes which is legal as Wycombe are free to do what they like with their money and making the club debt free is a good thing. The deal before, the money never went through Wycombe and was therefore illegal.

What Bristol Rovers are claiming is that a) the Matty Phillips issue should have come with a points penalty (however they are well outside the point of appeal as the issue was from last year) and b) the deal to repay Hayes is akin to third party ownership despite both deals being ratified with the FA before completion.

Basically, Bristol Rovers owners are trying to take the emphasis of their own terrible running of the club by trying it on.

forum.nfluk.com/showthread.php?p=2053658


More Wycombe comments from the Independent Forum:

We think this is what it is all about - i.e. the "3rd Party Investment" relates to payments direct to our former owner/chairman, and it may be that there is a legal argument in your claim somewhere, but it is hard to see how we "gained competitive advantage" through it.

The pay back arrangement to the previous owner was something openly aired and discussed on the forum.

Just to correct a couple of earlier posts. There was a sell-on clause for Matt Phillips, which would have benefitted the club (or Steve Hayes anyway) by around £1.25 M, but Blackpool bought this out from us for a reported £200,000 a few days before they sold him, on the basis that they weren't planning to sell him! (We needed the money) - and this is when the issues that led to the fine came about. (It should perhaps be mentioned that the Agent lost his cut of £1.25 M as a result of this so I guess we're not top of his favourite clubs as a result)

We may be wrong and there may be more shady dealings within our club (although given the inexperience and naivety of the trust board this is more likely down to incompetence rather than deceitfulness) but given that the source of the complaint seems to be what was said at the FA hearing, I think (hope) that isn't the case.

Obviously I will not wish you luck with this complaint, but I will for next season. I usually enjoy my trips down there and I (along with a lot of us) do still feel bad about the abandoned game.

Anyway, I hope this makes sense