oldweststander wrote:adamstag wrote:eggy wrote:oldweststander wrote:adamstag wrote:Looks like the EFL are trying to conveniently shaft them to not have the same issue they had with bury this term.
I agree that they, like all clubs should have to provide evidence on how they plan to fund the season and provide assurances they’ll be no problems - but it stinks a bit that the EFL seem to be trying to shovel them off for a fabricated reason.
What could be less "fabricated" than not paying your players?
Was just about to say exactly the same thing myself. They've been behind on wages all season. There's plenty of time for arguments on what the percentage/cap on wages in the other thread, but not paying wages is the clearest example of living beyond your means.
Which is a fair point, but the latest punishment is for them not paying wages in full and on time in may, which they have. Both the club and the supporters trust have provided evidence of so and the supporters club provided a loan to help ensure it happened.
So in essence the EFL have currently charged them for not doing something they have.
If there is no case to answer there will be no penalty.
Jimstag wrote:Player statement: “ We feel the EFL are trying their best to throw Macclesfield out of the league”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52988026
I tend to agree with this statement, I think the EFL want rid of a problem and the additional charges from earlier in the season seem convenient to me. I think the EFL should be asking if they can prove they have the resources to complete next season.
Woodclanger 1 wrote:Jimstag wrote:Player statement: “ We feel the EFL are trying their best to throw Macclesfield out of the league”
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/52988026
I tend to agree with this statement, I think the EFL want rid of a problem and the additional charges from earlier in the season seem convenient to me. I think the EFL should be asking if they can prove they have the resources to complete next season.
They probably need to ask every club that in the current climate?
Sweden Stag wrote:If Macc are thrown out, it will be the first time since 1967-68 a club is thrown out within the EFL due to off-the-field-matters. Then, Peterborough (who on the field finished ninth then), were demoted to the fourth division. Guess who were reprieved then? Mansfield Town! Then, the Stags finished in 21th position (the first relegation spot) in the old third division. I still remember it as if it were yesterday, and not May 1968.
oldweststander wrote:Sweden Stag wrote:If Macc are thrown out, it will be the first time since 1967-68 a club is thrown out within the EFL due to off-the-field-matters. Then, Peterborough (who on the field finished ninth then), were demoted to the fourth division. Guess who were reprieved then? Mansfield Town! Then, the Stags finished in 21th position (the first relegation spot) in the old third division. I still remember it as if it were yesterday, and not May 1968.
You sure?
Wasn't it re-election position not relegation in 68?
part time pete wrote:oldweststander wrote:Sweden Stag wrote:If Macc are thrown out, it will be the first time since 1967-68 a club is thrown out within the EFL due to off-the-field-matters. Then, Peterborough (who on the field finished ninth then), were demoted to the fourth division. Guess who were reprieved then? Mansfield Town! Then, the Stags finished in 21th position (the first relegation spot) in the old third division. I still remember it as if it were yesterday, and not May 1968.
You sure?
Wasn't it re-election position not relegation in 68?
No, it was third division and not 4th.
adamstag wrote:eggy wrote:oldweststander wrote:adamstag wrote:Looks like the EFL are trying to conveniently shaft them to not have the same issue they had with bury this term.
I agree that they, like all clubs should have to provide evidence on how they plan to fund the season and provide assurances they’ll be no problems - but it stinks a bit that the EFL seem to be trying to shovel them off for a fabricated reason.
What could be less "fabricated" than not paying your players?
Was just about to say exactly the same thing myself. They've been behind on wages all season. There's plenty of time for arguments on what the percentage/cap on wages in the other thread, but not paying wages is the clearest example of living beyond your means.
Which is a fair point, but the latest punishment is for them not paying wages in full and on time in may, which they have. Both the club and the supporters trust have provided evidence of so and the supporters club provided a loan to help ensure it happened.
So in essence the EFL have currently charged them for not doing something they have.
Sweden Stag wrote:If Macc are thrown out, it will be the first time since 1967-68 a club is thrown out within the EFL due to off-the-field-matters. Then, Peterborough (who on the field finished ninth then), were demoted to the fourth division. Guess who were reprieved then? Mansfield Town! Then, the Stags finished in 21th position (the first relegation spot) in the old third division. I still remember it as if it were yesterday, and not May 1968.
ST4GS wrote:Sweden Stag wrote:If Macc are thrown out, it will be the first time since 1967-68 a club is thrown out within the EFL due to off-the-field-matters. Then, Peterborough (who on the field finished ninth then), were demoted to the fourth division. Guess who were reprieved then? Mansfield Town! Then, the Stags finished in 21th position (the first relegation spot) in the old third division. I still remember it as if it were yesterday, and not May 1968.
Using a bit of research on the last day of that season the Stags were 2 points clear of Grimsby and had a better goal average.
It was known that Peterborough would be automatically relegated so finishing 21st would be sufficient.
To be saved from relegation Grimsby needed to leapfrog the Stags by winning and hope the Stags lost and also to effectively turn round a FIVE goal deficit.
In the end Grimsby won their last game 3-2 and the Stags lost 3-0 so we clung onto our Division three status by the finest of margins. (Stags F51 A 67 Average = 0.761, Grimsby F52 A69 Average = 0.754)
Another goal conceded by the Stags or another Grimsby goal would have relegated the Stags.
This was before my time but does anyone of our let's say older generation recall this day and how it panned out?
How did our fans keep in touch of the state of play?, Were radio updates any good or too infrequent in 1968 or non existent? Did we need to wait until the final results were in and mathematics performed before we could breathe a sign of relief? How long was the wait?
part time pete wrote:
Martin’s Chad’s report might give us more info from Stan Searl.
Martin Shaw wrote:part time pete wrote:
Martin’s Chad’s report might give us more info from Stan Searl.
my scrapbook with all the reports for that season is out on loan at the moment so I cannot get it for you.
stag861 wrote:Macca hearing is now early September. By then ups & downs from League 2 will be sorted so will they start the season on a minus points figure as it may be too late to relegate them.
stag861 wrote:Macca hearing is now early September. By then ups & downs from League 2 will be sorted so will they start the season on a minus points figure as it may be too late to relegate them.
Sweden Stag wrote:Using a bit of research on the last day of that season the Stags were 2 points clear of Grimsby and had a better goal average.
It was known that Peterborough would be automatically relegated so finishing 21st would be sufficient.
To be saved from relegation Grimsby needed to leapfrog the Stags by winning and hope the Stags lost and also to effectively turn round a FIVE goal deficit.
In the end Grimsby won their last game 3-2 and the Stags lost 3-0 so we clung onto our Division three status by the finest of margins. (Stags F51 A 67 Average = 0.761, Grimsby F52 A69 Average = 0.754)
Another goal conceded by the Stags or another Grimsby goal would have relegated the Stags.
This was before my time but does anyone of our let's say older generation recall this day and how it panned out?
How did our fans keep in touch of the state of play?, Were radio updates any good or too infrequent in 1968 or non existent? Did we need to wait until the final results were in and mathematics performed before we could breathe a sign of relief? How long was the wait?
At that time, I checked Swedish newspapers and a pools magazine. Then, I came to the same conclusion as ST4GS did in his recent posting. Grimsby beat Swindon at home while the Stags lost at Bournemouth. When I saw the final table, I made the calculation and already then found out that another Grimsby goal scored or another one conceded by the Stags would have relegated the Stags. By that time, the three-point ruling didn't exist and if it had existed in May 1968, the Stags had gone instead of Grimsby as the Stags won twelve games then and the Mariners 14.
Return to Stagsnet Main Discussion Forum
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 275 guests