Football 16-17

[ToffeePopcorn]

Can't wait for us to get a transfer ban and get stuck with Robert Snodgrass whipping corners out for throws for the next six years

[kaosmark2]

Can the declaration of an owner as "not fit and proper" be applied retroactively?

[WS_Jack_III]

4 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Can the declaration of an owner as "not fit and proper" be applied retroactively?

Isn't that what happened at Leeds?

[lost]

27 minutes ago, WS_Jack_III said:

Couldn't even have two days of happiness, typical Nufc. Any likelihood in points deduction and transfer bans?

I think Swindon were denied promotion in the 1990's due to financial irregularities.

[WS_Jack_III]

Just now, lost said:

I think Swindon were denied promotion in the 1990's due to financial irregularities.

I'll go f*cking mental!

[eFestivals]

28 minutes ago, WS_Jack_III said:

Couldn't even have two days of happiness, typical Nufc. Any likelihood in points deduction and transfer bans?

don't think so. It's purely a tax matter.

17 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Can the declaration of an owner as "not fit and proper" be applied retroactively?

if they start doing that for newc they'll be going back decades - because (at least!) the two previous owners were working huge fiddles (fiddles which allowed them to claim themselves as putting money into thew club when they were really taking money out).

[lost]

6 minutes ago, WS_Jack_III said:

I'll go f*cking mental!

Found it on wiki:

Although they won the promotion play-offs, Swindon Town did not compete in the First Division during the following season. During the 1989–90 season the club was charged with 36 breaches of Football League regulations – 35 of which related to illegal payments made to players between 1985 and 1989.

A hearing to decide the club's fate was scheduled for 4 May – before the play-offs began – but this was postponed on legal advice just days before it was due when Swindon chairman Brian Hillier, club accountant Vince Farrar and former team manager Lou Macari were charged by police for "intent to defraud Inland Revenue by making payments without deducting tax or NI". (In July 1992 both Hillier and Farrar were found guilty of these charges, while Macari was cleared).

Hillier and Macari had already been punished by the FA in February 1990 for their involvement in a £6,500 bet being placed on Swindon losing to Newcastle United in a tie during the 1987–88 FA Cup. The bet was successful and netted £4,000 winnings. As this activity ran counter to FA rules that forbid any bets by club officials or players on their own team, both were found guilty. Hillier was given a six-month suspension from football, but after he (unsuccessfully) appealed, the FA increased it to three years. Macari was fined £1,000 (upheld after his own appeal), and Swindon Town given a £7,500 fine.

At a Football League hearing on 7 June, Swindon pleaded guilty to all 36 charges against them and admitted a further twenty. The league decreed that the club would be denied promotion and instead demoted to the Third Division. Six days later, it was announced that losing play-off finalists Sunderland would be instead promoted to the First Division. This was controversial as Newcastle felt that as they had finished third, three places above bitter rivals Sunderland, they should have been promoted instead. The FA's decision stood and Sunderland were promoted.

Swindon launched a High Court appeal against the Football League's double demotion, claiming it to be "harsh, oppressive and disproportionate to previous penalties". However, within days they dropped this action and instead appealed directly to the FA. On 2 July an FA Appeal Panel reduced the punishment to the club simply remaining in the Second Division; Tranmere Rovers – the losing play-off finalists in the Third Division – who were to have replaced Swindon in the second level were therefore denied promotion.

[The Nal]

38 minutes ago, WS_Jack_III said:

Any likelihood in points deduction and transfer bans?

Its possible I guess. Less tax paid = more money for players = unfair advantage. 

[TheGayTent]

Marseille link both clubs.....

 

....and the fat bung taker obviously 

[TheGayTent]

I bet Willie McKay has been tugged today, and if he hasn't, he'll be waiting for a knock at the door. 

[TheGayTent]

That's Barton retired then...

 

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11708/10851609/burnleys-joey-barton-banned-for-18-months-by-football-association-over-betting-rule-breaches

Edited April 26, 2017 by TheGayTent

[zahidf]

20 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

That's Barton retired then...

 

http://www.skysports.com/football/news/11708/10851609/burnleys-joey-barton-banned-for-18-months-by-football-association-over-betting-rule-breaches

Crucial line in Joey Barton's statement: '...between 2004 and 2011 I placed a handful of bets on my own team to lose matches.'

Yeah, bang to rights. Im amazed he is appealing

 

 

[WS_Jack_III]

Well all in all its been a fine day for British football hasn't it.

[The Nal]

12 minutes ago, zahidf said:

Crucial line in Joey Barton's statement: '...between 2004 and 2011 I placed a handful of bets on my own team to lose matches.'

Yeah, bang to rights. Im amazed he is appealing

 

 

Me too.

"Here Joey, pass, I'm free, open goal"

"Nah". 

18 months is actually quite lenient. 

[WS_Jack_III]

7 minutes ago, The Nal said:

Me too.

"Here Joey, pass, I'm free, open goal"

"Nah". 

18 months is actually quite lenient. 

He's said he wasn't involved in the matches, not even on the bench.

 

I do agree with the part of his statement about betting companies and the culture of it in within the game.

[TheGayTent]

3 minutes ago, WS_Jack_III said:

He's said he wasn't involved in the matches, not even on the bench.

Bit daft to be betting on himself to score then? 

[zahidf]

4 minutes ago, WS_Jack_III said:

He's said he wasn't involved in the matches, not even on the bench.

 

I do agree with the part of his statement about betting companies and the culture of it in within the game.

He is lying: as above, he put bets on games he was playing.

He is right about betting culture but its no defence!

[WS_Jack_III]

7 minutes ago, TheGayTent said:

Bit daft to be betting on himself to score then? 

Did he really? haha What a tit for claiming he wasn't involved then.

5 minutes ago, zahidf said:

He is lying: as above, he put bets on games he was playing.

He is right about betting culture but its no defence!

I don't think he was claiming it as a defence was he?

Edited April 26, 2017 by WS_Jack_III

[WS_Jack_III]

Chelsea being visited by the taxman now.

[kaosmark2]

4 hours ago, eFestivals said:

don't think so. It's purely a tax matter.

if they start doing that for newc they'll be going back decades - because (at least!) the two previous owners were working huge fiddles (fiddles which allowed them to claim themselves as putting money into thew club when they were really taking money out).

Oh yeah, Shepherd and Hall were dodgy as fuck.

Didn't lead to relegation, sacking of good managers, lack of transfer funds and tax raids though.

[WS_Jack_III]

1 minute ago, kaosmark2 said:

Oh yeah, Shepherd and Hall were dodgy as fuck.

Didn't lead to relegation, sacking of good managers, lack of transfer funds and tax raids though.

Didn't hall just have loads of family on the books?

[pink_triangle]

4 hours ago, The Nal said:

Its possible I guess. Less tax paid = more money for players = unfair advantage. 

That's the main reason the French fans often hate Monaco.

[TheGayTent]

5 minutes ago, pink_triangle said:

That's the main reason the French fans often hate Monaco.

Thought that had been done away with?

[eFestivals]

19 minutes ago, kaosmark2 said:

Oh yeah, Shepherd and Hall were dodgy as fuck.

Didn't lead to relegation, sacking of good managers, lack of transfer funds and tax raids though.

their ownership led to all of those things except perhaps the tax raids, though.

(tho i have a feeling there were some raids on shepherd after the spain thing came out, wasn't there?)

[kaosmark2]

1 hour ago, WS_Jack_III said:

Didn't hall just have loads of family on the books?

The whole "money in, money out" thing started under Hall. And he was still an "investor and contributor" under Shepherd.

57 minutes ago, eFestivals said:

their ownership led to all of those things except perhaps the tax raids, though.

(tho i have a feeling there were some raids on shepherd after the spain thing came out, wasn't there?)

Can't put Hughton's sacking on anyone but Ashley and Llambias. Whether our previous relegation can be partially blamed on them is debatable (I'd say Shepherd/Souness are as guilty as Ashley/Kinnear/Shearer/Wise), but last season can't be.

Personal raids I think, not of the club.