Felt reasonably confident until I read this

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/imag...0505---efl-v-macclesfield-town---decision.pdf


para 51, 63 and 66 of particular concern.

 

This independant body simply do not like points deductions leading to relegation. Not a chance they'll allow Wigan to be relegated in these circumstances.

 

I've already resigned myself to Wigan being successful and us eventually being given some money to shut up.

 

We'll be lucky to get any money to shut up.

 

Ffs not good

 

Not a concern to me tbh as regards the rules .
Relegation not a danger to Wigan’s FL status in fact imo helps them rebuild without the higher financial constraints of the Championship .
The integrity of how the panel interprets our rules is more a concern to me than the complications of its rules .

 

Do this panel have the powers to allow both teams to stay up creating a 25 team league?

 

No

 

I don't think so. They only have the power to decide Wigan's punishment.

 

I think the fact that there are rules around the 12 point deduction applying in one season or another helps our case (depending on final standing) but I hope we were allowed to put arguments forward via counsel rather than just observe

 

League members have to vote on league sizes.

 

I find 66. perplexing: 'The Commission considers [...] that its duty is to assist in the enforcement of the Regulations in a sporting context and that it cannot be blind as to the sporting outcomes when assessing totality and proportionality.'

On what basis do they imagine that the application of the rules should be subject to their interpretation of a given 'sporting context'?

This 'duty' they bestow upon themselves appears to provide them with carte blanche to say: Well, yes, the rules were broken and the punishment is fixed but we actually feel that X, Y or Z should be the true moral outcome, and so that's what will happen.

That's bizarre.

 

I don’t think anyone from Barnsley was present at the appeal, rather they just submitted in writing what their position is.
There are plenty of differences in the two cases, but the fact that the pandemic is cited regularly here could suggest some sympathy towards the force majeure argument, along with their record of leniency, means it’s difficult to be confident.

 

Whose going to vote for more games? If Wigan have the deduction overturned the right thing to do in ALL divisions is offer the vote to members to get rid of relegation citing force majeure. However, why would a team that finished mid table vote to play 52 games instead of 46?

 

51 cheers me up. sporting integrity. if they apply the same principles -12 is the only outcome.

the central question in a case such as this should always be: within the range of available penalties, what is the least severe penalty reasonably possible which appropriately sanctions the club, whilst adequately serving the needs of the League and the protection of its structures and values.

 

Main point is this.
Barnsley are where they are because they have tried to stay within the EFL rules.
Wigan are in administration because they were unsustainable.
So the EFL have a choice of which club they support.

 

It’s not up to the EFL

 

If I understood 63 correctly, one of the reasons for leniency was the fact that the L2 season had not been completed (a bit of a joke considering what happened to Tranmere). This is not the case with the Championship. Or I read it wrongly?

 

It's not the EFL. It's an independent body.

 

Really concerned having read that. Wouldn't put it past this independent panel reducing the points deduction to say just 6 points so Wigan stay up. If they do side in favour of Wigan then let's hope Conway is straight on the offensive as the EFL also need taking to task over the pigs delayed deduction.