Jump to content
markg

EFL Statement

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, sheriwozgod said:

 

I always enjoy your posts sonof but i can`t agree with this mate.

 

i will concede that there are some who ladle on the righteousness a tad too much but i refuse to believe that anyone on here would be "absolutely gutted" if we were doing well.

Work and family commitments mean i can only get to about 50 % of home games these days so there are plenty more on here who put much more money into the club than i do but it doesn`t mean i care any less, and it doesn`t stop me being extremely worried about how the club is being run.

 

As i said in a previous post, the warning signs have been there for quite a while, and were fast becoming more like klaxons, fake sponsors, begging for fans money up front, embargoes etc but, and it`s a big but , this could have been avoided if we had a structure in place.

 

A CEO or committee ( disbanding ours after a few months is looking like a bad move in hindsight)  who would NOT have sanctioned the Rhodes fee, who would have put a block on unnecessary signings who were surplus to requirements, or would have insisted on at least one major outgoing deal to offset losses.....they obviously knew what was coming, DC himself has admitted it on many occasions, yet STILL we refused to sell until it was too late , and regardless of whats been said i dont think they would have been accused of a lack of ambition had the fans been given the facts.

 

I hope i`m wrong and this turns out better than we think but i just can`t see it, and blindly hoping it wont and pulling the covers over our heads doesn`t make us better fans just like it doesn`t make people like me bedwetters.......it just means WAWAW and we all react differently to scary $hit like this, but glad to see us in the mire?....nah, i`m not having it.

 

We can point the finger in a multitude of directions apportioning blame, but the bottom line is DC has overseen this, ...well ... shambles, but hopefully all is not lost.

 

We are gonna have to take some short term pain (again) and unfortunately we are used to this, and the fact that our  neighbours are doing so well doesn`t exactly help ,  but the main point now is that DC HAS to swallow his pride, admit we`ve cocked up, and put in place a body of people who have knowledge and experience of running clubs at this level and ditch his current advisors who, even he must now admit, have got it badly wrong.

 

Great post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, mkowl said:

 

It would fall due on completion not exchange of contracts.

 

Accounting wise you would probably recognise the transaction in the books on exchange of contracts not completion, if it was a fairly binding contract.

 

There is no stipulation in law at the length of time between the two dates

 

So the stamp duty point is a red herring

 

 

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. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m pretty sure DC and his lawyers can make this, err, “disappear”. 

 

F.uck the EFL. 

 

UTO FTB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by SiJ

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 by wellbeaten-the-owl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

 

:duntmatter:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

 

:duntmatter:

Different levels of proof and different cases FF was a criminal case

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

  • Agree 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the thing @Sonny...

 

If it is as straightforward as that then why have we been charged? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BHP are pretty reputable. 

 

Good 5 aside football team too. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...