Sheff6

I was there at that game, seated near to the players' tunnel close to the front. I was gutted when Jimmy Case scored for them. I just had that horrible sinking feeling we weren't going to come back from it. On the way out I passed close by one of the Wednesday players, out of the side through injury, seated some way back from the pitch side along with some squad players there to watch the game. I remember patting him on the back and commiserating with him. Can't even remember who it was now, after all these years. A very disappointing day at a depressing ground. Never did like the place.

No, I've heard they're going to feed them into this thing parked on the centre circle while we all cheer from the stands!

Thanks for this . I've had quite a bit of push-back on this regarding the intent of the HMRC. Yes I know it's a process and one primarily aimed at them getting their money they're owed, but for me the clue to their ultimate powers and intent can be found in the title of their Petition. However, whether HMRC's intent is push until the very end to see us being wound up, is not the point of my post! The point of it is the question I ask at the end - Are the IFR and HMRC going to speak to each other to come to a decision on what happens next, that's in any way helpful to us, or is that asking way too much? They have very different purposes and end games in mind regarding our plight and I see a definite advantage to all parties involved if the two Government-formed agencies would only kick things off at this stage by speaking to each other. It's a revolutionary thought but it might just work. Thanks again mate for your response.

Agreed. They say 'petition' in the headline and 'order' in the text of the story.

I haven't doubled back mate and you know it. I was telling you what I'd said before but you obviously chose to ignore it. Good point about ignore list though. I'll add you to mine.

Yes you're correct on the terminology. They can be quoted either way though and it tends to be confusing which is the correct title.

Of course I understand how this works. Read what I said in my reply to you earlier. Yes I know full well it's a threat to get what they want and it's worked in the past when they issued the same thing to us in the past, but the HMRC have every intention of going through with their ultimate penalty if needs be. Howard Wilkinson told me it was the closest run and scariest thing he'd ever been involved with at the club when the HMRC made clear to him they were on the brink of pressing the button on this.

They've issued a winding up order - and that's not their intent. ok.

I never said that HMRC weren't intent on getting their money, but their stated intent is to wind us up in the process, and they'd go through with it ultimately, otherwise why state it? Yes we know it's a threat to get what they want, and it's worked in the past without us going under, but it was a damn close run thing. My point is that the IFR - another government-generated body, are working in entirely the different direction to try to help clubs in the same or similar positions like ours keep afloat.

Has anyone else noticed the fact that there are two Government-generated organisations homing in on us because of our financial state of affairs. One of them - the HMRC, is intent on ending our existence because of it, whilst the other - the IFR, is intent on helping us stay in existence because of it. Are they going to speak to each other to come to a decision on what happens next, that's in any way helpful to us, or is that asking way too much?

Do you mean Chansiri the family? It's academic I know, but it just leaves me wondering why the family felt the need to issue a statement recently that they have nothing to do with Sheffield Wednesday. It struck me at the time that the word 'further' needed to be in there, after the word 'nothing'.

I think you both need a pat on the back for highlighting this debt of DC's under the name of his Sheff 3 Co. Whoever he owes it to, it just shows the extent of the doo dah and barbed wire he's in financially and surely even he realises he needs to sell both ground and club asap otherwise he's going to come out of it with nothing in his hand.

It's nice to think that he might well be above the law - gathering speed in free-fall towards it

Thanks mate . It's what I used to do before I retired.

Secondary legislation is the means by which the Primary Legislation - the Football Governance Act - joins up with existing laws that it needs to work alongside or through without anomalies, contradictions, loopholes etc. cropping up in the joints between them. Parliament need to pass that secondary legislative work, a bit like an engineer would sign off mods to existing connections to a new-build engine in an engine bay. It needs to be done but it should be a comparatively short process. Secondary legislation doesn't need a separate Act of Parliament to be passed.

William Shawcross has been at this since May 2nd this year. That's five months ago. How long does he need to conduct his inquiry into someone who faced a pre-appointment grilling by a cross party committee in May where the subject of his past donations were dealt with, concluding in the chairman saying:- "Excellent. Thank you very much Mr Kogan, it has been a great pleasure to meet you today. Thank you for answering all our questions. For me, Shawcross is making a mountain out of a molehill and moving at a snails pace whilst our situation's going from bad to worse with DC doing as he damn well likes. You can tell from Clive Betts' wording of the Early Day Motion that he and his fellow MPs are tearing their hair out at the situation.

Apparently 'Secondary Legislation' needs to be passed to allow the regulator to fully enforce the Football Governance Act. If you cut and paste into Google:- when will secondary legislation be passed to fully enforce the Football Governance Act ...it will give you chapter and verse on it

I'd say yes it is, especially if, in the next few days, he somehow finds money he owes creditors who loaned him millions on the surety of the ground. It's due end of this month + 7 days grace. So if he finds money for that, to retain his assets, but not to pay wages due to players and employees ......

Yes you're right. I've lived and worked in the area for 44 years and can confirm that both Cleethorpes Town and Grimsby Town play away every week. Grimsby's ground is in the borough of Cleethorpes and Cleethorpes' ground is in the borough of Grimsby.

Cretins who did that to you

So many to think of unfortunately. Probably the worst was watching us lose to Everton in the FA Cup final when I was 15. My Dad died less than two years later aged only 43. At least he enjoyed Wednesday winning the FA Cup when he was 11 in 1935 but I so wish he'd witnessed us winning the Cup again in what was to be his last few years of life.

It's a misconception that DC can't be touched by the IFR under the Governance Act because he now seems to be paying his way and has back-paid his dues to HMRC and wages to staff and players The obvious harm he's caused to the club and what SWFC and we the fans right now have to endure, and live through, cannot be rowed back in time. He's many things but he's not a time traveller and neither are we In just one aspect alone, the harm extends to 2027 and we still have the expected points deduction penalty to come. We may also yet enter administration. His policy of selling his best players to pay wages is unsustainable and has contributed to the stock of the club entering freefall on a number of levels. Our very existence is now very much on the line because of him. The Football Governance Act is predicated on football clubs being financially soundly managed and that the interests of fans are central to the running of the club. There are more to cite, but those are key red lines you now don't cross if you're an owner and expect to get away with it. We can pontificate all we like about the IFR not being able to do this or that to DC, but instead of talking the IFR down we need to be talking them up and engaging with them in their consultation. There's a section in the form to choose the club you support. The more of us joining in as Owls fans will send them a message about what their number 1 priority should be, if that was ever in doubt. There's a final section to add any further comments about the IFR's approach. Just let them know what you're going through and how you want the Regs to have teeth and be implemented to put an end to that kind of misery. There's nothing more powerful or stimulating to a legislator, about to go into battle, than getting what the cause is all about through knowing the feelings of the people they'll be fighting for

Chansiri was still in default on late payments to his players and employees when the Football Governance Act became law on 21st July. He'd not back-paid by then, so he was still carrying this baggage with him when he walked through that 'time gate', consequently becoming liable for it, at that point, under the new law. And if there was any lingering doubt about the law being applicable to him only after coming into force by 21st July, he defaulted again at the end of July on payments on time and in full to staff and players. This allows the IFR to investigate root causes and effects and take them into account i.e. the history of late payments to HMRC and late wages payments four months out of five in 2025 directly related and linked, in cause and effect, to what he was instantly liable for when the Act became law. The IFR can enforce the law (in building a case for an owner removal order) by itemising his explicit non compliances with the Act but they are also permitted to take the line, as written into the Act, 'or are treated as having determined' that a person is unsuitable to be an owner or officer of a regulated football club. This is a catch-all provision which allows obviously harmful mismanagement acts and omissions to be taken into account, not explicitly stated in the Act, but obvious in fact. It's very similar to the legal doctrine used to prove negligence in accident and injury cases, Res Ipsa Loquitur, which means that 'it speaks for itself' the harm caused by the actions of the person whom we hold accountable.

Don't know why this didn't come up as an active link when you typed it out in full above. I've done the insert-link thing with the text if that helps.

Yeh I meant it as his deliberate avoidance strategy which is execrable behaviour. No doubt he's suffered not one bit of change in lifestyle through all this.