OWLERTON GHOST Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 16 minutes ago, Blue and white said: If we get away with a slap on the wrist for this I will swim back from New Zealand wearing nothing but a smile. I'll volunteer to be your mentor /pace man B&W. I've just bought a nice shiny new Bicycle.... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 (edited) 13 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said: What makes things worse is the expert insight in the paper / radio that are basically rubbish. Above is the key, date of exchange of contracts is date you recognise if the contract is binding to both parties. Anyone with an ounce of practical accounting / auditing experience would understand this. So forget all the stuff from Maguire etc? What this comes down to is when the exchange of contracts was done and how that applies (or doesn't) to the 2017/2018 accounts. Edited November 16, 2019 by SiJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akbuk Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 I suppose any legal arguments will centre around the fairness in setting three year financial parameters and then the governing body attempting to judge on an annual basis. my guess is the club has a very arguable case which means the argument may be out of the EFL's hands and into the High Courts ,will they want to take that risk ? maybe the rules need to be tested in law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owls-Fan Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 9 hours ago, darra said: Found this just now on FB written by Katrien Miere That’s strange as BBC said it was written by someone else 2 days ago... https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/50418776 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellbeaten-the-owl Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 (edited) 6 minutes ago, SiJ said: So forget all the stuff from Maguire etc? What this comes down to is when the exchange of contracts was done and how that applies (or doesn't) to the 2017/2018 accounts. Yes because HE IS WRONG. Two questions. A when was the exchange of contracts B Was the contract fully bindng to both sides If a is pre 31/7/18 and b is yes then it's fine to be included at that point. At this point worth a complaint to any media outlet furthering KMs stuff as it's crap Edited November 16, 2019 by wellbeaten-the-owl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Owls-Fan Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 1 minute ago, akbuk said: I suppose any legal arguments will centre around the fairness in setting three year financial parameters and then the governing body attempting to judge on an annual basis. my guess is the club has a very arguable case which means the argument may be out of the EFL's hands and into the High Courts ,will they want to take that risk ? maybe the rules need to be tested in law. FF was found not guilty in court yet he still got punished by a football association who apparantly know better, I’m not banking on high courts helping us this time either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akbuk Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 2 minutes ago, Owls-Fan said: FF was found not guilty in court yet he still got punished by a football association who apparantly know better, I’m not banking on high courts helping us this time either Different levels of proof and different cases FF was a criminal case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TodwickOwl Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 56 minutes ago, horny owl said: If we get away with just a slap on the wrist it’ll completely ruin Chris Wilders team talks. This could be the start of the wobble for our porky neighbours. Think him talking about us is long gone son Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 9 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said: Yes because HE IS WRONG. Two questions. A when was the exchange of contracts B Was the contract fully bindng to both sides If a is pre 31/7/18 and b is yes then it's fine to be included at that point. At this point worth a complaint to any media outlet furthering KMs stuff as it's crap So I guess it would be a fair to at least consider that the contracts weren’t exchanged before 31/7/18, otherwise this seems like quite an easy thing to iron out. In that case what else might these guys have accepted during the audit? https://bhp.co.uk/service/audit/ Reassuring to google them and find we’d hired someone reputable and not Elev8 LLP or such like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 That's the thing @Sonny... If it is as straightforward as that then why have we been charged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 BHP are pretty reputable. Good 5 aside football team too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wellbeaten-the-owl Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 7 minutes ago, Sonny said: So I guess it would be a fair to at least consider that the contracts weren’t exchanged before 31/7/18, otherwise this seems like quite an easy thing to iron out. In that case what else might these guys have accepted during the audit? https://bhp.co.uk/service/audit/ Reassuring to google them and find we’d hired someone reputable and not Elev8 LLP or such like. No because maybe EFL aren't happy with the terms of the contracts? Not saying there isn't an issue to be argued but that's likely what it will be a lawyer argument on terms of the deal. If you couldn't make two arguments out of the same facts then lawyers wouldn't be so well paid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SiJ Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 5 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said: No because maybe EFL aren't happy with the terms of the contracts? Not saying there isn't an issue to be argued but that's likely what it will be a lawyer argument on terms of the deal. If you couldn't make two arguments out of the same facts then lawyers wouldn't be so well paid So less to do with when said contract was signed and perhaps more to do with the terms of said contract? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 4 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said: No because maybe EFL aren't happy with the terms of the contracts? Not saying there isn't an issue to be argued but that's likely what it will be a lawyer argument on terms of the deal. If you couldn't make two arguments out of the same facts then lawyers wouldn't be so well paid Cheers. I get that, but I said fair to ‘consider’ not ‘assume’ so I wondered if there would be any other method / process for it to be back dated. How does the buying company not even existing at that point effect the need for a contract to have exchanged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dumboldowl Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 1 hour ago, OWLERTON GHOST said: I'll volunteer to be your mentor /pace man B&W. I've just bought a nice shiny new Bicycle.... If it's got paddles, instead of pedals, you'll be OK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodsideowl Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 23 hours ago, Birley Owl 1867 said: A comment like that can only be written by a Blade. You lot don't half make it obvious. I was gonna bite and lower myself but you beat me there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shez owl Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 We pay wages & tax on time and in full every month, that’s a well run business surely and something other clubs don’t do on a regular basis and they face no sanctions. The FFP rules are the problem they are a restriction of trade & make no sense in the champ where Prem league finances have such an influence. The EFL are damaging their own product now THAT is a badly run business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vulva Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 Blaming the EFL is ridiculous. The rules of the league are quite clear, agreed, signed off and the vast majority of clubs stick to them. Do people actually think we will have communicated in a clear fashion with the EFL on this? I know full well where my money would be. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodsideowl Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 55 minutes ago, akbuk said: Different levels of proof and different cases FF was a criminal case Isn't burning the books considered criminal ?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted November 16, 2019 Share Posted November 16, 2019 1 hour ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said: What makes things worse is the expert insight in the paper / radio that are basically rubbish. Above is the key, date of exchange of contracts is date you recognise if the contract is binding to both parties. Anyone with an ounce of practical accounting / auditing experience would understand this. I think Maguire knows all this but this won't get clickbait or appearances on the local media. But he fits in well there because they have managed to get a gig speaking about football with sod all knowledge 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