Wycombe threaten to sue and send us into admin. if we stay up!

[Dean (hick) Saunders]

Go ahead sue. I’ll send the boys round to bust a cap in your bottoms.

Edited June 27, 2021 by Dean (hick) Saunders

[Rampage]

1 hour ago, Dean (hick) Saunders said:

Go ahead sue. I’ll send the boys round to bust a cap in your bottoms.

A nerf is a nerf.

[Asanovic70]

Wycombe's owner is an opportunist, the irony, for me, and this may not be popular, is that if any side should stay up at our expense, it is Rotherham. They, along with Wednesday & us, were the only other sides in with a realistic chance of survival on the final day, not Wycombe, who had a vastly inferior Goal Difference.

They came within 5 minutes of achieving survival themselves, and it took an equalizer and a 6pts deduction to ensure we stopped up.

Rotherham did call off games due to Covid 19, playing 3x in March, but they played 9x in April (Wycombe 6x) and 3x in May (2x for the rest of the division). How does that ensure the integrity of a competition? I'm surprised by how little fuss Rotherham have made, perhaps the final standings render this pointless, but on a moral level, they competed until the very end & actually took maximum points off us. 

 

 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Asanovic70

[Tamworthram]

4 minutes ago, Asanovic70 said:

Wycombe's owner is an opportunist, the irony, for me, and this may not be popular, is that if any side should stay up at our expense, it is Rotherham. They, along with Wednesday & us, were the only other sides in with a realistic chance of survival on the final day, not Wycombe, who had a vastly inferior Goal Difference.

They came within 5 minutes of achieving survival themselves, and it took an equalizer and a 6pts deduction to ensure we stopped up.

Rotherham did call off games due to Covid 19, playing 3x in March, but they played 9x in April (Wycombe 6x) and 3x in May (2x for the rest of the division). How does that ensure the integrity of a competition? I'm surprised by how little fuss Rotherham have made, perhaps the final standings render this pointless, but on a moral level, they competed until the very end & actually took maximum points off us. 

 

 

Sorry, I don’t get that at all.

It’s irrelevant how many points they took off us and you do have to wonder why Rotherham suffered so much from Covid. Also, favouring a club over another that gained more points, simply because they had to play a lot of games in a short period of time, wouldn’t do anything for the integrity of the competition either.

I really don’t think it will happen (I said several days ago that I don’t even think the EFL will appeal) but, if points were deducted retroactively, there is no team other than Wycombe that should replace us.

 

[Gee SCREAMER !!]

10 minutes ago, Asanovic70 said:

Wycombe's owner is an opportunist, the irony, for me, and this may not be popular, is that if any side should stay up at our expense, it is Rotherham. They, along with Wednesday & us, were the only other sides in with a realistic chance of survival on the final day, not Wycombe, who had a vastly inferior Goal Difference.

They came within 5 minutes of achieving survival themselves, and it took an equalizer and a 6pts deduction to ensure we stopped up.

Rotherham did call off games due to Covid 19, playing 3x in March, but they played 9x in April (Wycombe 6x) and 3x in May (2x for the rest of the division). How does that ensure the integrity of a competition? I'm surprised by how little fuss Rotherham have made, perhaps the final standings render this pointless, but on a moral level, they competed until the very end & actually took maximum points off us. 

 

 

Chairman's a nob and the manager proved to be a bigger one in his interview after the last match.  It actually took a converted penalty to ensure we finished above them.  The question should really be how they put themselves in the position of 3 covid outbreaks in 3 months. I don't know enough about the Sheff Wed situation to know if they were unlucky or not.  There situation seems less grey area than ours.  Based on our current experience and the reduction in point penalty it's possible.

[Mucker1884]

45 minutes ago, Asanovic70 said:

Wycombe's owner is an opportunist, the irony, for me, and this may not be popular, is that if any side should stay up at our expense, it is Rotherham. They, along with Wednesday & us, were the only other sides in with a realistic chance of survival on the final day, not Wycombe, who had a vastly inferior Goal Difference.

They came within 5 minutes of achieving survival themselves, and it took an equalizer and a 6pts deduction to ensure we stopped up.

Rotherham did call off games due to Covid 19, playing 3x in March, but they played 9x in April (Wycombe 6x) and 3x in May (2x for the rest of the division). How does that ensure the integrity of a competition? I'm surprised by how little fuss Rotherham have made, perhaps the final standings render this pointless, but on a moral level, they competed until the very end & actually took maximum points off us. 

 

 

I understand and appreciate the points you are making, but the final standings really do render your comments pointless, other than this is the perfect place to air such thoughts/opinions, of course.  You simply have to go on those final positions.  WW finished above Rotherham, regardless of covid, heavy schedules, or any other factor.

Anyway... my post is equally pointless, as we ain't going down on this one... imo.  

 

[Woodley Ram]

it wouldn't work anyway. Any judge would say the affected period where we 'allegedly'  over spent was prior to Wycombe being in the Championship so wouldn't affect them. DCFC could not be penalised for the EFL disciplinary process. we certainly didn't overspend last season

[Asanovic70]

The way I see it is (going on what Steve Nicholson  posted last week) is that any points deduction is likely to be carried into the following season, and the discussion academic. If the worst scenario happens, (retrospective), it happens and there is not a lot we can do about it as it is out of our hands.

1 hour ago, Gee SCREAMER !! said:

It actually took a converted penalty to ensure we finished above them

We couldn't even get the job done ourselves, we needed a late favour off Cardiff. It was in our hands, win the game, 3pts, safety guaranteed. I'm not concerned about Wednesday, another big club run badly.  I just meant that we were the ultimate beneficiaries of their 6pts deduction.

2 hours ago, Tamworthram said:

Also, favouring a club over another that gained more points, simply because they had to play a lot of games in a short period of time,

I disagree, surely you need some recovery time, three games a week, surely that impacts upon the squad?  I know footballers like excuses, but other factors come into play, travel etc. We've seen it with the Euros, the Welsh having to play & travel 5,000 miles, the Belgians having 48 more hours recovery time than Portugal. I actually think we gambled on Rotherham running out of gas. 

Yeah, I know the league table is as it stands with Wycombe, 22nd & it's not going to change, but over the whole season, they were never really in the battle for survival and they are deceiving themselves if they think otherwise. 5W in 35, 6W in the last 11, they played with the handbrake off. I find it dishonest that the Wycombe owner is dressing it up as if they were pipped at the post. If they stop up at our expense, so be it. It's just a personal view that Rotherham were the more competitive side throughout the season.

 

 

 

[Patrick Rams]

11 minutes ago, Asanovic70 said:

The way I see it is (going on what Steve Nicholson  posted last week) is that any points deduction is likely to be carried into the following season, and the discussion academic. If the worst scenario happens, (retrospective), it happens and there is not a lot we can do about it as it is out of our hands.

We couldn't even get the job done ourselves, we needed a late favour off Cardiff. It was in our hands, win the game, 3pts, safety guaranteed. I'm not concerned about Wednesday, another big club run badly.  I just meant that we were the ultimate beneficiaries of their 6pts deduction.

I disagree, surely you need some recovery time, three games a week, surely that impacts upon the squad?  I know footballers like excuses, but other factors come into play, travel etc. We've seen it with the Euros, the Welsh having to play & travel 5,000 miles, the Belgians having 48 more hours recovery time than Portugal. I actually think we gambled on Rotherham running out of gas. 

Yeah, I know the league table is as it stands with Wycombe, 22nd & it's not going to change, but over the whole season, they were never really in the battle for survival and they are deceiving themselves if they think otherwise. 5W in 35, 6W in the last 11, they played with the handbrake off. I find it dishonest that the Wycombe owner is dressing it up as if they were pipped at the post. If they stop up at our expense, so be it. It's just a personal view that Rotherham were the more competitive side throughout the season.

 

 

 

They weren't... Wycombe were...they finished above Rotherham.

[Tamworthram]

14 minutes ago, Asanovic70 said:

 

I disagree, surely you need some recovery time, three games a week, surely that impacts upon the squad?  I know footballers like excuses, but other factors come into play, travel etc. We've seen it with the Euros, the Welsh having to play & travel 5,000 miles, the Belgians having 48 more hours recovery time than Portugal. I actually think we gambled on Rotherham running out of gas. 

 

 

 

 

They couldn’t give Rotherham a few extra points or save them in preference to Wycombe. How would that be better for the integrity of the game than Rotherham being forced to play so many games in such a short period of time?

[Carnero]

18 minutes ago, Asanovic70 said:

We couldn't even get the job done ourselves, we needed a late favour off Cardiff. It was in our hands, win the game, 3pts, safety guaranteed

For all anyone knows, we could have gone on to win the game in the last 10-15 mins if we didn't already know the Rotherham result.

We didn't need to win at that point so concentrated on not conceding for the final portion of the game.

Nobody knows what would have happened if we'd NEEDED to win so to say we couldn't get the job done ourselves is not quite right.

[sonofmidnight]

What is the point of playing any matches at all if the EFL can decide to demote teams when the season has finished. IMHO it's absolutely ridiculous and makes a mockery of players' efforts. Yet again the innocent, and I include both players and fans in this, are punished.

[Asanovic70]

@Carnero  The score-line was 3-3, we drew the game. We had 90 minutes to do the job and had to come behind from a deficit, twice. Yes, I agree nobody knows in the light of different circumstances what would happened but we knew what was needed from the outset, 3pts, safety guaranteed. In the end, we had to rely on a favour. In an abysmal season, with few bright spots (Bielik), we were very lucky. 

Going into the last day, which sides were in with a realistic chance of staying up? One of them wasn't Wycombe, but due to the vagaries of results, they saw themselves go up a place. Yes, I know the table doesn't lie, but I think Mr Couhig is hoodwinking somebody. If he succeeds, good luck to the fella. 

Edited June 28, 2021 by Asanovic70

[Carnero]

18 minutes ago, Asanovic70 said:

The score-line was 3-3, we drew the game. We had 90 minutes to do the job and had to come behind from a deficit, twice. Yes, I agree nobody knows in the light of different circumstances what would happened but we knew what was needed from the outset, 3pts, safety guaranteed. In the end, we had to rely on a favour. In an abysmal season, with few bright spots (Bielik), we were very lucky. 

Oh don't get me wrong, over the season i agree that we were lucky to stay up on such a low points total.

But to say we couldn't do the job ourselves I still disagree with, we did do the job by drawing when we knew the Rotherham result.

Who's to say we wouldn't have won in the last 10-15 mins had we known Rotherham had won? For a start we wouldn't have put Davies on for Waghorn would we! Mind with this manager maybe we would have... 

[TigerTedd]

I’ve missed most of this thread, to be fair, but if we broke the rules a couple of years ago, it didn’t effect Wycombe. Middlesborough would probably have more right to sue us, as they would have been directly affected. Fine, Wycombe would have benefitted from us being punished last season, but that would be just their good fortune, they wouldn’t have lost any potential revenue because of the initial rule break. It’s not like a Sheffield United vs West Ham situation, it’s got nothing to do with Wycombe really. 

[Indy]

55 minutes ago, TigerTedd said:

I’ve missed most of this thread, to be fair, but if we broke the rules a couple of years ago, it didn’t effect Wycombe. Middlesborough would probably have more right to sue us, as they would have been directly affected. Fine, Wycombe would have benefitted from us being punished last season, but that would be just their good fortune, they wouldn’t have lost any potential revenue because of the initial rule break. It’s not like a Sheffield United vs West Ham situation, it’s got nothing to do with Wycombe really. 

Indeed. Boro made that case as they tried to get themselves added as injured parties as part of the appeal. It was thrown out. 
 

Wycombe’s issue is the timing and delay of this process which DCFC had no control over. Wycombe’s beef is with the EFL, and Boro (whose appeal mentioned above added six months to the process apparently). Wycombe should be suing them, if anyone. 

[ram59]

19 hours ago, Carnero said:

Oh don't get me wrong, over the season i agree that we were lucky to stay up on such a low points total.

But to say we couldn't do the job ourselves I still disagree with, we did do the job by drawing when we knew the Rotherham result.

Who's to say we wouldn't have won in the last 10-15 mins had we known Rotherham had won? For a start we wouldn't have put Davies on for Waghorn would we! Mind with this manager maybe we would have... 

Continuing on this theme, how can it be fair to dock points after the season has finished? A 2 point penalty given before the last game would have meant us still going for a win in those last 10 minutes rather than sitting on the draw. Wednesday had all season to make up their 6 point penalty.

I think that Derby would appeal any decision resulting in a points penalty for last season and knowing the speed of the appeals process, this wouldn't be decided upon until after christmas.

[StarterForTen]

38 minutes ago, ram59 said:

Continuing on this theme, how can it be fair to dock points after the season has finished? A 2 point penalty given before the last game would have meant us still going for a win in those last 10 minutes rather than sitting on the draw. Wednesday had all season to make up their 6 point penalty.

By any stretch of the imagination you have to say that, as the calendar turns into July, the 2020-21 season has now ended. So, if a point penalty is indeed awarded for a historical breach, why should it apply to THAT particular season? It's not like the effects of the breach were linked to the outcome of last season any more than they were for the previous three or four.

The charges were actually brought during the 2019-20 season, so why don't we apply them to that? Dock us 12 points in that season and we finish 17th on 52 points instead of 10th on 64.

It's as logical as applying it to any other historical season.

 

 

[Spanish]

1 hour ago, ram59 said:

Continuing on this theme, how can it be fair to dock points after the season has finished? A 2 point penalty given before the last game would have meant us still going for a win in those last 10 minutes rather than sitting on the draw. Wednesday had all season to make up their 6 point penalty.

I think that Derby would appeal any decision resulting in a points penalty for last season and knowing the speed of the appeals process, this wouldn't be decided upon until after christmas.

ok 

the fine of £100k from DC is the current penalty

either side can appeal it, we don't know whether they have

if the EFL do I think it goes back to LAP

If they decide on a points penalty for 20/21 we are relegated, there is no right of appeal that I have seen

the only option will be to take legal action in the hope that we can stop the start of the season for championship and Div 1

It is all very unfair

[RadioactiveWaste]

5 minutes ago, Spanish said:

ok 

the fine of £100k from DC is the current penalty

either side can appeal it, we don't know whether they have

if the EFL do I think it goes back to LAP

If they decide on a points penalty for 20/21 we are relegated, there is no right of appeal that I have seen

the only option will be to take legal action in the hope that we can stop the start of the season for championship and Div 1

It is all very unfair

It'd go to the LAP if we appeal, I'm not sure how it works if both sides appeal but I imagine it would be one hearing that heard both appeals. If the EFL appeal I'm sure we will represent our side anyway.

If the EFL argument at all is "it needs to be harder because we lost the first part of the charge." I don't think it'll get much traction.