Jump to content
markg

EFL Statement

Recommended Posts

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. 

 

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 6
  • Disagree 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, akbuk said:

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

Isn't burning the books considered criminal ?.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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.

This is the most ridiculous post on this thread. So you reckon his teams talks revolve round Wednesday just before he plays Liverpool, Spurs etc ?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour 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. 

 

 

 

The honest answer is those party to the evidence are a fairly restricted group of people.

 

If there was a binding contract for sale on or before the 31st July 2018 then it may be sufficient to recognise as an accounting transaction. 

 

The other stuff in the public domain is peripheral information, the above is the key document and we will not get to see that evidence. Well we might if it goes to court I guess !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Above all the possibles and probables and what happens, happens .The main thing is our fantastic fanbase stick together ,good times will return. WAWAW.

.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

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 

Agree. But it's really sad football has come to this, just get annoyed from a professional point of view that he was on a national radio station yeater spouting this which is casting doubt on integrity of the audited accounts.

 

Think EFL will be classing the accounting period extension as an issue aswell, do they have anything in FFP submission rules to prevent this? 

 

Can't blame them in a way as they are under pressure to do something about this issue and there are quite a few debatable issues around how we have done this that leaves us as the easiest target.  

 

We are a

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Sonny said:

 

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?

Contract between swfc ltd and DC, Agreement is for DC to purchase through a company he is to set up?

 

Think it's more case of a catalogue of decisions made to circumvent the FFP rules that EFL are unhappy with, every one in isolation may be valid but combined they see it as misconduct

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, dumboldowl said:

 

If it's got paddles, instead of pedals, you'll be OK.

We're going on the coastal route ....

lol

 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, vulva said:

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. 

 

 


I wouldn’t trust DC to understand the rules of pass the parcel never mind any EFL financial regulations 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Disagree 1
  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules were designed to protect clubs from owners like ours.

  • Agree 4
  • Disagree 1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, torres said:


I wouldn’t trust DC to understand the rules of pass the parcel never mind any EFL financial regulations 


That is why he was introduced to an experienced FFP Compliance Consultant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, sonofbert2 said:


That is why he was introduced to an experienced FFP Compliance Consultant.


Phew!! We’d be in a pickle otherwise 

  • Disagree 1
  • Haha 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, sonofbert2 said:


That is why he was introduced to an experienced FFP Compliance Consultant.


Well he did a great job.

Edited by SallyCinnamon
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, sonofbert2 said:


That is why he was introduced to an experienced FFP Compliance Consultant.

 

Frank Abagnale Jnr? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VERY very wishful thinking. But, reckon the EFL have charged us at the start of in international break with the view of handing out our punishment before it’s over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 442 said:

VERY very wishful thinking. But, reckon the EFL have charged us at the start of in international break with the view of handing out our punishment before it’s over?


I think “very very” is under playing it pal 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Disagree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, torres said:


I wouldn’t trust DC to understand the rules of pass the parcel never mind any EFL financial regulations 

He would just refuse to pass said parcel and enter into protracted negotiations, namely he wants seven parcels in return. 

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Tyto Alba said:

The rules were designed to protect clubs from owners like ours.

 

We need rules to protect the club from an owner who wants us to compete?

  • Like 2
  • Agree 2

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...