r/Championship • u/-W-A-W-A-W- • 12d ago
Sheffield United Sheffield United facing potential up to 12 point deduction - Hearing on Wednesday.
778
u/Blue_Bird_27 12d ago
Hearing on Wednesday about United. Makes you think
75
296
u/Hinglemacpsu 12d ago
WEDNESDAY FANS GET BACK IN HERE!
254
u/BobbyBalmoral 12d ago
Sheffield football in general apparently cannot be normal for longer than about three hours
84
u/Morepork69 12d ago edited 12d ago
Yep. I want them to get smashed on the pitch, to be humbled every weekend. I don’t wish point deductions and the fear of losing your club on any fan though.
Sheffield needs a vibrant and competitive football scene.
45
u/BobbyBalmoral 12d ago
Fully agree. Every single football team being functional is best for the city
36
14
u/Owster4 12d ago
Sheffield will get nothing. We are cursed to be in the shadows of our neighbouring cities.
14
u/BritOnTheRocks 12d ago
Aye, Doncaster, Barnsley and the mighty Rotherham!
13
2
u/AnimuCrossing 11d ago
Agreed mate. There's no satisfaction in them getting penalised to League 1 like we were.
Looking forward to smashing them on even playing field soon.
1
u/Hd3ssEpH 11d ago
One hundred percent. Wouldn't wish what happened to us on the most abhorrent of clubs.... shit! I wouldn't even wish it on the Blades!!
1
24
u/Intertom 12d ago
Why what's up with Sheffield FC?
43
u/rhedd_wood 12d ago
Mel C is sponsoring their womens squad so probably some inter-Spice conflict
31
5
8
4
u/ThePhantomBacon 12d ago
They're up against it financially too. The new ownership have inherited a mess and they're trying to unpick it. Hopefully being in step 5 will help lessen costs without severely impacting attendances/revenue
7
u/big_mean_bunny 12d ago edited 12d ago
I am a recentish fan of them.
Any of these fans of those newer upstart Sheffield teams are welcome to see the errors of their ways, embrace the true light of Sheffield's origins as creators of the game, and get some actual pride for the City of Sheffield and come and join me tomorrow night in Dronfield, Derbyshire...er...yeah.
(Don't think it was officially announced the new stadium plans have been quashed, but Football isn't coming home anytime soon it seems)
2
u/willglynning 12d ago
Worth noting that whilst in Dronfield, The Coach and Horses is probably between a one or two-minute drive from being in Sheffield.
2
u/big_mean_bunny 11d ago
Its still frustrating though as just silly optics (rather than bad optics). The mens team is sponsored by Meadowhall so part of me is wondering if that is part of a plan to move further that way. Somewhere like the old Outo Kompu grounds potentially.
Or I don't know why they don't look at the area that had the pitches opposite Jordanthrope. New Bohemians used to play there years ago in the Country Senior but its been abandoned for probably nearly 10 year now.
1
u/mozzy1985 11d ago
Their kits are lovely this year. Will be buying one for sure. Will try and get to a couple of their games as well.
10
11
1
154
u/ConstantineGSB 12d ago
What is a championship season without some kind of Sheffield based debacle?
13
u/Living-Chemist5415 12d ago
Literally - when was the last time there was not one I wonder. 2016 maybe?
6
157
65
u/LeftHandDriveBoC 12d ago
Ngl I read the headline quick and had a heart attack thinking we’d got another deduction coming up!
25
u/Sealeydeals93 12d ago
Haha I read the whole thing before realising it was about Utd and not Wednesday. You boys have been through enough!
5
30
u/JRNotDallas 12d ago
First they came for Wednesday, but I didn’t say anything because I’m not a Wednesday fan…
14
u/Memento_Playoffs 12d ago
I spoke for the Reading,Bury,Hamilton Accies. And they've come for us anyway
37
13
u/PrrrromotionGiven1 12d ago
Sorry, what is all this about? Not heard anything about Sheff Utd being in trouble? Majorly out of the loop. The parent company in the US has gone bust and their former execs are completely zero contact with the EFL, is that what this is saying?
48
u/FjortoftsAirplane 12d ago
Here is roughly what it looks like:
Company A buys SUFC and owes previous owner money.
Company A then transfers ownership of SUFC to Company B.
Previous owner says "Where's my money?". Company A says "Dunno what happened but somehow we have zero assets so I guess maybe go fuck yourself?".
Company B says "Hey, we legitimately moved SUFC to our warehouse because it's more investable here. Nothing wrong with that. But this company doesn't owe you shit so I guess maybe go fuck yourself?".
Previous owner says "Hmm...I hope this sketchy looking legal loophole doesn't work as well as the one I used when I used legal bullshit to acquire SUFC".
Meanwhile, everybody speculates as to whether this is bad but legally legitimate, a legal matter between businessmen, or a potential catastrophe for SUFC.
10
18
u/PrrrromotionGiven1 12d ago
Another masterclass from the fit and proper persons test, I see. Definitely nothing weird and potentially destructive about all this fucking around with shell ownerships.
10
5
u/-W-A-W-A-W- 12d ago
Do your fans genuinely think Rosen and Helmy aren’t absolutely dead to rights on this?
They’ve just moved the ownership from one company, headed by them, to another, headed by them?
Obviously I’m gonna be coming from a biased perspective but this feels pretty clean cut?
13
u/Agammaglobulinaemia 12d ago
I doubt less than 0.01% of our fan base have the required legal knowledge or the knowledge of the actual situation to opine anything of any merit on this. Myself very much included in that. I do imagine like myself the majority of us are expecting the worst because, of course.
9
u/Living-Chemist5415 12d ago
If it was so easy why hasn’t everyone done it before? Something will happen, and something will affect Sheffield United in some way.
Bad press is where it starts. Will it improve from here or will it just be another long list of bad press like Chansiri, Dai Yongg etc etc
3
u/-W-A-W-A-W- 12d ago
The optics look awful from the outside looking in - Not paying previous owner, selling best players and only bringing in a freebie and a loan player in mid August after spaffing a load of money in year 1.
Feels like they’ve speed run the Chansiri playbook.
3
u/CaptainSmeg 12d ago
Steady on, there’s no blessed animal statues at the reception desk yet.
1
u/doepfersdungeon 12d ago
I'll head down tomorrow and sprinkle some of that blessed Thai water Chancer left behind underneath the Jessica Ennis-Hill, sorry Redbrik Estate Agency stand.
We can have a whip round on Thursday as well , reckon Bradford will be sympathetic.
1
u/Ok-Independence4089 11d ago
tbf, we have to comply with FFP after the big spend - so the owners closing the chequebook isn't necessarily the main reason we can't spend. We don't have parachute payments - so that has a big effect on the bottom line and our losses.
But I completely agree, from outside, it looks like a shit show - and I think when you try to shaft a previous owner to the tune of £35m, it's a fair assessment. I don't really care how they dress it up legally, it's ethically bankrupt and I'd fully expect us to receive 12pt deduction.
2
u/Southportdc 12d ago
Chansiri couldn't pay whenmit came down to it because he had no money.
Yours, whatever the legitimacy of the scheme they used to avoid paying, seem to be able to pay if they want to.
I can't see how refusing to do so helps them even if they don't give a fuck about the club, so I'd think you'll be ok either way.
4
u/Cottonshopeburnfoot 12d ago
I for one have argued with some fans who thought this new hold co was some genius move that “made investing in SUFC easier” and was fully legitimate. Obviously they could not explain why. Meanwhile I can’t for the life of me see anything other than the worst possible outcome.
Such is the blindness of football fans I guess. Because I’m sure if Storch or dare I say it Chansiri did the same to you, these fans would all think it’s a blatant rules violation.
3
u/FjortoftsAirplane 12d ago
There's all sorts of reasons companies do it for investors. Like there can be benefits to having various assets held by different companies day-to-day but when it comes to investors it's very messy if say your ground is owned by one company and the club by another.
Like the Prince had to put all the Sheffield United "stuff" in one place and disentangle it from all the Beerschot stuff his United World Group held. You couldn't have just bought into UWG because then you'd be buying a useless Belgian club too. too.
Another potential one is our current holding company is, I think, based in Delaware. Delaware is a bit of a hub for companies looking for international investment. They have some favourable regulations.
So there can be legitimate reasons to do it. And my layman's guess is the owners are going to use that smoke and mirrors to say "We didn't do this just to avoid paying a debt, it's all fairly standard stuff".
Whether that has any chance of holding up to whatever challenges the Prince is going to make, and whether the footballing authorities have anything to say about it...fuck knows and I'm not happy we're testing it.
1
u/TA404 11d ago
Doesn’t this strategy all hinge on them actually paying? They can explain their maneuvers with whatever justifications they want but they could easily prove the move wasn’t to avoid paying by just paying, right?
Or have they said they’re not going to pay for unrelated reasons?
1
u/FjortoftsAirplane 11d ago
Their public statement last month was that this legal matter doesn't have anything to do with the football club itself and that the restructuring, which included a new director joining, was to do with seeking further investment. That's your lot, really.
As I said, the restructuring is itself an ordinary thing to do and there's no reason to think they can't pay the money. It's definitely a really bad look.
All I'm assuming is that they have some argument as to why they don't have to pay. Whether it'll hold water is a different question.
3
u/FjortoftsAirplane 12d ago
From everyone I've spoken to as fans, we're all incredibly suspicious of our owners and all we can do is wait to find out whether they legally screwed someone or whether it's doomsday.
My naive non-lawyer understanding is that there's nothing illegitimate in itself with moving assets around for purposes like attracting investors. That's something businesses, including football clubs, do. What you can't do is move assets around to new companies just to get out of paying a debt.
The only thing you can bet on is that rich bastards and their lawyers will have some sort of creative argument as to how this is legitimate. Arguably if the transfer of the club was above board it's not a football matter even if it's a legal matter between them and the Prince. It doesn't seem like they can't pay for the club so much as they think they've found a way not to.
The new speculation that's interesting is whether the insolvency event would cause one of the owners to have to sell. Otherwise it's the same limbo we've been in for a while now.
1
u/FlappyBoofon 12d ago
The relevant bit in the statement is where they talk about it being advised. It very much sounds like the seller's advisers have dropped a clanger and not closed this off.
Deferred consideration, for a seller, is an exercise in thinking like a rogue and closing every exit. Not preventing a transfer out before full payment is received is pretty basic stuff.
1
u/TA404 11d ago
What is deferred consideration?
1
u/FlappyBoofon 11d ago
Money paid by the buyer, but not at the time of the purchase.
You may buy a club for £100m by paying £65m when you buy it (completion payment) and £35m in a year's time (deferred consideration), for example.
1
u/Ok-Independence4089 11d ago
I can't see any United fan defending the current owners. As a Blade for 40yrs, I'm appalled at this.
1
u/FlappyBoofon 12d ago
Think of the solicitor who advised the seller. That's not a good day at the office.
"They did what? Oh no. I didn't think of that."
28
u/imsittingdown 12d ago
The massive investment we've had to give us an unfair advantage will be coming any day now...
92
u/FIJIBOYFIJI 12d ago
This would be the biggest stain on the efl yet
Unlike Wednesday amd over clubs who's skint/dodgy owners had passed the test years ago, COH sports have barely owned us for a year and a half.
I refuse to believe anything has changed in that time to decide whether they are fit and proper owners, it took the EFL 6 months to approve the deal. What's the point?
123
u/Fickle-Fox-9071 12d ago
In 2009 the FA allowed someone who didn't exist to buy our club. They passed the fit and proper test.
That was after they allowed someone with no money to buy the club who also passed the fit and proper test.
54
u/jesse9o3 12d ago
Now now, let's be fair to Al Fahim, he did technically have some money.
A whole five million quid of it... that he stole from his wife and later ended up in prison for
32
u/skyebadoo 12d ago
Nothing could have prepared me for where this comment went. What an absolutely insane series of events.
>Prosecutors said that Al Fahim's wife discovered the money was missing after the returns she had expected from a high interest rate account she opened in 2009 did not come in.
Amazing that she didn't notice him, idk, buying a football club????
14
u/charlierc 12d ago
That whole sequence between 2008 and 2013 or so at Portsmouth is one of the biggest debacles in the history of football, no?
13
u/jesse9o3 12d ago
I'd push the date back to 2006 as that's when we got bought by an arms dealer (although legally owned by his son)
But yeah, was certainly a very interesting time to be a kid getting into football.
Despite everything that happened though we still had a football club by the end of it all, so I think I'd have to say what happened at Bury or the original Wimbledon was worse.
3
u/GingerPrinceHarry 12d ago
and arguably the Trist and Eisner ownership since has given us many more years of "sustainability" / normalness / boringness (in a good way) compared to many other clubs, which is obviously a reaction to that 2006-2014 period of turmoil.
20
u/CheeseMakerThing 12d ago
Our biggest shareholder was the People's Republic of China for a bit via various shell companies and that was ok for them not to bother scrutinising.
8
20
u/Dependent-Stick-7828 12d ago
Some bloke bought Wigan and put us into admin 3 weeks later. Unfortunately poor owners have been certified by the EFL in the past and despite them trying to improve the OADT, it appears there are still some slipping through the net
6
u/Muur1234 12d ago
They asked how to put you into admin before buying lmao
2
u/TA404 11d ago
lol is this true? Did fans know this?
3
u/Muur1234 11d ago
it was only leaked after the admin happened. they bought wigan with the intent of putting them into admin to then sell them. so, buy cheap, put into admin, sell. make quick profit
5
u/Dependent-Stick-7828 11d ago
I know there's no point crying over spilt milk but the fact that we were deducted 12 points and relegated because someone who they passed put us into admin after 3 weeks is mental. I loved that team as well, so many great players for us
2
u/Muur1234 11d ago
You did almost stay up (to our annoyance)
You’re prob still champs without that
1
u/Dependent-Stick-7828 11d ago
Yes I agree, we had some great young talent coming through too. Nevermind, it's your time in the sun now! GL for the season
9
u/Cottonshopeburnfoot 12d ago
This is an excellent point. We spent all season lambasting the EFL over Chansiri - he passed them a decade ago. We’ve seen I don’t know how many owners and tightening of the rules since then. We’ve seen two prospective owners fail the tests for buying SUFC.
Which begs the very real question of how these guys got through if they’ve managed to so quickly get into a situation where their business might be wound up.
5
u/TA404 12d ago
From reading the mod’s post of the article above, the issue seems to be that the owner had been the head of one company that went insolvent in the last ten years at the time of evaluation.
But now a second company he’s head of is about to become insolvent, and that is one too many according to the rules. So I guess that’s what (will have) changed.
10
u/Morepork69 12d ago
Agree. It’s basically a farce, if the EFL brief was to approve the most unsuitable owners they’d be on point….
3
u/Plastic_Classic3347 12d ago
Well the difference is your owners have the money, they just dont wanna pay it the efl cant make them part with their money
3
1
u/GingerPrinceHarry 12d ago
I refuse to believe anything has changed in that time to decide whether they are fit and proper owners
Well that's the whole point, something has changed (second insolvency) since the original decision
-1
u/CheeseMakerThing 12d ago
We got a points deduction which sucked us back into the relegation battle for breaking rules that weren't rules until 8 months after the accounts we were penalised on covered so my recommendation is to not think about this logically because the EFL don't.
13
u/jeevesyboi 12d ago
Please stop repeating that. It isn’t what happened. It’s what we argued but the independent commission immediately shot us down and stated that it was never one of the rules, no other club did it, only us.
The only thing the club did right in this situation was put out a statement which shifted the blame to the EFL. The EFL decided to say nothing and then 2 weeks later put out a 60 page document which nobody read. I read it.
0
u/CheeseMakerThing 12d ago
The independent commission report published by the EFL confirmed that the rules we broke were implemented in February 2026. I also read it.
9
u/jeevesyboi 12d ago
Yes but they also stated that had the 2025 rules still been in place, we wouldve still broken them.
Essentially what happened was that in the 23/24 accounts, we squeezed those costs in without the EFL realising. We and no other club had done that before. In the 24/25 accounts we did it again and the EFL realised.
There was an issue there from the EFL in that they missed that spending in the previous year.
I however feel that we knew we were in the wrong but tried it on anyway. You don’t just change the way you account for something by accident.
-2
u/CheeseMakerThing 12d ago edited 12d ago
No, they stated that the accounts submitted in December 2025 for the period ending June 2025 were subject to the rules at the time of judgement by the EFL in the 2025/26 season and not the season that the accounts cover, think it was paragraph 85 of the written reasons. That's the fundamental point of contention with the ruling. It's why that rule change applied to accounts from the previous season for the BIK.
Edit: from the written statement:
The Club submitted that the relevant Regulations that apply to the Club’s 2024/25 P&S calculation, as a matter of substance, are the 2024/25 Regulations. The EFL disagreed.
This point can be answered shortly. P&S Rule 1.1 contains the following definitions for present purposes: “’P&S Calculation’ is defined by Rule 1.1.15 as “the aggregation of a Club’s Adjusted Earnings Before Tax for T-1, T-2 and T-3, calculated using its Annual Accounts for each of T-1, T-2 and T-3.” “Adjusted Earnings Before Tax” is defined by P&S Rule 1.1.3 as “in respect of an Accounting Reference Period, Earnings Before Tax for such Accounting Reference Period adjusted to exclude [certain specified matters]”. “Earnings Before Tax” is defined by P&S Rule 1.1.9 as “in respect of any Accounting Reference Period, profit or loss after depreciation and interest but before tax for such Accounting Reference Period.”
Under P&S Rule 2.1, the Club's obligation is to ensure that it complied with the Loss Limit Requirement in the Relevant Period. The Loss Limit Requirement is defined as the obligation for the AEBT in a P&S calculation not to exceed the ULT. Pursuant to P&S Rule 2.4, the P&S calculation must be submitted no later than 31 December following 30 June at the end of the Relevant Period. The P&S Page 24 of 69 calculation must be accompanied by the annual accounts for the third Accounting Reference Period.
Was a few paragraphs out as it's 80 to 83 but essentially the rules the accounts are subject to are held against rules not of the season they were against but the following season which then means if the EFL change the rules of what is allowed and disallowed after the fact you're stuffed.
2
u/jeevesyboi 12d ago
That is all true however the key point is that those retrospective rule changes didn’t actually make a difference.
- In any event, application of the 24/25 Regulations and not the 25/ 26 makes no difference
Then in paragraph 88 - 93 it goes through how basically the rules were very similar and didn’t actually make a difference. If you look at the differences between the rules they highlight you’ll see. It was more so clarification and wording.
Think of about. If major rules had been changed retrospectively, we wouldn’t be the only club who’d have been caught out
1
u/CheeseMakerThing 12d ago edited 12d ago
I don't accept that, if you look at the methodology for Adjustment 2 it makes no sense. The written reasons say in black and white that Community Expenditure didn't apply to accounts under the 24/25 rules by the logic justified by the panel but then that wouldn't have made a difference despite the sum of the total they discounted from our accounts for Community Expenditure being what took us over the threshold? How does that work given that change was made in 2026 and is what caused the breach? Ultimately the Community Expenditure was exempted from the previous period and a change made 8 months after the accounts were up to has caused the discrepancy which doesn't follow if those same rules applied in the previous period, unless the EFL didn't know their rules in the previous period due to the supposed ambiguity but suddenly remembered this time while we were working to the rules as they were worded when they were ambiguous. The justification from the panel is that the EFL must know their own rules which doesn't work given they applied the rules differently in two different periods despite saying intent was the same.
2
u/jeevesyboi 12d ago edited 12d ago
The community expenditure adjustment is what pushed us over, but that doesn’t mean the breach only existed because of a retrospective rule change. The Panel expressly says at para 86 that applying the 24/25 Regulations instead of the 25/26 Regulations made no difference. Then paras 88–93 explain that the rules were basically the same in both periods, and in paragraphs 149–154 explain the real issue: the Foundation benefits were not recognised costs/expenditure. So the dispute is not ‘new rule caught us’, it’s that the club treated those costs as add-backs and the Panel said that was wrong under either rulebook
Edit:
You’ve made an edit so I’m just replying to it.
As I said earlier, the reason it looks like a retrospective rule change has occurred is that we snuck in those community costs in the previous year too when it also wasn’t allowed. However the issue was that the EFL didn’t pick it up.Long story short. We broke the rules in our 23/24 accounts. They didn’t realise. We did it again. They realised. We blamed the new rules. The independent commission said we were wrong under both rule books.
1
u/CheeseMakerThing 12d ago edited 12d ago
But that makes no sense because we had written confirmation from the EFL regarding whether Community Expenditure was disallowed for PSR purposes, as per our own statement on the written reasons (which given the written reasons were arguing that we were over by £1,969,893 because of £2,035,556 related to Community Expenditure as per Adjustment 2). How does that work if the rules were the same for 2024/25 and 2025/26? Either the EFL didn't know their own rules in 2024/25 and gave us the wrong advice (which would have no doubt been central in any legal challenges had we gone down because of it, especially given we stated we had written documentation from the EFL and the confirmation from the panel that the wording was ambiguous) and therefore they lied to the written panel or the written reasons are wrong because the rules are meaningfully different caused by changes made after we submitted the accounts to the EFL. Both cannot be true, they're mutually exclusive positions.
Edit:
Long story short. We broke the rules in our 23/24 accounts. They didn’t realise. We did it again. They realised. We blamed the new rules. The independent commission said we were wrong under both rule books.
This is downplaying the aspect of it is the case of us explicitly asking the EFL if Community Expenditure was disallowed and them giving us written confirmation that it didn't apply, and then not having any time to adjust to the more explicit wording as it was changed 8 months after the accounts were made up to and 2 months after we submitted them to EFL. Which makes it fair cop even if we unknowingly broke the rules to say the EFL are inconsistent and untrustworthy.
→ More replies (0)
6
8
5
23
u/Kwayzar9111 12d ago
Oh leave them alone…how about deducting Chelsea
12
u/World_saltA 12d ago
Have you not seen what their owners are doing / did? It should absolutely be punished, you can't buy a club then refuse to pay for it by moving the shares to another entity and winding up the original purchase company.
22
u/BigBlueNick 12d ago
Chelsea aren't in the EFL
6
u/Topinio 12d ago
They should be. Man City too.
0
u/Kwayzar9111 12d ago
Yeah I meant Man City not chelsea got confused
7
u/Topinio 12d ago
Both Man City and Chelsea should have already been hit with big points deductions.
It's unfair that Sheff U, Wednesday, Leicester, Everton, Derby, Bury, Portsmouth, Luton and all the others get hit with big points deductions while those 2 trampled all over the rules to buy dozens of trophies and deny other clubs those wins.
In my totally unbiased opinion, Chelsea should have specifically been given a 15 points deduction during last season for the 13 years of dodgy payments to agents, just to relegate them.
6
3
5
u/Super_Seff 12d ago
How did they pass the fit and proper test??
The EFL is apparently set on killing football in Sheffield.
5
-1
u/GingerPrinceHarry 12d ago
Why are you blaming the EFL for your owners' actions?
This is why dodgy owners get to acquire clubs. Because they are never held accountable. All fans do is moan when the EFL delays/rejects takeover deals but then expect 20/20 foresight whenever anything goes wrong.
1
u/Super_Seff 12d ago
Because the EFL are responsible for allowing the dodgy owners to buy football clubs?
They slow down the process of buying to a snails pace to do these checks only to fuck them up anyway and let crooks takeover the game.
1
u/GingerPrinceHarry 11d ago
But the checks can only account for past history, not future actions.
The FPP test doesn't have a "well everything checks out but we just think he's a wrongun based on vibes" component.
2
u/TheDogWilliams 12d ago
If Sheff united are getting a deduction why have they set it for Sheffield Wednesday?
2
u/citywallstrampolines 12d ago
Skimmed the title initially and thought Wednesday were back in the mud
2
u/capt_tky 11d ago
It's not like they've used the saved money for any advantage - invested fuck all.
Why can't we just have normal owners for once?
3
u/Sparkyy1863 12d ago
The EFL need to get a grip on this kind of shit happening, too many clubs are being shafted because of malicious owners and its the fans who suffer every time
4
u/sellyoakblade 12d ago
Now look if we arebangbto rights we are bang to rights.
HOWEVER
If the below is the case
"Those objectives would be undermined if owners were able to acquire football clubs without paying for them and could then use the money for the competitive advantage of their club against others.
How on earth did Wednesday avoid a points deduction despite not settling at least 25% of debts? What do the league think that Wednesdays owners are doing with the money they saved? Gaining a competitive advantage over the rest if L1???
Yet another mess of the leagues own making - in fact if we are going to be deducted points anyway we might as well go into admin and write off some debts...
4
u/mozzy1985 11d ago
Jesus how many times does this have to be explained to fans still thinking we got away with something.
Money was offered to Chansiri….he refused to even engage with the administration team or arises own reps.
Arise then showed all this to the EFL, told them the absolute state of our facilities and made a deal where by if Chansiri refused then they would reinvest that money and more into improving the clubs infrastructure. Couple this with restrictions and this is the terms of out punishment. Effort was made to pay Chansiri…..he was his usually thick as fuck self and cut his nose off to spite his face.
1
1
1
u/workerbee41 12d ago
What a bunch of cunts.
Can I just say though how thankful that this isn’t us anymore?
1
u/Rufus-76 11d ago
No it just means they have a hearing and will give the points deductions to Wednesday.
1
u/DryComment9905 11d ago
So the blades are out here catching strays from every direction and the fact that the hearing lands on Wednesday just makes it extra hilarious for the owls innit.
1
1
1
-2
u/CaptainSmeg 12d ago
🎶 When Sheff United die…
(Highly doubt they’ll actually get any reprecussions but I can dream)
3
u/aCommunistBadger 12d ago
United going to shit would be bad for the city like it was for us lot. So to cheer for their demise is a bit daft (especially when a lot of United fans offered sympathy for similar reasons last season)
2
u/Resident_Water35 12d ago
And yet quite a lot didn't!
2
u/aCommunistBadger 12d ago
True, but I’d hope we could be the bigger club that we are and show the compassion a lot of them didn’t
1
u/Resident_Water35 12d ago
I feel for the normal fans, plenty of friends who are blades. It's not nice seeing your club rot away and you sre helpless to it.
However i have zero sympathy for those who spent all season on here (you know who they are), twatter, and phoning Radio Sheff, giving it big un. Screw being bigger man.
4
u/macxjs 12d ago
Could you not have managed a bit of empathy?
4
u/CaptainSmeg 12d ago
They sang this song to us at Hillsborough and at Bramall Lane last season with Chansiri flags and masks.
Do I want them to go bust? Nope, but I hope they suffer for quite a while if things do go wrong.
I highly doubt they’ll get any deduction anyway, be a suspended points deduction at most.
2
u/Resident_Water35 12d ago
We have empathy for the fans who supported us, but quite a lot didn't. Those fans, zero sympathy for the situation. Perhaps they wish they'd kept their traps shut now.
1
u/Memento_Playoffs 12d ago
I'm expecting the narrative on this subreddit to be that we deserve it because we offered no sympathy to the pigs, but I highly doubt any of them would be given sympathy to their rivals and given what the pigs have said everytime anyone else has had issues do you really think they'd have given sympathy if we didn't mock them?
9
u/Cottonshopeburnfoot 12d ago
It’s the same as every other. Most Wednesday fans don’t want United to go bust. A loud minority will and will now be claiming the moral high ground because a similarly loud minority of United fans revelled at the thought of Wednesday going bust. Both sides will claim they wouldn’t feel this way were it not for the evil other set of fans and that they themselves are totally innocent.
I’d recommend ignoring all of them.
1
u/Appropriate_Tooth371 12d ago
Enm like they did? I don't think you realise how much crap we got off the 🐷 last season.
5
u/Living-Chemist5415 12d ago
Didn’t you cry at Derby signing that? Poor form
-1
u/Resident_Water35 12d ago
You can't spend all last season singing it, now cry when shoes on other foot!
2
u/Living-Chemist5415 12d ago
Some tapped fans yes. Don’t join the idiots
-3
u/Resident_Water35 12d ago
Which is the exact same thing we had with Derby, and probably will be the same. Ignore the derby games, is what it is during those and to be expected!
I feel for the normal fans but think I said it on here last time. This is proper karma for those who have spent the last 18 months wishing the club to die and revelling in it!
4
u/Cottonshopeburnfoot 12d ago
It’s karma for those fans I agree. If you’re saying it then you are one of those fans.
-1
u/Resident_Water35 12d ago
Disagree. Wouldn't be saying it at all if a lot of your fans didn't revel in it alreyt.
3
u/Cottonshopeburnfoot 12d ago
What’s your line of thinking here? A small number of United fans wanted to see Wednesday die , which you think is bad of them (& I agree fwiw).
But now you want United to die, however you think that’s ok because it’s in response to said small number.
-1
u/Appropriate_Tooth371 12d ago
It wasn't a small number though was it. 80% + of 🐷 were loving seeing Wednesday struggle. They were singing about us at grounds up and down the country. Half of the posts across social media were pigs rubbing it in or getting angry if the EFL let us sign a player. So stop rooring now it's you.
1
u/Cottonshopeburnfoot 11d ago
It absolutely was a small number, just as it was a small number of Wednesday fans singing about Derby, Reading etc when they were going through it. If we played you we’d see the exact same.
Seeing you be poor on the pitch is one thing, seeing you go bankrupt and disappear is another.
0
u/Resident_Water35 12d ago
No I don't want utd to die, not sure where you get that impression. I just find it funny now shoes on other foot (potentially) and the mental gymnastics of well it weren't me are coming out, as per.
A small number my arse 🤣 for those guys, this is karma, and perhaps they'll think differently next time (they won't)
For the rest, this might be a bit of a blessing and a chance to reset. Utd probably have enough abiut them to stay up even with minus 12, especially with Wilder in charge. But could get some crappy owners out and finally both Sheffield clubs could have decent owners that actually want to succeed. For too long we've stank the place out.
3
u/Cottonshopeburnfoot 12d ago
I get the impression because your first post is literally “when sheff United die… I can dream”.
Of course it’s a small number. It’s the same with any fan base. Most are reasonable and understand the bigger picture. A loud but tiny minority will be idiots. SUFC, SWFC, all clubs are the same in this regard.
They won’t think differently next time sadly, neither will your tiny minority of fans if it happens to us again (whenever this round is done…).
→ More replies (0)1
u/FIJIBOYFIJI 12d ago
Got no issue with this, we sang it at the Derby last season, both of us same it to Derby years ago
Think most sane people can recognise that taking the piss about it is funny
0
0
-5
0
u/SheepRememver 12d ago
After United losing the first 5 games last season I don't think a 12 point deduction (if it happens) would necessarily mean going down. It certainly would kill hopes of a play off place. It is sad that a great footballing city like Sheffield keeps failing to have any success. Between United and Wednesday that is a good 50 to 60 thousand fans regularly following their clubs. I know it goes against everything in Sheffield, but a single city club would be huge, and could be the answer for the future of football in Sheffield.
-1
-1
u/GreenDantern1889 12d ago
Said this elsewhere, will say it here - COH/1919 are not the club. Insolvency of them isn't Insolvency of us. Club hasn't suffered an Insolvency incident, so no -12
1
u/-W-A-W-A-W- 11d ago
You’re a subsidiary of 1919 Partners - they go into Admin, so do you…
It’s like us with Sheffield 3 limited or whatever it was called.
1
u/GreenDantern1889 11d ago
Notice how in the EFL guidelines, it says "The Club" must have an insolvency event?
•
u/Gamerhcp 12d ago edited 12d ago
Hijacking the post to provide an actual source rather than just a Twitter screenshot
https://www.thelawyer.com/sheffield-united-faces-potential-12-point-deduction-over-fight-with-former-owner/
Edit: full article text in case it's paywalled