Macclesfield points deduction reduced from 6 to 4 points.

Blue Lion

Active Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2015
Messages
931
Reaction score
246
Points
43
Location
Macclesfield
Supports
Macclesfield
When's the appeal decision?
There's no timeframe on it. The EFL seem to have abandoned their wish for it all to be resolved quickly in favour of getting the outcome they want. Hopefully it's over soon so our preparations can continue without more disruption.
 

AdamStag

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2015
Messages
6,281
Reaction score
1,028
Points
113
Supports
Mansfield Town
Stevenage are an odious club, and I hope they never come back up, horrible fans, horrible ground, horrible trip, horrible place, horrible club.
 

Bottega Don

Lenging Man Down
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
3,312
Reaction score
1,171
Points
113
Supports
Scunthorpe United
And 2 weeks later the EFL decide to appeal after pressure from Stevenage, Carlisle, Grimsby and possibly others. Their objection is that some of the points deduction was suspended until next season rather than being applied straight away.

Strange, seeing as the EFL could easily just reject our upcoming financial plan and kick us out that way.
I might be missing something but why does any other club but Stevenage care about the point deducation? I don't understand why Grimsby and Carlisle would be bothered.
 

AdamStag

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2015
Messages
6,281
Reaction score
1,028
Points
113
Supports
Mansfield Town
I might be missing something but why does any other club but Stevenage care about the point deducation? I don't understand why Grimsby and Carlisle would be bothered.
If they genuinely did appeal, I dare say it’d be a cuntish act of the highest order
 

Blue Lion

Active Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2015
Messages
931
Reaction score
246
Points
43
Location
Macclesfield
Supports
Macclesfield
I might be missing something but why does any other club but Stevenage care about the point deducation? I don't understand why Grimsby and Carlisle would be bothered.
I'd imagine clubs don't want to risk losing out on a home game if we get chucked out early next season like Bury - which is a bit self centred but understandable.
 

Semi-skimmed Silk

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
989
Reaction score
354
Points
63
Supports
Macclesfield Town
Stevenage have been invited to speak at the independent panels hearing for the EFL appeal, despite the charge having nothing to do with them. Pretty clear this is not the EFL trying to enact appropriate punishment and purely about them getting rid of us. Can we borrow City's legion of lawyers...
 

AdamStag

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2015
Messages
6,281
Reaction score
1,028
Points
113
Supports
Mansfield Town
It has NOTHING to do with Stevenage.

They were bottom as they’re shit.
 

valefan16

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
8,174
Reaction score
879
Points
113
Supports
Port Vale
Odd that, not sure why any other club should have a say in it at all!
 

Blue Lion

Active Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2015
Messages
931
Reaction score
246
Points
43
Location
Macclesfield
Supports
Macclesfield
Poor from the EFL to take sides like this when they really should be impartial. Obviously Stevenage have a vested interest in the case but that is no reason to actually involve them in it. They will add no argument that the EFL couldn't have made themselves. Thankfully I trust the disciplinary panel will be professional enough to take little notice of Stevenage's attempts to pull at their heart strings.

Also frustrating to hear that the hearing hasn't actually taken place yet. Could still be a couple of weeks until we get the verdict.
 

The_Boss

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
3,054
Reaction score
1,607
Points
113
Location
Chapel-en-le-Frith, High Peak
Supports
Macclesfield Town
Poor from the EFL to take sides like this when they really should be impartial. Obviously Stevenage have a vested interest in the case but that is no reason to actually involve them in it. They will add no argument that the EFL couldn't have made themselves. Thankfully I trust the disciplinary panel will be professional enough to take little notice of Stevenage's attempts to pull at their heart strings.

Also frustrating to hear that the hearing hasn't actually taken place yet. Could still be a couple of weeks until we get the verdict.
I don't trust them one bit. Why would the EFL go through all of this if they didn't seriously have an expectation of the outcome they want?
 

Blue Lion

Active Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2015
Messages
931
Reaction score
246
Points
43
Location
Macclesfield
Supports
Macclesfield
I don't trust them one bit. Why would the EFL go through all of this if they didn't seriously have an expectation of the outcome they want?
Oh I'm worried for sure, but whatever Phil Wallace says won't be what tips the balance. All he will say is the whole "sporting advantage with players they couldn't afford" thing, which isn't a very solid argument. Whatever the outcome ends up being, I don't think Stevenage's self pity will influence it.

It seems to me the crux of this appeal is whether the original panel were right to consider our league position when deciding on the punishment - which is an entirely subjective debate. You could argue that it's not a good enough reason to overturn the original decision. I think it could go either way for us.

And the fact the EFL only appealed right at the last minute makes me think they're not 100% confident of success.
 

Luke Imp

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
9,242
Reaction score
2,189
Points
113
Location
Lincoln
Supports
Lincoln City
Hearing unlikely to be before the start of August!

 

valefan16

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
8,174
Reaction score
879
Points
113
Supports
Port Vale
Hearing unlikely to be before the start of August!

Opening day fixture on release day at this rate will be

Carlisle Vs Macclesfield/Stevenage

York v Macclesfield/Stevenage
 

Si Robin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2015
Messages
2,049
Reaction score
503
Points
113
Location
Tewkesbury
Supports
Cheltenham Town
I may have this wrong, but I believe they have to let you in to their part of the pyramid as part of their contract with the EFL, so they could put Macc into NLN if needs be.

Pretty sure that's what happened with Boston when they were relegated.
 

AdamStag

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 1, 2015
Messages
6,281
Reaction score
1,028
Points
113
Supports
Mansfield Town
I may have this wrong, but I believe they have to let you in to their part of the pyramid as part of their contract with the EFL, so they could put Macc into NLN if needs be.

Pretty sure that's what happened with Boston when they were relegated.
Aye, they have to be accepted, but then rejected at the same stage - as you point out Boston were passed straight through to the NLN but later instated in the CN on appeal. They also relegated Gateshead a league on financial grounds last season.

The conference board don’t get much right but their stance on finances is impressive.
 

Vanni

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
6,160
Reaction score
2,972
Points
113
Location
.
Supports
Cambridge United
There's no question about it. It's wrong to involve Boro in this mess.
But the whole 'Macc had an unfair advantage with players they couldn't afford' is a very good argument in my book. Because for starters, I hear that not all of the players that Macc had this year were on minimum wage so to speak.

You folks know where I stand on this issue. Give me Macc over Boro anytime of the day (like almost everybody else I guess) but I feel that relegating the chavs would be unfair. Obviously, the L2 clubs know much more than we do and I think they knew what they were doing when 20 of them said no club should be relegated this year. Any suggestions they only did that because they wanted to go back to the good old re-election days are frankly laughable.
 

Chris FGR

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
7,477
Reaction score
2,987
Points
113
Supports
Forest Green
Macc were already punished. What was it, 13 points deducted? Why punish them further?
 

Blue Lion

Active Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2015
Messages
931
Reaction score
246
Points
43
Location
Macclesfield
Supports
Macclesfield
But the whole 'Macc had an unfair advantage with players they couldn't afford' is a very good argument in my book. Because for starters, I hear that not all of the players that Macc had this year were on minimum wage so to speak.
Personally I'd argue that we could in fact afford the players, but the owner kept removing money from the club that should have been used to pay them. I wouldn't call that overspending as such - they are the exact same players we would have had anyway, just they're not being paid! I'd certainly oppose the notion that we have gained any sporting advantage from this situation. In effect the owner has pulled the rug from under the club.
 
Last edited:

Luke Imp

Well-Known Member
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
9,242
Reaction score
2,189
Points
113
Location
Lincoln
Supports
Lincoln City
Not sure whether anyone fancies a read but I'll post it anyway!

-----------------------------------------

A letter to the Chief Executive Officer of the English Football League
SST Secretary
c/o 3 Lincoln Place
Macclesfield

Cheshire

SK10 3EW

Mr David Baldwin
Chief Executive Officer
English Football League
EFL House
10-12 West Cliff
Preston
PR1 8HU

Dear Mr Baldwin

Macclesfield Town Football Club (MTFC) are a small town football club within a hotbed of Premiership clubs in the North West, and one with a proud heritagedating back to 1874. The "against all odds" mentality that pervades our club has seen MTFC achieve promotion to the English Football League (EFL) on two occasions, and on much smaller budgets than many of its peers.

It is further use to note that in this day and age where there is a great concern about the lack of Black Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) coaches and managers in English football within the game, Macclesfield has appointed 3 BAME managers and a number of BAME coaches during their tenure in the ELF.

Please be assured that the overwhelming majority of Macclesfield Town Football Club (MTFC) Silkmen fans including the Silkmen Supporters Trust (SST) board, would be the first to admit that the stewardship of our beloved club by majority shareholder Mr. AlKadhi has been heartbreakingly horrendous. Silkmen fans everywhere despise his mismanagement of the club and in addition to his contemptuous attitude towards the club’s playing and non-playing staff and of course our long suffering supporters. It is our view that the actions of Mr. AlKhadi have clearly angered the English Football League (EFL), and as a result of his actions MTFC have been rightly docked points for this mismanagement., The recent re-involvement of former Silkmen chairman Mark Blower who played a major role in MTFC's defence at the recent independent panel hearing, had subsequently pointed to a more secure future for our beloved club both on and off the field with an inspiration of a fully operational board dedicated to effective governance of MTFC going forward.

The SST would like to place on record our frustration by the EFL's apparent inability and unwillingness to deal with the actions of appalling owners which have been manifest this season with the cases of Bury and now sadly Wigan. The SST have appealed for help on behalf of the fans, players and community, and have found the EFL to be unsympathetic and largely unresp;onsive. The lack of action on the appeals relating to staff mental healthhave been particularly galling..

The last disciplinary hearing held by an Independent Panel against MTFC made their decision after considering all the evidence and this should be respected. It must be pointed out that the decision was made considering the flawed way points per game (PPG) was calculated. MTFC were in effect deducted 16 points not 13, as recommended by the panel. A comparable analogy to this is a criminal sentenced to 18 months in prison who on arrival at the point of incarceration is told "forget what your sentence is, it is now 2 years" without rhythm nor reason. This is against English Law and legal advice appears to be on the side of MTFC.

It is our view that the EFL are inconsistent to say the least. Stevenage avoided a points deduction following an independent panel's decision, regarding a postponement of a fixture against Oldham Athletic where it was cited that three Stevenage players were identified for international call ups when only two were alleged to be eligible to be counted. Where was the EFL appeal? Southend another serial offender of paying wages late received a suspended point deduction. Again, where was the EFL appeal? These follow the imposition of no points reduction to Bolton Wanderers for missing two games.

The last two weeks have seen a publicity orchestrated campaign by members of the EFL to get Macclesfield demoted, an action the EFL well knows would obliterate the club. The prime orchestrator has been Mr. Philip Wallace of Stevenage, along with others including Mr. Philip Day of Grimsby. We believe that it is disgraceful, that the EFL board representative for League Two, Mr. John Nixon who sits at the high table of the EFL hierarchy, and who should surely provide an unbiased approach to all League 2 clubs; highlighted on social media that such was his indignation at the recent independent panel's decision regarding MTFC, that he was considering resigning from his aforementioned role. Is this the way the EFL conducts its business? The SST has seen no evidence of him demonstrating denial of his apparent ire since this time. The self-righteous indignation from Mr. Nixon was palpably silent following the decision on Stevenage, not to mention inrespect of the PPG calculation that effectively saw the SIlkmen receive a further three point eduction.

It is of further use to note that on the 6th March 2020 Carlisle’s Chief Executive Nigel Clibbens spoke of how "on discussions and deliberations of [Macclesfield], penalties etc, [Mr. Nixon] does not participate, except to simply collect League Two views and pass them to the EFL." The above statement from the Cumbrians Chief Executive appears to have fallen on deaf ears to Mr. Nixon, and the SST would politely request that the EFL provide us with an outline of Mr. Nixon’s role as the League 2 representative, and your explanations to how his recent actions can in any way be seen as reasonable and unbiased.

The decision of the EFL to appeal against the independent decision now appears to be a witch hunt towards MTFC. Stevenage only managed to win three games in the 2019/20 season and were clearly the worst performing team in the division and deserved relegation. The independent panel made its decision and, as in the cases highlighted above, that decision should be accepted by the EFL

In order to understand what is happening could the EFL please answer the following questions:

What date is the appeal to take place on?
On what grounds are the EFL appealing? Has any undisclosed evidence come to light?
Has the EFL been pressureised into the appeal by the owners of other League 2 clubs If so, by how many and who?
Why has the EFL only appealed the MTFC decision?
Does the EFL want to remove MTFC from League 2 because of the mismanagement of its owner?
It is clear that the PPG has been rigged to remove MTFC from League 2. WIll the EFL produce the full minutes of the PPG meeting together with all the relevant comments from League 2 clubs to a Parliamentary committee?
Why can't the EFL sanction miscreant owners rather than clubs?
The EFL were supplied with information from the SST and knew the problems that MTFC were having. In particular the SST highlighted the concern that the owner was taking money out of the club. Would it not have been more sensible to help the club and pay the wages directly?
Could you provide the SST with an outline of the context of MR. Nixon's role as the League 2 representative and could you please provide a view as to whether Mr. Nixon's recent actions can in any way be seen as reasonable and unbiased?


I look forward to your prompt response.

Yours Faithfully

Andy Worth

Chairperson SST

Copy to:

Nigel Huddleston MP Minister of Sport
Damian Collins MP
Lisa Nandy MP
Davi Rutley MP
 

Vanni

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
6,160
Reaction score
2,972
Points
113
Location
.
Supports
Cambridge United
Cheers Luke.

Quote -

'' The last two weeks have seen a publicity orchestrated campaign by members of the EFL to get Macclesfield demoted, an action the EFL well knows would obliterate the club. The prime orchestrator has been Mr. Philip Wallace of Stevenage, along with others including Mr. Philip Day of Grimsby. ''

One thing's for sure; it's going to be, err, interesting when Macc host
Grimsby next season, if Macc are still a league club by then of course.

Talk of a better future in store won't cut it. What the L2 clubs want is is a guarantee that Macc are able to fulfill their obligations next season and not drop out of the league after a month or two. Or start the season with a decentish squad but then resort to playing 16 year olds after some time, a la Weymouth did in 2009. That would be worse.

Quote -

''Macclesfield has appointed 3 BAME managers and a number of BAME coaches during their tenure in the ELF.''

That's a noble gesture I'm sure. Only irrelevant though.
 
Last edited:

Bottega Don

Lenging Man Down
Joined
Jan 23, 2015
Messages
3,312
Reaction score
1,171
Points
113
Supports
Scunthorpe United
Apparently Phillip Day is the moneyman behind Carlisle, not Grimsby. I am assuming he means that Carlisle and Grimsby were both involved.
 

Chris FGR

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
7,477
Reaction score
2,987
Points
113
Supports
Forest Green
Why are Grimsby and Carlisle doing this?
 

Vanni

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
6,160
Reaction score
2,972
Points
113
Location
.
Supports
Cambridge United
Why are Grimsby and Carlisle doing this?
Because they know there's a very good chance of Macc dropping out of the league halfway through the season?

Bear in mind the whole financial mess that this pandemic has created. Clubs don't want to lose out on 'insert total amount of matchday revenue here' just because their home match vs Macc has been called off.
 

Chris FGR

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
7,477
Reaction score
2,987
Points
113
Supports
Forest Green
Because they know there's a very good chance of Macc dropping out of the league halfway through the season?

Bear in mind the whole financial mess that this pandemic has created. Clubs don't want to lose out on 'insert total amount of matchday revenue here' just because their home match vs Macc has been called off.
So just to protect themselves about possibly losing ONE home game (v Stevenage who bring about 100 tops) these clubs want to kick Macc while they're down and probably put them out of existence altogether?

If true seems like the height of selfish cuntness to me.

Macc have earned their place.
 

Vanni

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 17, 2015
Messages
6,160
Reaction score
2,972
Points
113
Location
.
Supports
Cambridge United
So just to protect themselves about possibly losing ONE home game (v Stevenage who bring about 100 tops) these clubs want to kick Macc while they're down and probably put them out of existence altogether?

If true seems like the height of selfish cuntness to me.

Macc have earned their place.
Wait, you're telling me FGR do not make a penny off the home fans? Like free matchday tickets and complimentary food/drink vouchers? That's awesome Chris. Though I guess it's also discriminatory to the 100 tops Boro fans having to fork out twenty quid for a ticket.
 

Chris FGR

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
7,477
Reaction score
2,987
Points
113
Supports
Forest Green
Wait, you're telling me FGR do not make a penny off the home fans? Like free matchday tickets and complimentary food/drink vouchers? That's awesome Chris. Though I guess it's also discriminatory to the 100 tops Boro fans having to fork out twenty quid for a ticket.
Don't be a twat, of course we do. Never got in free in my life or seen anyone with a voucher. This has got fuck all to do with FGR anyway, we were in favour of Stevenage going down.

And that wasn't my point anyway.

The slight chance of losing ONE home gate is not a justification for doing this to Macc, especially as all you get instead is Stevenage.

Macc earned their place, they should be given a chance to take it. They've been deducted a fuck load of points already. How much more punishment do you think they deserve?
 
Last edited:

Blue Lion

Active Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2015
Messages
931
Reaction score
246
Points
43
Location
Macclesfield
Supports
Macclesfield
It's quite a petulant letter from the SST, and a lot of it is irrelevant, but there are some good points in there too.

Culpability of the EFL:
EFL are incapable of dealing with appalling owners (Bury, Macc, Wigan). They have been largely unresponsive when the SST has contacted them. It is possible that some of the problems at the club could have been avoided if the EFL had worked more closely with the supporters trust rather than ignoring them.

The EFL board is not impartial as John Nixon (Carlisle) is a prominent member and would benefit from MTFC’s demise. Nixon was reported to have been close to resigning in outrage of the original decision.

The SST accuses the EFL of bias, in deliberately selecting a PPG method that would have an adverse effect on MTFC. Besides, the EFL concealed their chosen PPG method from supporters, leaving it to a club (Lincoln) to point out their mistake to the public.

Defence of the original decision:
The contentious aspects of the original panel’s decision were the size of the sanction and the number of points that were suspended.

The SST argues that the original sanction was determined considering the flawed way PPG was calculated, which had left MTFC 3 points worse off than they should have been. And clearly suspended points deductions are commonplace (e.g. Southend & Bolton, whose punishments were suspended entirely).

Details (or lack thereof) concerning the EFL appeal:
The EFL haven’t publicly mentioned the date the new hearing will take place or the grounds of their appeal. Self-interest from Stevenage, Grimsby and Carlisle has been blatant, and the SST accuses them of lobbying for this appeal.

I hope the unfolding saga in the Championship will start to bring more attention to the EFL's shortcomings.
 

Chris FGR

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
7,477
Reaction score
2,987
Points
113
Supports
Forest Green
'Why can't the EFL sanction miscreant owners rather then clubs'

Tough to do. Main thing is to make it harder for crooks to buy clubs. Make them provide proper proof of funds for a start. Pay a bond into the EFL central fund that covers all wages for that season. If any wages are missed it comes out of that.

Also introduce rules whereby no stadium can be sold to developers until the club provides cast iron guarantees that a new one will be built, with proof of funds/planning permission etc and all stadiums must be owned by the clubs, not third parties or as a seperate entity by the owner. I would even look at lobbying the government to introduce laws that mean the covenant on a stadium can only be lifted once a new one is guaranteed. That should help put off asset strippers.
 
Last edited:

Boz

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2015
Messages
1,899
Reaction score
238
Points
63
Location
Huddersfield
Supports
Tranmere Rovers
Sorry, I’m not following what Mr John Nixon‘a benefit from Macclesfield’s demise is. Can someone please clarify?
 

Forum statistics

Threads
15,034
Messages
936,769
Members
5,223
Latest member
RangersReady

Latest posts

Top