Suspended 3 point deduction and a £7,500 fine

[londonblue]

I advise full reading of the document- very enlightening and will avoid any wrong assumptions

On my part I have argued that a points deduction for non payment of players was currently not a sanction. I was not correct as in the ruling it suggests part of the points penalties for Bolton and Macclesfield did indeed relate to non-payment. The threshold was however persistent and deliberate non payment associated with financial mismanagement.

The ruling points out these were the first charges brought for a financial breach in the 22 years Ron has been chairman.

Contrary to what was suggested at the time the club unlike others took no loans from the PFA or EFL and settled the wages in on the following 10 and 18/19 days respectively

Many will be shocked no doubt by many of the independent panels positive comments regarding how well the club is run financially.

I thought the points deduction was likely if not pretty much nailed on for the unregistered player- but just s small fine.

As you would expect the EFL’s judgement about what is far and appropriate was dismissed as unfair and disproportionate.

Read the whole thing- if you believed before hand the EFL were a shocking shower not a lot will change your view. BTW bit of a glaring error in there- it says we have 21 points to play for its 27 (maybe the EFL just arrogantly assuming their 6 point reduction would be agreed with? we have 9 games to play?).

The interesting thing now is the the EFL seem to think paying late for cash flow should be a points deduction- this month and next a number of EFL clubs will be late with wages- the EFL will by their own weak arguments in this case be needing to bring misconduct charges in all cases. No doubt they would like to see many clubs having deductions or starting on a minus points total. Will they act consistently and with integrity or will they face all ways again.

For those worried about the suspended points deduction perhaps the fact that this is it now appears the only time in the last 22 years we have actually been late with wages, and given the recapitalisation of the club going forward, I would suggest their are many other clubs who will be more at risk than us.

As I say do take the time to read it in full- it is worth it.

PS it was Mitchell-Nelson (19 year old loaned to Harlow Town)

I haven't read the document yet but I've just downloaded it.

In answer to your point above, I suspect the EFL won't pursue other clubs because this judgement went against them. You'd like to think they would have noted the judgement and use their judgement as to the reasons for late payment and whether or not the club is a persistent offender.

 

[GBJ]

For the second time in this thread, I’m pointing out to you, that this is not the first time in 22-years that we’ve paid wages late.

OK apologies I think- perhaps I should have better said the first time that the club in 22 years has been charged with any such offence or indeed any other financial offence. That at least is a fact it would now appear.

2009/10 saw us lose all but four players, after the majority of the squad activated clauses in their contracts to leave the club, due to unfulfillment of wages.

In doing so it would appear Ron broke no EFL rules that would result in any disciplinary action.

17(?) winding up orders in 10(?) years, would suggest otherwise.

Ron has treated HMRC very badly very often, using them as a bank to cover cash flow requirements. Some will feel for them. However, as also discussed many times unlike many clubs we also have never gone into administration. And again we have never been charged with anything by the EFL relating to this in the last 22 years.

So maybe we can agree that Ron has been very good at sticking to/playing (delete according to preference) the league rules whilst not actually breaking them for the last 22 years. Some will admire that achievement, some will be further outraged by it..

Either way the ruling makes a very interesting read.

To me, Ron is like a drunk driver, who has miraculously made it home after a skinfull.

It’s great that nobody got hurt, but I’m not about to applaud him for not getting caught. Truth is, he shouldn’t have been taking the risk in the first place.

 

[Napster]

To me, Ron is like a drunk driver, who has miraculously made it home after a skinfull.

It’s great that nobody got hurt, but I’m not about to applaud him for not getting caught. Truth is, he shouldn’t have been taking the risk in the first place.

but who gave him the keys?

 

[GBJ]

but who gave him the keys?

He had them all along

 

[londonblue]

Having now read the document, the only thing that should worry us is that the EFL have 14 days to appeal. It's not over just yet!

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

OK apologies I think- perhaps I should have better said the first time that the club in 22 years has been charged with any such offence or indeed any other financial offence. That at least is a fact it would now appear.

How many of those 22 years has such an offence existed for Ron to be charged with?

We know for a fact that he has been a habitual late payer.

 

[kentblues]

How many of those 22 years has such an offence existed for Ron to be charged with?

We know for a fact that he has been a habitual late payer.

You can only follow the rules that are there. He has complied with them once they were.

However, given the EFL holds it's own rules in contempt when it suits you could argue that Ron has taken them more seriously than the governing body itself has.

Anyway my argument has never been that Ron is a man of great virtue. As discussed many times his biggest failing, and its is unforgivable, is not being wealthy enough. Late paying is not acceptable, particularly where it affects small businesses. But Ron's issue is more the ability to pay and cash flow than anything. I know in many ways it doesn't make it better but there are many, many worse custodians of football clubs.

 

[Leigh_Seasider]

He had them all along

The man is clearly a genius. He was smirking to himself and quietly polishing his Bentley (not a euphemism) .. while others were crying doom and gloom, relegation, the end of the club forevermore etc.

 

[kentblues]

The man is clearly a genius. He was smirking to himself and quietly polishing his Bentley (not a euphemism) .. while others were crying doom and gloom, relegation, the end of the club forevermore etc.

I think we can say he has been dogged in his determination to make it happen, and he has believed it would happen even if others doubted it. Somewhere there lies something worthy of credit.

 

[GBJ]

The man is clearly a genius. He was smirking to himself and quietly polishing his Bentley (not a euphemism) .. while others were crying doom and gloom, relegation, the end of the club forevermore etc.

Sure. Now if he could only correct that one remaining (and very expensive) mistake, then this season wouldn’t have been too bad.

Edit: that was gentle sarcasm

 

[GBJ]

I think we can say he has been dogged in his determination to make it happen, and he has believed it would happen even if others doubted it. Somewhere there lies something worthy of credit.

As I said, credit to him for making it home in one piece, but he should never have driven home drunk in the first place.

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

How has it taken so long to be dealt with? RM wasn't contesting it.
Is the delay, if, as it seems, was unnecessary poor admin then isn't that an abuse of process by the FA?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

You can only follow the rules that are there. He has complied with them once they were.

He hasn't complied with them once they were there.

He's been found guilty of two accounts, with what sounds like a third on it's way.

 

[kentblues]

How has it taken so long to be dealt with? RM wasn't contesting it.
Is the delay, if, as it seems, was unnecessary poor admin then isn't that an abuse of process by the FA?

It was EFL not FA. The EFL’s own admin is probably much worse than any of the clubs- all these cases seem to take forever even when points deductions are involved. Where that sits with the EFL’s claimed interest in sporting integrity is not easy to understand

 

[kentblues]

He hasn't complied with them once they were there.

He's been found guilty of two accounts, with what sounds like a third on it's way.

View attachment 12227

Well he had for 22 years until these incidents.
No idea which additional one is on the way.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

How has it taken so long to be dealt with? RM wasn't contesting it.
Is the delay, if, as it seems, was unnecessary poor admin then isn't that an abuse of process by the FA?

Wages were due 31st December and the club were charged 17th January, 12 working days later. The club did not respond to the FA charge until 27 working days later when the charge was admitted.

Wages were again due 28 February, the club were charged 6th March, 5 working days later.

The ineligible player was fielded 1st February. The EFL requested observations from the club on 3rd February and the club did not respond until 24 February, some 15 working days later. The EFL charged the club 6th March, 9 working days later.

The season was suspended on 14 March and within a fortnight of that the country went into lockdown.

So the biggest delays here are the club's and not the EFL's.

It was EFL not FA. The EFL’s own admin is probably much worse than any of the clubs- all these cases seem to take forever even when points deductions are involved. Where that sits with the EFL’s claimed interest in sporting integrity is not easy to understand

False, as clearly set out in the facts of the published statement, as I've set out above.

 

[kentblues]

Wages were due 31st December and the club were charged 17th January, 12 working days later. The club did not respond to the FA charge until 27 working days later when the charge was admitted.

Wages were again due 28 February, the club were charged 6th March, 5 working days later.

The ineligible player was fielded 1st February. The EFL requested observations from the club on 3rd February and the club did not respond until 24 February, some 15 working days later. The EFL charged the club 6th March, 9 working days later.

The season was suspended on 14 March and within a fortnight of that the country went into lockdown.

So the biggest delays here are the club's and not the EFL's.



False, as clearly set out in the facts of the published statement, as I've set out above.

This is all detailed and lovely but I think the question is relating to why it has taken 3 months to get a decision after being charged especially as we admitted all the charges- this 3 month lapse dwarfs all the timescales you mention?

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

This is all detailed and lovely but I think the question is relating to why it has taken 3 months to get a decision after being charged especially as we admitted all the charges- this 3 month lapse dwarfs all the timescales you mention?

Did you not hear that there's been a pandemic and the country has been in lockdown? The Football League itself was suspended the week after the final set of charges were laid against the club. In that time we've played just one match.

The first month and a half after the initial charges was spent waiting for the club to respond to the charge. We played 8 matches in that time. By this time Ron had committed a further breach! It would have then made sense for all parties to combine this into one hearing, thereby saving costs of all sides (otherwise it would have cost Southend more than the £4625 plus VAT in costs we had to pay) and you should credit the League for doing so. In the meantime Ron then committed a third offence!

You can't just hold a hearing immediately. To be fair you need to find a time in everyone's calendars that everyone can make and that includes both sides' legal representation and the Panel to hear it. We know Ron's diary was quite full up facing Winding Up orders in the High Court. The legal chaps will be quite busy and can't just drop everything as they will have other clients and commitments. They also need time to prepare their skeleton arguments that were submitted in advance. We also know time was not of the essence to the club because it took Ron a month and a half to respond to a charge he knew he was guilty of.

In the circumstances I think the League have dealt with this expeditiously. The same can't be said of our Chairman.

 

[londonblue]

Did you not hear that there's been a pandemic and the country has been in lockdown? The Football League itself was suspended the week after the final set of charges were laid against the club. In that time we've played just one match.

The first month and a half after the initial charges was spent waiting for the club to respond to the charge. We played 8 matches in that time. By this time Ron had committed a further breach! It would have then made sense for all parties to combine this into one hearing, thereby saving costs of all sides (otherwise it would have cost Southend more than the £4625 plus VAT in costs we had to pay) and you should credit the League for doing so. In the meantime Ron then committed a third offence!

You can't just hold a hearing immediately. To be fair you need to find a time in everyone's calendars that everyone can make and that includes both sides' legal representation and the Panel to hear it. We know Ron's diary was quite full up facing Winding Up orders in the High Court. The legal chaps will be quite busy and can't just drop everything as they will have other clients and commitments. They also need time to prepare their skeleton arguments that were submitted in advance. We also know time was not of the essence to the club because it took Ron a month and a half to respond to a charge he knew he was guilty of.

In the circumstances I think the League have dealt with this expeditiously. The same can't be said of our Chairman.

I would say that was quite quick.

(From the time I was rear-ended by an idiot driver who refused to accept she hit me to the time all the legal stuff had been prepared and submitted (including about 10 iterations of my witness statement) we had been at it for just under a year.)

 

[RHB]

I would say that was quite quick.

(From the time I was rear-ended by an idiot driver who refused to accept she hit me to the time all the legal stuff had been prepared and submitted (including about 10 iterations of my witness statement) we had been at it for just under a year.)

That's quite probably the longest rear-ending on record I reckon.