EFL Statement

[bigrbuk]

58 minutes ago, mkowl said:

 

Yep can't argue with that. 

 

In terms of the latter point I know what should be in place. Transactions being recorded in the "correct" year is always a topic, most of the failures you hear about are due to forward booking of revenue or not recognizing the matching costs, to paint a rosier picture, but an asset sale is usually it happened in that year. 

 

Just how creative can you get with accounts? There is surely no coincidence in extending the accounting period and the delays with submitting accounts etc. I would naively suggest this was the period while the work was done with the accountants to get the books to a point where they could submit with the ground sale in the required year. The relevant professionals must all surely have to come to some point where they agreed everything was within the law (spirit, perhaps not) and happy to sign off?

 

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

8 minutes ago, RichieB said:

 

It's £42.4m, go and check the accounts. 

14 month accounting period.... £42.4 X 12/14 = £36m annualised for a comparison to a 12month set of accounts

 

Compare that to likes of villa, Middlesbrough, Fulham, Cardiff etc whose 12 month spending was in excess of £45-50m..... so called financial FAIR play?

 

 

 

 

Edited November 21, 2019 by wellbeaten-the-owl

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

5 minutes ago, bigrbuk said:

 

Just how creative can you get with accounts? There is surely no coincidence in extending the accounting period and the delays with submitting accounts etc. I would naively suggest this was the period while the work was done with the accountants to get the books to a point where they could submit with the ground sale in the required year. The relevant professionals must all surely have to come to some point where they agreed everything was within the law (spirit, perhaps not) and happy to sign off?

 

This is all conjecture but I would assume:

 

Extension to accounting period = get contract to sell in place

 

Late submission = the incorporation of Sheffield 3 limited in June 19 finally convinced auditors that there was a certainty that the July 2108 contract would be fulfilled to be able to sign off the audit report

[RichieB]

5 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

14 month accounting period.... £42.4 X 12/14 = £36m annualised for a comparison to a 12month set of accounts

 

Compare that to likes of villa, Middlesbrough, Fulham, Cardiff etc whose 12 month spending was in excess of £45-50m..... so called financial FAIR play?

 

 

 

 

 

Yep, the EFL forced us to put our wages up that high didn't they, got us far didn't it. We were much better in 2016 with a £19m wage bill too. It can be done within a budget. 

 

Plus when the likes of Sheffield United, Huddersfield etc are going up without a wage bill compared to the teams you mention it's hard to justify why DC thought it was a good idea to be so reckless. 

 

Blaming the EFL is a poor excuse imo. 

[Retired Owls Fan]

I'm sick of this moaning about Chansiri has spent his money. It's all about the gamble. It hasn't paid off but the reality is we've been a victim of bad timing throughout the last few years.

We got relegated before the parachute payments came in.

We also got smashed in the back door when the Football Leagues deal with ITV sport stuffed us.

Since then various chairs have been saving us from administration where only an insurance payout form a natural disaster saved us from being wound up. 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but what we should've done is gone into administration and dissolved before the points deduction penalty. Like the likes of Hull, Barnsley, Derby, not forgetting where Leicester are now!

 

And as for Middlebrough piping up about it. In 1986 they were one of the first teams to do it. Followed by their chairmans huge overspend managed to get his club promoted in almost consecutive season and a new ground.

 

I think all this is the Football League's fault and should be held accountable to not reacting after the horse has bolted.

 

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

4 minutes ago, RichieB said:

 

Yep, the EFL forced us to put our wages up that high didn't they, got us far didn't it. We were much better in 2016 with a £19m wage bill too. It can be done within a budget. 

 

Plus when the likes of Sheffield United, Huddersfield etc are going up without a wage bill compared to the teams you mention it's hard to justify why DC thought it was a good idea to be so reckless. 

 

Blaming the EFL is a poor excuse imo. 

Sorry where did I post that EFL forced us?

 

Just saying out wage bill was in line with the QPRs of this world not the Fulham, villa, or wolves. 

 

The parachute payments have exploded the going wages in the league.

 

The problem was not selling players and carrying too big a squad.

[RichieB]

Just now, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Sorry where did I post that EFL forced us?

 

Just saying out wage bill was in line with the QPRs of this world not the Fulham, villa, or wolves. 

 

The parachute payments have exploded the going wages in the league.

 

The problem was not selling players and carrying too big a squad.

 

Forget other clubs, it's not for us to be concerned with QPR etc, it's up to us to stay in line with what WE can afford, and having a clear strategy in the market to get the most out of every single penny we spend. DC has been reckless imo. 

 

Agree with you about the not selling of players. 

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

It's a massive problem, any non parachute club realistically can only afford a £20-25m wage budget and hope o meet the 3 year losses, but any parachute club can afford £45-60m budget.

 

In the above scenario there is big issue having a fair FFP system.

 

Only hope is a wage cap (in monetary terms not percentage of income) for the league that applies to every club

 

Say wage and salary costs less player sale profits must not exceed £25m

Edited November 21, 2019 by wellbeaten-the-owl

[RichieB]

1 minute ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

It's a massive problem, any non parachute club realistically can only afford a £20-25m wage budget and hope o meet the 3 year losses, but any parachute club can afford £45-60m budget.

 

In the above scenario there is big issue having a fair FFP system.

 

Only hope is a wage cap for the league that applies to every club

 

Yeah, and don't get me wrong, the FFP rules are completely flawed, but I just want us to be smart about it in future, stick within them, and hope to God they're changed at some point. 

[Hirstys_12th_Pint]

14 hours ago, Royal_D said:

Worst thing about all of this will be the time it takes the EFL to actually deal with it,   Just get it dealt with 

 

We know it will get dragged out and any outcome to coincide with its worst timing.  

 

If we are not affecting promotion or relegation it will be held to the start of next season.  If put a kaibosh on Play Offs or Promotion or puts us in the relegation mire will be this season. 

[matthefish2002]

59 minutes ago, Retired Owls Fan said:

I'm sick of this moaning about Chansiri has spent his money. It's all about the gamble. It hasn't paid off but the reality is we've been a victim of bad timing throughout the last few years.

We got relegated before the parachute payments came in.

We also got smashed in the back door when the Football Leagues deal with ITV sport stuffed us.

Since then various chairs have been saving us from administration where only an insurance payout form a natural disaster saved us from being wound up. 

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but what we should've done is gone into administration and dissolved before the points deduction penalty. Like the likes of Hull, Barnsley, Derby, not forgetting where Leicester are now!

 

And as for Middlebrough piping up about it. In 1986 they were one of the first teams to do it. Followed by their chairmans huge overspend managed to get his club promoted in almost consecutive season and a new ground.

 

I think all this is the Football League's fault and should be held accountable to not reacting after the horse has bolted.

 

 

I wouldn't blame Chansiri for pushing the boat out a bit but I would criticise him for having no back up plan when we lost to Huddersfield in the play offs.

When we were discussing within the club to buy Rhodes and Winnall in the same week did anyone pose the question what do we do if we don't go up?
Because from the outside that was never considered.

 

Also I am sure we did get some parachute payments when we came down from the Premier league but think it was chicken feed compared to todays payments.

 

[442]

Not spending a penny at Hillsborough until Chansiri’s gone if we get a points deduction.

 

 

[sweetsheri]

19 minutes ago, Hirstys_12th_Pint said:

 

We know it will get dragged out and any outcome to coincide with its worst timing.  

 

If we are not affecting promotion or relegation it will be held to the start of next season.  If put a kaibosh on Play Offs or Promotion or puts us in the relegation mire will be this season. 

That wasn't the case with Birmingham. The points deduction had virtually no impact

[darra]

3 hours ago, Minton said:

If we can present a cogent case for why the accounts have been done the way they have, I can't see how we can end up with a punishment. My feeling is (and I may be wrong!) that we are guilty of breaching the 'spirit' of the rules, rather than breaching the actual rules. The EFL may have to change their rules to stop other clubs from doing things the same way in the future and need a test case to justify it, but you can't punish retrospectively. 

 

I think the big *if* is how well the accounts have been done in the first place.

The more I read the more that's my thinking. The main issue seems to be around the sale of the ground and how it's been shown in the accounts. The accounts we're seen by the EFL and agreed now they are trying to say they were wrong, so surely the fault lies with whoever approved them on behalf of the EFL for not carrying out the proper searches?

Edited November 21, 2019 by darra

[Guest]

Just seen Man U have a debt of £150M. Are ant of these clubs making a profit ?

[Animis]

2 hours ago, bigrbuk said:

 

Just how creative can you get with accounts? There is surely no coincidence in extending the accounting period and the delays with submitting accounts etc. I would naively suggest this was the period while the work was done with the accountants to get the books to a point where they could submit with the ground sale in the required year. The relevant professionals must all surely have to come to some point where they agreed everything was within the law (spirit, perhaps not) and happy to sign off?

 

 

It's a good point and was discussed on here at the time. It was widely known we were delaying accounts, which suggested we'd got a plan to avoid breaching P&S for the three years up to and including 2017/18. We were still under a soft embargo at the time, awaiting the next step in the process. What we didn't know was that SWFC were intending to include the ground sale in the delayed accounts. However, as you say the relevant professionals/consultants would have been privy to the 'plan'. You'd think that apart from the Accountants; Auditors and  Property Valuers, we had a consultant that was advising SWFC on the EFL rules and tactics to avoid breaching the rules, not just P&S financial breaches.

 

A charge of Misconduct shows to me that the due diligence of abiding by the EFL rules was either poor, and the consultant needs to answer to this, or SWFC simply took a high risk and thought fec€ it we haven't got a plan B and therefore no choice.

[HOOTIE AND THE SHIT TU]

If the EFL really want a level playing field

 

There should be no parachute payments from the Premier League

[steelcityowlsfan]

14 minutes ago, HOOTIE AND THE poo TU said:

If the EFL really want a level playing field

 

There should be no parachute payments from the Premier League

Or take those into the consideration and up the permitted losses so ambitious clubs with wealthy owners can compete. 

[kilnhurstowl]

Its catch 22 isn't it . In one hand to compete and be where we want to be we have to spend big (teams who get promoted on low budgets are not that common) but yet to stay within our means involves us sitting in mid to lower table like we used to. We don't have the ground to be able to improve on facilities.  We don't have the infrastructure to bring players through and sell. And we don't have the pull to attract big advertising revenues. 

I'm at a loss as to what it is we can realistically do. Would we as fans take mid table for a few seasons to get ourselves sorted financially and just spend within our means?? I don't know. 

All I know is football is a mess. So sad. ¾

[toppOwl]

3 hours ago, RichieB said:

 

Yep, the EFL forced us to put our wages up that high didn't they, got us far didn't it. We were much better in 2016 with a £19m wage bill too. It can be done within a budget. 

 

Plus when the likes of Sheffield United, Huddersfield etc are going up without a wage bill compared to the teams you mention it's hard to justify why DC thought it was a good idea to be so reckless. 

 

Blaming the EFL is a poor excuse imo. 

 

You can't have attended many games in 2016 if thats your opinion, we were absolutely awful.