EFL Statement

[sonofbert2]

1 minute ago, 2roland2 said:

 

 

And i get that, like i said uber is something i maybe might be interested in looking at tbh, i am  quite intrigued with big business and how they work, but elon musk and tesla are not a normal set up, far from it and he isnt just investing hoping it pays off, he has filsafes and intertwined companies backing up all his risks. 

As for investments yes many companies do invest but the successful  ones do it sensibly and have clear plans and failsafes ( as much as possible ) and its done in phases to make sure its achievable. most companies have to show a return quite quickly to stay alive.  

As per my other posts the companies that fail are generally the ones who throw caution to the wind, the all or nothing businesses that dont have plan b or c ready, 

i know you dont like doom, but we are a kin to a business that went to a casino and stuck its money on roulette, but he didnt even do red or black he opted for sticking it all on 1 number.  and when the wheel gave us a loss he then went back and placed our ground on the same number. 

 

stuff like this really doesnt end well mate, 

 

Very rarely does that end well.  as we are seeing now. 

 

We really aren’t.  We are a business working under difficult rules and had a 3 year plan initially which very nearly came off.

 

We have been restructuring under the eyes of our “head body” who have now decided that we have breached a rule which we don’t think we have.

 

I am not going to slag or predict poor outcomes for the business nor judge mistakes from the past in the lottery of football.

 

I am going to support the club, team, pray and hope for the best.  I’m used to it.

 

That’s me done.  I’ll enjoy the football while you lot enjoy the meltdown.

[sonofbert2]

3 minutes ago, 2roland2 said:

 

 

sorry i also have to add that the rising cost of running the business is every owners fault in the football pyramid, we could still choose to run wihin these rules and run a sustainable club. we like many others have said fizz it lets risk the lot.

as i stated in a previous post we shouldnt be allowed to run up 13 mill losses per year if every club in our division did that then eventually at least half the clubs would pop. probably 3/4 because the risk to reward just doesnt stack up.  the efl have implemented a good idea very badly and the owners of clubs are reckless and endangering the clubs at all levels.

 

Again that is why things like this never end well.

 

Final point - the 39m over 3 seasons limit was set, I believe, in 2014.

 

It’s a joke!

[Nero]

Vote Now - Are you?

 

a. Quite knowledgeable about this sort of thing?

 

b. Quite knowledgeable but not about this sort of thing.

 

c. A bit thick but convinced that you really know what's going on.

 

d. A bit thick.

 

I'm D.

 

 

[room0035]

4 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Not anything of sort.

 

Question is at the point SWFC ltd enter into the contract do they stand to lose or gain from any future economic benefits suffer from any future risk of ownership? If not then it goes in accounts at that date

 

Your confusing this with do newco have a liability at that date which is obviously no

 

At 28/7/18 the liability is with DC meet terms of contract, set up newco and complete purchase

Sheffield Wednesday Limited entered inter a contract to sell the club to another entity - Correct

 

This contract was sign for by Sheffield Wednesday and the new entity presumably by DC on behalf of the new entity.

 

They grey area is the new entity did not exist until x amount of months after the contract was sign.

 

In a court of law there is a rule called substance over form, if a contact was signed today but there was no way it could be transactioned until June 2020 a court of law would deem the true transaction did not happen today but in June 2020 i.e. the substance of the contract has not happened for the contract to be completed. It does not matter if the contract says it happened today. Another marker is when the transaction happened had the funds been received for the sale on the date in question, again we probably would have been ok but this too did not happen as a Debtor in the 2018 accounts states about a future payment for the club (Note 13 of the finance statement states £7,5m and £52.5m were due to the club).

 

This is the gist of what has happened with this transaction.

 

BUT if the club SWFC entered into a contract with DC which DC sign and agreed to then I don't see a problem with it, if DC then decided to sell the club to another party that two is fine and can be done when ever he wants. The problem we have is the club have provided all the documentation to the EFL and the question they have asked is why at January 2019 was the owner of the Land and the Freehold of SWFC still showing as SWFC with the land registry (they didn't change till June/July 2019) and why is the company that bought Sheffield Wednesday not in existence at the time the contract was meant to be signed.

 

The new company is a shell and its only employee is DC we all know this, but it is an impossibility for DC to be able to sign as the owner of a business when that business does not exist. As I have said had DC himself bought the land and buildings himself we would not have a problem but it seems that is not the case.

 

Look we are not going to agreed but I hope I am wrong, but we are in the poo with this one and as fans we are the ones who will be affected by this.

[H2Owl]

1 minute ago, Peacenocchio said:

Vote Now - Are you?

 

a. Quite knowledgeable about this sort of thing?

 

b. Quite knowledgeable but not about this sort of thing.

 

c. A bit thick but convinced that you really know what's going on.

 

d. A bit thick.

 

I'm D.

 

 

 

What was the third option again?

[SiJ]

It is all rather farcical.

 

We have money, pay players, other staff wages on time etc.,and yet we face the very real prospect of points deduction and so forth for failure to comply with these rules.

 

To think we actually had to sell our own stadium back to ourselves to comply. 

 

I appreciate that p and s was implemented to stop clubs going to the wall, but it has ended up causing a whole new set of problems.

 

At the end of the day, it didn't stop Bury going out of business, Bolton nearly going out of business and so forth. 

 

The EFL isn't fit for purpose and I think most of us have been saying that long before the latest bombshell.

 

Say if we do get hit with a points deduction, get relegated and end up in admin? Is that p and s doing what it is suppose to do so.

 

At some point, I wonder if the divisions below the Prem are going to completely implode. The cracks are starting to materialise.

 

 

 

 

 

[HOOTIE AND THE SHIT TU]

2 hours ago, BRUCE LEE said:

We’ll end up with a points deduction at the end of the season that equates to us finishing 21st

With Middlesboro finishing 22nd

[billyblack]

24 minutes ago, striker said:

I disagree, we could afford it.

 

The EFL intend to restrict spending to an arbitrary amount, disregarding the solvency of the individual owners.

 

No we couldn afford it. The arbitary amount is for a reason.

[billyblack]

8 minutes ago, SiJ said:

It is all rather farcical.

 

We have money, pay players, other staff wages on time etc.,and yet we face the very real prospect of points deduction and so forth for failure to comply with these rules.

 

To think we actually had to sell our own stadium back to ourselves to comply. 

 

I appreciate that p and s was implemented to stop clubs going to the wall, but it has ended up causing a whole new set of problems.

 

At the end of the day, it didn't stop Bury going out of business, Bolton nearly going out of business and so forth. 

 

The EFL isn't fit for purpose and I think most of us have been saying that long before the latest bombshell.

 

Say if we do get hit with a points deduction, get relegated and end up in admin? Is that p and s doing what it is suppose to do so.

 

At some point, I wonder if the divisions below the Prem are going to completely implode. The cracks are starting to materialise.

 

 

 

 

 

You cant blame the EFL for clubs over spending or not increasing revenue streams. 

[Holmowl]

11 minutes ago, Peacenocchio said:

Vote Now - Are you?

 

a. Quite knowledgeable about this sort of thing?

 

b. Quite knowledgeable but not about this sort of thing.

 

c. A bit thick but convinced that you really know what's going on.

 

d. A bit thick.

 

I'm D.

 

 

Brilliant.

[billyblack]

21 minutes ago, TommyCraig said:

We need to protest the EFL about this with the aim of reminding them not to keep on punishing the supporters. We need to ask the Tories and Labour what they will do to redress the imbalance between between the premier League and the rest. 

I don't blame the owner in his efforts to guide us through the minefield that EFL currently is. I blame the EFL and Premier League for overseeing this corrupt system and the football players themselves for demanding huge wages. 

Cant blame the players if clubs re willing to pay it. Clubs stop paying then the wages will go down.

[BARMYARMY2010]

2 minutes ago, billyblack said:

No we couldn afford it. The arbitary amount is for a reason.

There is no "we",its Mr Chairman and his money,of which he has always said he has plenty but can't spend it,there are no indications at all that "he" doesn't or can't afford to bankroll SWFC for the forseeable future.

I would be interested to find out how the EFL came to this £13 million a season permitted losses figure.

[debram]

3 hours ago, trev said:

Why?

 

Because he sold the ground to himself and for 60 million.

 

It's blatantly underhand, shady, bending the rules or whatever you want to call it.

OK but let's wait for the outcome which I don't expect to be good, what a mess. 

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

14 minutes ago, room0035 said:

Sheffield Wednesday Limited entered inter a contract to sell the club to another entity - Correct

 

This contract was sign for by Sheffield Wednesday and the new entity presumably by DC on behalf of the new entity.

 

They grey area is the new entity did not exist until x amount of months after the contract was sign.

 

In a court of law there is a rule called substance over form, if a contact was signed today but there was no way it could be transactioned until June 2020 a court of law would deem the true transaction did not happen today but in June 2020 i.e. the substance of the contract has not happened for the contract to be completed. It does not matter if the contract says it happened today. Another marker is when the transaction happened had the funds been received for the sale on the date in question, again we probably would have been ok but this too did not happen as a Debtor in the 2018 accounts states about a future payment for the club (Note 13 of the finance statement states £7,5m and £52.5m were due to the club).

 

This is the gist of what has happened with this transaction.

 

BUT if the club SWFC entered into a contract with DC which DC sign and agreed to then I don't see a problem with it, if DC then decided to sell the club to another party that two is fine and can be done when ever he wants. The problem we have is the club have provided all the documentation to the EFL and the question they have asked is why at January 2019 was the owner of the Land and the Freehold of SWFC still showing as SWFC with the land registry (they didn't change till June/July 2019) and why is the company that bought Sheffield Wednesday not in existence at the time the contract was meant to be signed.

 

The new company is a shell and its only employee is DC we all know this, but it is an impossibility for DC to be able to sign as the owner of a business when that business does not exist. As I have said had DC himself bought the land and buildings himself we would not have a problem but it seems that is not the case.

 

Look we are not going to agreed but I hope I am wrong, but we are in the poo with this one and as fans we are the ones who will be affected by this.

Let's just hope our lawyers are better than theirs! 

[billyblack]

1 minute ago, BARMYARMY2010 said:

There is no "we",its Mr Chairman and his money,of which he has always said he has plenty but can't spend it,there are no indications at all that "he" doesn't or can't afford to bankroll SWFC for the forseeable future.

I would be interested to find out how the EFL came to this £13 million a season permitted losses figure.

Disagree totally. 

[sonofbert2]

We are potentially on the point of making history here (again) in a good or bad way.

 

We either win and they change the rules or lose and get hammered.

 

I prefer we focus on football history and continue to try and get promoted.

 

League 1 and Grunters in Europe is currently worst case scenario.  I’ve coped with worse things in life.

 

Neither will happen anyway.

 

I trust Sir David Richards.

 

[BARMYARMY2010]

4 minutes ago, billyblack said:

Disagree totally. 

Really,wow.

 

[Guest ka58]

46 minutes ago, Hookowl said:

Yep...........................the club should broadcast to the nation what we intend to reply so that EFL have a chance to get their counter in place

no there’s no need to do that.

 

you've confused “communicating with the fan base” with “divulging arguments to opposition prior to a hearing” there. 

[HOOTIE AND THE SHIT TU]

The EFL have got to show they are investigating to satisfy other club chairmen, especially Middlesboro's Gibson

 

I expect our legal team to provide sufficient evidence to have this thrown out

 

In the meantime, we have to sign all the upcoming out of contract players in January, for the inevitable embargo Gibson the EFL will want to throw at us

 

 

 

 

[TommyCraig]

6 minutes ago, billyblack said:

Cant blame the players if clubs re willing to pay it. Clubs stop paying then the wages will go down.

The players greed is obscene but very human.

A handful of European clubs are willing to pay anything in wages in the hunt for glory and profit and this is to the detriment of all the rest. Man City spend more on a goalkeepers fee than our entire loss over 3 years and that don't include his wages.

We need one of two things to happen.

Either a wage cap or no restriction on any clubs spending at all.