EFL Statement

[matthefish2002]

I agree the rules are flawed but if we have broke them then we have to reluctantly accept a punishment.

Clubs like Barnsley can argue the rules are flawed but have kept within them so Wednesday have had an unfair advantage.

[SwellOwl]

14 minutes ago, asteener1867 said:

I suppose it could...It would be like a feature length version of a VAR horror film mate

I remember QPR went through something similar and took some time. At the end of the day, no one really knows!

[SwellOwl]

21 minutes ago, Royal_D said:

Probably drag past the current season without appealing ! The EFL are about as competent as South Yorkshire Police and Sheffield City Council 

Be typical Wednesday to being close to playoffs and get deduction last game of the season!

[vulva]

Football isn’t what it used to be, but things like VAR, parachute payments and FFP probably don’t bother the likes of United fans who are 5th in the Premier League with players like Leon Clarke in the squad. 

 

 

[Inspector Lestrade]

Football has always had its dodgy side, paying players under the table during the maximum wage days. Transfer fee bungs.  

[Johnny Concrete]

1 hour ago, Mr Farrell said:

 

I work with Leeds fans who see us, and openly talk about us being a dodgy club, with a load of snidey fiddles on the go.

 

To hear that from Leeds fans shows how things have changed the last few years.

 

Personally I think our desperation for success has led to us accepting things a few years ago we would have been outraged at other clubs doing.

 

Maybe it's a sign of the times, but it doesn't sit well.

 

I agree, I think after the Playoff final season most, if not all, got that taste of chasing success and been one of the more stronger sides in the division. After all the years of watching the club struggling to its knees in debt whilst yo-yoing between the championship and league one, it made a refreshing change to see us competing in the transfer market and we wouldn't really question the off the field stuff or were blind to it. 

 

Just a shame this latest hammer blow could see us set back even further from before Chansiri took over.

[Salmonbones]

A previous comment of mine suggested we need to unite as a fanbase right now because of what is about to happen to us (however severe or otherwise), but 86 pages suggest we are incapable.

 

 

[twolaptops]

EFL rules are you cannot spend money to compete with the Prem drop-outs big witch-hunt if you do..............Prem rules you can spend money that has appeared from "where". ??...ala Chelsea......carpet under swept

[Essix Blue]

My worry reading this thread is that many fans feel the FFP rules are wrong (fair enough) and so don’t seem to care that we’ve perhaps broken them. 
 

Rules are rules, whether you like them or not. If it’s proven DC has treat the EFL with contempt and purposely tried to hide the fact he’s broken those rules, he deserves everything coming his way. 
 

Alas many of our fans will ignore those facts and continue to blame the EFL and their new Liverpool supporting Chairman or whatever he is..........

[Guest mkowl]

1 hour ago, WBridgfordowl said:

 

So, I’m assuming we should have paid the stamp duty when the contract was signed?

 

If we did, surely we have a strong case, if we didn’t, we’ll have some difficulty convincing anyone that we’ve played with a straight bat!

 

There are generally 2 stages of any property transaction - anyone who has bought a house recently will testify. You have date of exchange (of contracts) and a date of completion. Might be a few weeks between the two. 

 

Whilst you can pull out of the transaction between the 2 dates both the buyer and the vendor have given th go ahead of the deal.

 

So it may seem bizarre but for accounting purposes the earlier date is the relevant one. (Just to note for tax purposes it is also this date if it is an unconditional contract).

 

The flow of "monies" is however on date of completion and the stamp duty is payable probably max 30 days later. Saying that it could be paid late like any tax, but there are potential penalties and interest if you do.

 

An old trick was that you exchanged and never completed the contract which I recall they stopped. There is also an exemption for groups of companies. Tbh it is far from my most knowledgeable area, I leave it to the lawyers

 

As I say I wouldn't concern yourself about it in terms of the accounts

[bradowl]

This has probably been already posted amongst the 85 pages but just incase not, anyone wondering why Derby are not being investigated, here's the answer. 

 

 

 

[kobayashi]

11 minutes ago, twolaptops said:

EFL rules are you cannot spend money to compete with the Prem drop-outs big witch-hunt if you do..............Prem rules you can spend money that has appeared from "where". ??...ala Chelsea......carpet under swept

Strangely over the years many clubs without the benefit of the parachute payments have managed to compete without being hauled up in front of a commission of enquiry. Of the current top 6 teams, one hasn’t been in the top league for 60 years, another for 40 years and the others for about 20 years. 

[S36 OWL]

22 minutes ago, Mycroft said:

Football has always had its dodgy side, paying players under the table during the maximum wage days. Transfer fee bungs.  

 

Managers and agents exchanging brown envelopes stuffed with cash in motorway service station car parks used to be the norm.

[BARMYARMY2010]

6 minutes ago, bradowl said:

This has probably been already posted amongst the 85 pages but just incase not, anyone wondering why Derby are not being investigated, here's the answer. 

 

 

 

They still are being investigated.

[bradowl]

14 minutes ago, BARMYARMY2010 said:

They still are being investigated.

 

And so they should if we are, though I wonder how much of this will involve Derby's Stephen Pearce, I'm sure he would back others in them being deducted 10 points. Not!!!

[TheEnchanter]

34 minutes ago, twolaptops said:

EFL rules are you cannot spend money to compete with the Prem drop-outs big witch-hunt if you do..............Prem rules you can spend money that has appeared from "where". ??...ala Chelsea......carpet under swept

 

You can spend though. We did spend. A lot. £8M+ Rhodes, £7M Reach, £4M Abdi, £3M Hooper, £3M Forestieri, £2.8M Joao,£2.5M Van Aken, £2.5M Matias, £2M Pudil, £2M Jones etc. Some of those have obviously been good signings. 

 

However where we differ from other clubs is that we made literally nothing in player sales until we sold Joao. Clubs like Bristol have made £60M in the last handful of seasons. Derby, Norwich, Leeds, Villa etc all made a lot from selling players. 

 

I don't think a lot of our fans realise we are not in this situation because the EFL hate us. Its our own doing. How much evidence do people need to see this?

[Guest mkowl]

Just to follow up on the law, this is governed by the Companies Act 2006. 

 

Section 390 onwards is a good place to start for those looking to avoid watching Strictly with the Mrs 

 

But in simply terms the directors have a duty for

 

1) The accounts have to show a true and fair view and in order to do that 

 

2) They have to be prepared in accordance with UK GAAP or IFRS

 

Which means in the UK we follow FRS102 - (you can read that instead of watching X Factor)

 

The auditors have a duty to ensure the directors have done just that

 

So it is a criminal act and the directors liable to prosecution for failure to follow the Companies Act. 

[asteener1867]

1 minute ago, mkowl said:

Just to follow up on the law, this is governed by the Companies Act 2006. 

 

Section 390 onwards is a good place to start for those looking to avoid watching Strictly with the Mrs 

 

But in simply terms the directors have a duty for

 

1) The accounts have to show a true and fair view and in order to do that 

 

2) They have to be prepared in accordance with UK GAAP or IFRS

 

Which means in the UK we follow FRS102 - (you can read that instead of watching X Factor)

 

The auditors have a duty to ensure the directors have done just that

 

So it is a criminal act and the directors liable to prosecution for failure to follow the Companies Act. 

Are the auditors liable if seen to have not done their job properly MK?

[Guest LondonOwl313]

6 minutes ago, TheEnchanter said:

 

You can spend though. We did spend. A lot. £8M+ Rhodes, £7M Reach, £4M Abdi, £3M Hooper, £3M Forestieri, £2.8M Joao,£2.5M Van Aken, £2.5M Matias, £2M Pudil, £2M Jones etc. Some of those have obviously been good signings. 

 

However where we differ from other clubs is that we made literally nothing in player sales until we sold Joao. Clubs like Bristol have made £60M in the last handful of seasons. Derby, Norwich, Leeds, Villa etc all made a lot from selling players. 

 

I don't think a lot of our fans realise we are not in this situation because the EFL hate us. Its our own doing. How much evidence do people need to see this?

What a waste most of that is.. only FF, Hooper and Joao were worth the money paid if they’re the right numbers.. so that’s £9m well spent and £28m wasted

 

You can add Reach and Pudil as decent players for us but we overpaid. Reach never worth £7m and Pudil when we bought him had only 6 good months left in him

 

Rest are absolute leaches. Just goes to show that it’s not about spending money to build a team at this level.. always possible to pick up frees, decent loans and lower league players with potential 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Jeffjohnsonmyhero said:

Nobody has hit on the problem.OK  we have broke the rules ,But 3 clubs every season can spend more than the rest of the division.Parachute  payments ,Scrap them , Clubs will try to match this anyway they can,Just like we have. Stoke next season will have a clear out and money in abundance ,Heaven knows where we will be ,But I know where I will be Hillsborough ,Hopefully the owner wont be.

Hahaha, if the owner isn’t at Hillsborough I hope he’s left a few quid to pay the bills etc