|
|
Post by outsidehitter30 on May 28, 2014 12:44:54 GMT
As I understand it, the FA could not impose a points deduction, it has to be the League, who's competition it is. The FA did not forward its findings to the League who had they known at the time would have been able to possibly deduct points immediately if they felt that was right. It's unlikely that we will be reinstated, but I believe the FA and the League have cases to answer, and must be potentially liable to the costs of our relegation. This could get mighty messy. As for people saying we could then be deducted points for pitch invasions, rovers could reasonably argue that these were caused because of tensions created by the FA and League not disclosing to each other what had gone on with Wycombe. Then of course relegate Wolves for 5 pitch invasions in one match. |
|
|
|
Post by outsidehitter30 on May 28, 2014 12:47:26 GMT
As I understand it, the FA could not impose a points deduction, it has to be the League, who's competition it is.
The FA did not forward its findings to the League who had they known at the time would have been able to possibly deduct points immediately if they felt that was right.It's unlikely that we will be reinstated, but I believe the FA and the League have cases to answer, and must be potentially liable to the costs of our relegation. This could get mighty messy.As for people saying we could then be deducted points for pitch invasions, rovers could reasonably argue that these were caused because of tensions created by the FA and League not disclosing to each other what had gone on with Wycombe. Then of course relegate Wolves for 5 pitch invasions in one match. Spot on Gasincider. WWFC & FA have a case to answer. That is all. Who is right time will tell. BRFC totally right to issue proceedings tomorrow. Question is to Who? |
|
|
|
Post by Finnish Gas on May 28, 2014 13:27:38 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Dave on May 28, 2014 13:34:43 GMT
I understand it enough to know that (at our level) it's basically rubbish and only works as an 'early warning system' for clubs who are likely to go into administration. In general it means league two clubs can only spend 55% of 'turnover' on wages - the definition of 'turnover' is the biggest failing in the system. In this specific case, I think Rovers are claiming that the sell-on fee (that was effectively part of the 'third-party' ownership issue) was i) against the rules and ii) used in the turnover figure allowing Wycombe to sign players they couldn't otherwise have afforded. Possibly. *edit* and don't forget league two doesn't have FFP, it has SCMP...completely different set of rules... |
|
|
|
Post by Finnish Gas on May 28, 2014 14:26:57 GMT
Bristol Rovers: Wycombe legal battle advised by agentBy Chris Osborne BBC Sport Bristol Rovers have said their legal bid against Wycombe over an alleged breach of third-party ownership rules has been advised by agent Phil Smith. Last week Smith's licence was suspended and Wycombe were fined £10,000 for breaking agents' rules. In a letter, Rovers say that a deal by Wycombe to use sell-on clause money to pay a debt to former owner Steve Hayes constitutes third-party ownership. Wanderers say they believe they have no case to answer. The two clubs finished the League Two season level on points, but Rovers were relegated to the Conference Premier on goal difference and believe the Chairboys' alleged conduct put them at a competitive disadvantage. Last week Wycombe, now owned by the Wycombe Supporters' Trust, were found guilty of agreeing to pay Smith for his services through a future sell-on clause of winger Matt Phillips, an arrangement set up by the previous ownership. Smith was banned for two years, 18 months of which was suspended. Phillips joined Blackpool for £325,000 from Wycombe in 2010 and moved to QPR last year, which is when the Chairboys' current owners became aware of the offence and alerted the Football Association and Football League. During the subsequent court case in April it became apparent that the sell-on money from Phillips, and any future sale of Jordan Ibe, who joined Liverpool in 2012, had been designated to pay off debt owed to Hayes. Wycombe believe that this does not constitute third-party ownership and, because the arrangement was outlined in the takeover documentation two years ago, was made clear to the authorities. To further complicate matters, Wycombe sold their right to a sell-on fee for Phillips to Blackpool for £200,000 before the midfielder was moved on to QPR, a payment which Hayes received. Bristol Rovers, as outlined in the letter made public on their website, believe Hayes's continued interest in the players can be defined as third-party ownership. The Pirates say that the matter should have been investigated when it came to light and, had Wycombe been found guilty, could have suffered a transfer embargo and possibly a points deduction. www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/27602961
|
|
|
|
Post by peterparker on May 28, 2014 14:43:15 GMT
I understand it enough to know that (at our level) it's basically rubbish and only works as an 'early warning system' for clubs who are likely to go into administration. In general it means league two clubs can only spend 55% of 'turnover' on wages - the definition of 'turnover' is the biggest failing in the system. In this specific case, I think Rovers are claiming that the sell-on fee (that was effectively part of the 'third-party' ownership issue) was i) against the rules and ii) used in the turnover figure allowing Wycombe to sign players they couldn't otherwise have afforded. Possibly. *edit* and don't forget league two doesn't have FFP, it has SCMP...completely different set of rules...
I thought it was made pretty clear that it had been used to pay Mr Hayes, their main debtor though either direct to him (wrong) or via Wycombe (not wrong)
|
|
|
|
Post by Big Dave on May 28, 2014 15:14:59 GMT
I understand it enough to know that (at our level) it's basically rubbish and only works as an 'early warning system' for clubs who are likely to go into administration. In general it means league two clubs can only spend 55% of 'turnover' on wages - the definition of 'turnover' is the biggest failing in the system. In this specific case, I think Rovers are claiming that the sell-on fee (that was effectively part of the 'third-party' ownership issue) was i) against the rules and ii) used in the turnover figure allowing Wycombe to sign players they couldn't otherwise have afforded. Possibly. *edit* and don't forget league two doesn't have FFP, it has SCMP...completely different set of rules...
I thought it was made pretty clear that it had been used to pay Mr Hayes, their main debtor though either direct to him (wrong) or via Wycombe (not wrong)
However it is paid, Wycombe (probably) owe money to lots of other people. The agreement/contract that the specific income from one player goes to a certain debtor (rather than the club and therefore it's debtors as a whole) is the reason it's called third-party interest/investment/ownership and also why it is against the rules. |
|
|
|
Post by Finnish Gas on May 28, 2014 17:15:54 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Hugo Admin on May 28, 2014 17:23:58 GMT
agreed. He would be an excellent signing! Id love it if Wycombe got relegated. |
|
|
|
Post by inee on May 28, 2014 17:34:07 GMT
I also agree with what toteend says even to the point of relegating wycombe and moving one team from the conference playoffs up,as we just dont deserve to be in the league
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 17:35:14 GMT
Yep he's usually a reliable poster,if anything happens though,which I'd be totally stunned if it did,then I can't see Gateshead being pushed up because any wrong doing hasn't effected them like it may have done us.I still think it's much more likely that the whole thing is being used as a smokescreen to deflect criticism away from our bod or this agent bloke has given us info on other player agencies potential wrongdoings with Wycombe contracts/players ownership.he certainly wouldn't be flagging up any More of his own deals there (if he has any)because he'd be bringing the 18 month suspended part of his punishment into play. |
|
|
|
Post by Jon the Stripe on May 28, 2014 19:59:40 GMT
On behalf of KP -  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 20:06:19 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 28, 2014 20:23:10 GMT
On behalf of KP - And that's exactly how it should be. Pull the Feckin hardware out ! |
|
|
|
Post by lincolnfan on May 28, 2014 21:56:06 GMT
It will, at the least, be interesting to see how long it takes to get a response out of the FA or the FL. You may be lucky or, there again, perhaps not. My personal view whatever the rights and wrongs is that Wycombe are not going to get a points deduction that affects you.
|
|
