SiJ Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 Because if we have fabricated evidence then our punishment might be more severe than just a points deduction... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0114 Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 Just now, nilsson said: Isn’t the other issue that we’ve not actually received the proceeds of the sale? Maybe, although the EFL statement specifically refers to period in which Hillsborough was sold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 People need to be careful what they write on here. Some of what I am reading could be libelous and we all know how that can end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyblack Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 1 hour ago, mkowl said: Many on here will know I am a Chartered Accountant by profession, run my own firm and until March this year was a registered auditor. So just concentrating on that part. I am bound by the rules of membership of the ICAEW so if I fail in any respect I would have to explain myself / my judgements to them. Whilst I was an auditor I was also regulated by the ICAEW. Last year I had my what is known as a QAD visit, where there is pretty detailed scrutiny of my files by them, follow up requirements. Flippin tough stuff. I got through it - just but for many additional reasons, primarily my sanity I gave up that work. So these professional requirements are always in the background. Throw into the mix we have PI insurance. Now i am not perfect let's just say i know the protocols on this and how it works in practice. So just adds to the complexity here. So in the SWFC situation if you are criticised by another body the EFL and clearly this is all in the public domain, then for all the reasons above you are going to protect your professional judgement robustedly. Jeez if you though EFL sanctions were tough you should read the disciplinary pages of our monthly publication. So if its all tickety boo and above board, why would the EFL think there is a case to answer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sheriwozgod Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 With huge hindsight maybe getting rid of our committee, Pearson, Roeder et al after just a couple of months wasn`t the best idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 Just now, WalthamOwl said: Would anyone be surprised if the EFL dock us enough points to ensure we are playing in league one next season? It’s a shame if found guilty DC can’t pay for it personally rather than have the club dragged through the crap. They cant really just apply a points deduction just to relegate us. There has to be some rhyme and reason behind any punishment. Some sort of method behind why, not just out of spite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Bob said: People need to be careful what they write on here. Some of what I am reading could be libelous and we all know how that can end. Yeah...I was trying to hint at that, but some don't seem to be heeding the warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 40 minutes ago, N0rtherner said: Football finance expert Kieran Maguire, speaking to BBC Radio Sheffield I'm not going to pass any judgment not knowing the details of this, but hope we can provide sufficient evidence to shut EFL the fizz up, EFL counting themselves above the law on numerous occasions, wouldn't surprise me if we get a choice of 21 points deduction or 21 game ban for Forestieri over this one... And at the same time, Man City, are let off lightly. We would opt for the points deduction and leave Forestieri on the bench for 21 matches! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, billyblack said: So if its all tickety boo and above board, why would the EFL think there is a case to answer? Well...they accepted the accounts a few months ago... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradowl Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 3 minutes ago, SiJ said: Because if we have fabricated evidence then our punishment might be more severe than just a points deduction... Expelled from EFL is worst scenario, ending up in National North if they do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hirstys Salopettes Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 4 minutes ago, SiJ said: Because if we have fabricated evidence then our punishment might be more severe than just a points deduction... Alas, think Swindon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalthamOwl Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, SiJ said: They cant really just apply a points deduction just to relegate us. There has to be some rhyme and reason behind any punishment. Some sort of method behind why, not just out of spite. did Birmingham get docked 9 points? Not sure exactly how bad they had been to break the rules? I take it teams like Bolton got docked 12 because of going in to admin? Edited November 15, 2019 by WalthamOwl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradowl Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Hirstys Salopettes said: Alas, think Swindon Going back some years with this one, I can't remember why they got demoted 2 divisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradowl Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 Just now, WalthamOwl said: did Birmingham get docked 9 points? Not sure exactly how bad they had been to break the rules? I take it teams like Bolton and Bury got docked 30 because of going in to admin? Birmingham was just for overspending on players and wages, I should think our punishment would be worst if proven with sale of ground. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
torres Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 Don't worry Baldrick Chansiri will have a cunning plan to get us out of this mess Another plaque sale? Buy one for £18k and get 10p off a season ticket when we win the champions league - in the meantime you get a free 2 page colouring book to say thanks 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WalthamOwl Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, bradowl said: Birmingham was just for overspending on players and wages, I should think our punishment would be worst if proven with sale of ground. yeah that’s my thinking. If guilty can imagine the punishment will be much more severe than Birmingham. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat blondeau Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 3 minutes ago, SiJ said: I didn't realise we had so many people who know the inner workings at S6. This is not me trying to say the club haven't done anything wrong. More suggesting we see what comes out in the wash before jumping to conclusions. It’s the EFL that have said it in their statement: The EFL has reviewed a large number of documents obtained from the Club as part of this process and concluded there is sufficient evidence to justify issuing charges of Misconduct. The charges are in respect of a number of allegations regarding the process of how and when the stadium was sold and the inclusion of the profits in the 2017/18 accounts. Has any club ever successfully appealed an EFL charge? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 4 minutes ago, bradowl said: Birmingham was just for overspending on players and wages, I should think our punishment would be worst if proven with sale of ground. It was but for a time they were under review they continued spending regardless and tried to register a player for a significant fee while they were under an embargo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LondonOwl313 Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 17 minutes ago, 1993swfc said: Doesn’t really mean anything though. Doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know we’ve lied about when the stadium was sold. Without the sale we would have received the 9 point deduction that Birmingham did last year. We’ve tried to find a way round it and been caught out. Expect a bigger punishment than Birmingham. Well we aren't the only club to have taken advantage of this loophole. It's allowed within the rules... they can't then punish us for complying with said rules. They can change the rules going forward but not retrospectively. As for the point about 'lying'... have we really though. If it's in the accounts, that means it's been signed off by the auditor which should mean that there is proof of the sale falling within the accounting period otherwise they wouldn't have been able to sign it off. And if that's the case, then we should win. If we've fabricated documentation and provided this to the auditors then Chansiri has much bigger problems than the EFL as that would be fraud. No evidence of that though yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aingarth Posted November 15, 2019 Share Posted November 15, 2019 21 minutes ago, SiJ said: I don't think there are people revelling in this...but it is odd how some familiar faces pop up to tell us how right they were all along and to back slap themselves. I find the whole thing depressing and don’t take any satisfaction from being right. It seemed so obvious at the time. I hoped and still hope that our club, it’s financial advisors and auditors have a good and legal explanation why the sale should be included in the 2017-2018 accounts. There are a range of ways that could be the case but our access to very limited accounts does not give the logic behind the inclusion. The valuation of the ground is a different matter and will need some justification. But I think we are highly likely to be in serious trouble which could take years to sort out. I also don’t take any delight in having warned 10 years ago, when Sheard and others were snapping around and the general view was we need to be bought by a billionaire, that the wish to be owned by rich men rather than local shareholders could lead to disaster in the longer term. I just wish someone would unravel what has happened at Man C. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now