Sheffield Wednesday reaction issued after Simon Jordan takeover revelation - it's "a bit disappointing" | OneFootball

Simon Jordan ended his attempt to bid for Sheffield Wednesday early, but while his experience may have been useful, there's plenty of other interest.

This article is part of Football League World's 'Terrace Talk' series, which provides personal opinions from our FLW Fan Pundits regarding the latest breaking news, teams, plaers, managers, potential signings and more…

Former Crystal Palace chairman Simon Jordan has claimed that he was putting together a consortium to bid for Sheffield Wednesday - but pulled out because he didn't want Dejphon Chansiri to gain any money from it.

There's no question that there was plenty of interest in buying the Owls once the club was put into administration, and within the next couple of weeks, Wednesday fans should find out who the next owner of the club will be, should everything go to plan.

But there's one name that can be ruled out of contention, and that is the aforementioned Jordan.

Jordan has claimed that he was looking to put together a consortium to make an offer to the administrators, and whilst the necessary finances were raised as proof of funds, he ultimately decided against the takeover idea because he didn't want the club's current owner Dejphon Chansiri, who is also one of the club's creditors, to get any money from the sale, which he will more-than likely be owed.

"I put together a consortium of very well-heeled people, who proved up £50m to have a look at Sheffield Wednesday," " Jordan told talkSPORT.

"It's a club that I've always advocated for because I think it's a big club waiting to happen again if it had proper management and proper ownership and proper direction and proper disciplines around building it back as a football club.

"But it is massively challenged. The reasons why I've decided not to go forward with it is because I don't like the idea of rewarding Chansiri by having to pay huge parts of the money that he has to get to avoid the EFL regulations of being sanctioned again - because if you don't pay the '25p in the Pound' then ultimately you'll get another 15-point penalty.

"I would be quite happy to have the ownership of Sheffield Wednesday and have a 15-point penalty in this season because it doesn't make any difference, you're going to get relegated and not have it next year."

"We haven't really lost anything" - Sheffield Wednesday reaction given to Simon Jordan revelation

Football League World asked our resident Sheffield Wednesday fan pundit Patrick McKenna if he's disappointed that Jordan will not be pressing ahead with his takeover plan, and it's fair to say he would have welcomed him at Hillsborough.

"Certainly with regard to Simon Jordan, he would have brought a bit of knowledge to any consortium," Patrick told FLW.

"He may not have been involved in football directly since 2010, but he won't have lost the knowledge he does have and he's stayed close to the game.

"So undoubtedly, he would have had some expertise and I think it would have been a positive influence. However, ultimately he did not want to proceed with a takeover. If he didn't want to go with it, there's no point worrying about it."

But Patrick was also somewhat perplexed as to why Jordan would go so far as considering the idea of putting such a group together, when the EFL's rules on paying creditors are well-established.

"It's a bit disappointing that he cited the fact that Chansiri would get money as a reason to not buy the club, when he would know that this would be the case under the current rules regarding administration and football, so I don't know why he would have looked to put together a consortium while knowing that this would be the case," McKenna added.

"Ultimately now, a new owner will be coming forward in the next few weeks, and it won't be a consortium with Simon Jordan involved, so certainly I think he could have brought something, but it's not a disaster that his consortium did pull out.

"We haven't really lost anything since we didn't have him involved at the club in the first place."

Simon Jordan has expertise, but his time at Crystal Palace was dogged by controversy

The EFL's rules on administration are in place for good reason.

Prior to the introduction of the 25p-in-a-pound rule in 2015, it was extremely reputationally damaging for the game for high-profile cases of clubs collapsing into insolvency to end with unsecured creditors to end up being railroaded into accepting offers of a couple of pennies in the pound, especially when these often included organisations such as the St John's Ambulance, who provide medical assistance on match-days, and local businesses. This had become all the more problematic because the rules also require "football creditors" to be paid in full.

All of these rules are about trying to strike the right balance between the best interests of both individual clubs and the game in a broader sense. The 10-point deduction for entering into administration (it's nine in the Premier League, and has since been increased to twelve in the EFL) was introduced from the start of the 2004-05 season as a response to criticism that it was too easy for clubs to enter into administration to get their debts written off, and that the lack of a sanction from the League was giving an unfair advantage to clubs who overspent their way into severe financial difficulty.

Jordan's time at Crystal Palace was dogged by controversy and didn't end especially happily. A dispute with former manager Iain Dowie ended up at the High Court, where Jordan won before settling out of court after winning the case, but with Dowie being given a right to appeal. His period at Selhurst Park ended in January 2010, after Palace themselves collapsed into administration.

With 25 years of experience of working in football and the football media, it's true to say that Jordan could have brought considerable knowledge to any consortium of which he was a part.

But with there having been so much interest in Sheffield Wednesday since the club entered into administration, it's equally true to say that the decision of one group to not proceed won't negatively impact upon the club to any significant degree.