EFL Statement

[Guest mkowl]

11 minutes ago, steelowl said:

 

 stoop I think if we haven't a good defence  i'd be happy with 12 points if thats all it is   i think the EFL will love to throw the kitchen sink at us then there's the hmrc aspect 

 

there are a couple of things a bit clearer now regarding resignations 

 

Tim there is no real HMRC aspect. There will be a chargeable gain on the disposal for sure but we made huge flip off trade losses in the year which can be offset against this. 

 

 

[steelowl]

1 minute ago, mkowl said:

 

Tim there is no real HMRC aspect. There will be a chargeable gain on the disposal for sure but we made huge flip off trade losses in the year which can be offset against this. 

 

 

good - take your word for it 

[Wizzard1867]

5 minutes ago, torres said:

The parachute payments are ridiculous and they should make it a closed shop but teams are so badly run it really hasn’t been the case. 
 

Sunderland went down again 

Stoke have had a season and a half in the lower half of the league 

Villa spent far too long down 

M’boro blew it 

Huddersfield struggling 

WBA blew it 

Hull not doing anything 

You have a point, but three teams can come down over a three year period making nine teams on parachute payments at any one time. This causes massive wage and transfer inflation. Just look at what we were paying Abdi, Jones and Boyd, and still paying Rhodes.

 

Rhodes needs too step up to the plate, and prove he's not like the rest of them. 

 

It's not so long ago we were in Barnsley's position, and you've got very little chance if beating the system without the payroll to do it. 

[Animis]

1 minute ago, Stoop said:

Surely there will be s substantial fine thrown in too

 

There is no precedent for this charge. It will be interesting how the EFL deal with it in terms of seriousness should the charge stick, which is far from certain at the moment.

 

For all I dislike the act of the sale, the sale in itself is not a problem for the EFL, it's the process.

 

Clearly, if found 'guilty' the EFL Regulation 92.2. penalty options will be available but who knows how they would wish to apply these. I don't buy the 'they all hate us' philosophy, but I imagine they'll want to make a statement.

 

My issue with DC is, that if we are found guilty, and we are hit with more points deducting that Birmingham or worst, I would want to know why he gambled and placed the club at risk, rather than taking the honorable route of a P&S breach last season and take the 9 points hit.

[S36 OWL]

DC came in , put his money into the club with the right intentions,  but had no idea how football worked , and was screwed over by people like Doyen and this is the end result .

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Stoop said:

Surely there will be s substantial fine thrown in too

Who is gonna pay that ?

[S36 OWL]

Just now, Royal_D said:

Who is gonna pay that ?

 

D-Taxi's Christmas tips will cover it. 

[Animis]

9 minutes ago, mkowl said:

I am not sure why folk are being judge and jury on this 

 

This is about evidence and really whether the judgement of the EFL is more appropriate than that of the Club and the auditors. 

 

There is no lower burden of proof here. The EFL rules categorically state the audited accounts are the starting point. If these are deemed to show a true and fair view then the EFL can not argue on the timing point. 

 

This seems to be the purpose of the disciplinary meeting not the valuation. 

 

And in terms of the valuation this again is an accounting concept. It is an in use valuation, depreciated replacement cost. Whether it is in a nice area, industrial or housing alternative valuation is totally irrelevant, a Maguire red herring.

 

It is simply

 

How much would it cost today to re-build to the same specification

 

Reduced by the remaining useful life 

 

So if it would cost 120m to rebuild, has a useful life of 50 years and we are 25 years into it / remaining that is where the 60m comes from

 

That's useful to know. However, two questions:

 

Why wouldn't existing use value be used - i.e investment value on a hypothetical commercial lease, which is what Derby (and Leeds did) have - these are market comps?

 

If DRC method is used, why was pride park valued at £60m and majestic only £26.5m?

[Maddogbob]

13 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

There is no precedent for this charge. It will be interesting how the EFL deal with it in terms of seriousness should the charge stick, which is far from certain at the moment.

 

For all I dislike the act of the sale, the sale in itself is not a problem for the EFL, it's the process.

 

Clearly, if found 'guilty' the EFL Regulation 92.2. penalty options will be available but who knows how they would wish to apply these. I don't buy the 'they all hate us' philosophy, but I imagine they'll want to make a statement.

 

My issue with DC is, that if we are found guilty, and we are hit with more points deducting that Birmingham or worst, I would want to know why he gambled and placed the club at risk, rather than taking the honorable route of a P&S breach last season and take the 9 points hit.

Its possible, perhaps this was started while bruce was here, in which case, he had a warchest and we were going for it. Perhaps not. 

 

What wasnt factored in was the further embargo for the late submission (we know why) and bruce legging it up the A1. Perhaps due to lack of said warchest. 

 

Total guess, we will never know. Could be complete testicles, ill be honest ive no idea. 

 

Just nowt makes sense other than weve broken rules. According to the EFL. 

 

 

Edited November 16, 2019 by Maddogbob

[torres]

6 minutes ago, Ozymandias Owl said:

You have a point, but three teams can come down over a three year period making nine teams on parachute payments at any one time. This causes massive wage and transfer inflation. Just look at what we were paying Abdi, Jones and Boyd, and still paying Rhodes.

 

Rhodes needs too step up to the plate, and prove he's not like the rest of them. 

 

It's not so long ago we were in Barnsley's position, and you've got very little chance if beating the system without the payroll to do it. 

I understand what you are saying but I slightly disagree.

 

Throwing money at it isn’t the answer, you still have to do your due diligence on players, make sure you are getting what you need, value for money for your requirements, you have to have foundations in place, have the basic footballing fundamentals, system, shape, spirit, abilities. 
 

The way we went about it wasn’t great (not hindsight as a lot feared for our scattergun approach) 

 

Yes you need a bit of financial backing of course you do, but it’s not the be all and end all as our neighbours have sadly shown us. 
 

The best players we’ve bought to the club over the last 5 years have been the ones we’ve paid no fee for - the worst are the ones we’ve paid relative fortunes for. 
 

The most expensive being the worst in our history (arguably)

[Wizzard1867]

15 minutes ago, mkowl said:

I am not sure why folk are being judge and jury on this 

 

This is about evidence and really whether the judgement of the EFL is more appropriate than that of the Club and the auditors. 

 

There is no lower burden of proof here. The EFL rules categorically state the audited accounts are the starting point. If these are deemed to show a true and fair view then the EFL can not argue on the timing point. 

 

This seems to be the purpose of the disciplinary meeting not the valuation. 

 

And in terms of the valuation this again is an accounting concept. It is an in use valuation, depreciated replacement cost. Whether it is in a nice area, industrial or housing alternative valuation is totally irrelevant, a Maguire red herring.

 

It is simply

 

How much would it cost today to re-build to the same specification

 

Reduced by the remaining useful life 

 

So if it would cost 120m to rebuild, has a useful life of 50 years and we are 25 years into it / remaining that is where the 60m comes from

 

Have a look at the BBC article on the case

 

"The one final issue is the valuation of the stadium itself. Given that Reading sold their stadium for £27m and West Ham sold theirs for £40m, it does seem unusual for Sheffield Wednesday's stadium to be sold for £60m. The geographical location would suggest that it's not in a property area which is significantly higher than London or the home counties.

Wednesday will have to simply provide evidence that the transaction was undertaken at arm's length, at market prices, with a report by a surveyor and also evidence that the transaction had gone through - in the form perhaps of stamp duty being paid at the initial date of the transaction."

 

I don't see Hillsborough being worth more than West Ham's Upton Park, so I'd be surprised if they can produce am independent valuation of £60m, which wouldn't be questionable. Thus it's not a true and fair arm's length transaction, by the accounting standards being applied. 

[Ever the pessimist]

22 minutes ago, Ozymandias Owl said:

Competing for the wrong players though. 

 

Most of us must have questioned the signing of Winnall and Rhodes in the same transfer window.

 

And as for Abdi, Jones and Boyd. Who else was competing for them? They were never going to come with a desire to prove they could win promotion and play in the Premier League. They had been there and done that, and been chewed up and spat back out. 

 

We've still got Hutch, Bannan and Lee playing in midfield after spendaggedon has finally unwound. A truely awful transfer policy.

 

To be fair I was delighted we signed Abdi: slight doubt as to who would make way out of existing midfield but thought he would strengthen us to promotion.

 

Rhodes was always a daft signing. The fact DC said it was a fan decision is ridiculous.

[Animis]

2 minutes ago, Maddogbob said:

Its possible this was started while bruce was here, in which case, he had a warchest and we were going for it. 

 

What wasnt factored in was the further embargo for the late submission (we know why) and bruce legging it up the A1. Perhaps due to lack of said warchest. 

 

Total guess, we will never know. 

 

When was the embargo lifted?

[Wizzard1867]

2 minutes ago, torres said:

I understand what you are saying but I slightly disagree.

 

Throwing money at it isn’t the answer, you still have to do your due diligence on players, make sure you are getting what you need, value for money for your requirements, you have to have foundations in place, have the basic footballing fundamentals, system, shape, spirit, abilities. 
 

The way we went about it wasn’t great (not hindsight as a lot feared for our scattergun approach) 

 

Yes you need a bit of financial backing of course you do, but it’s not the be all and end all as our neighbours have sadly shown us. 
 

The best players we’ve bought to the club over the last 5 years have been the ones we’ve paid no fee for - the worst are the ones we’ve paid relative fortunes for. 
 

The most expensive being the worst in our history (arguably)

Not sure where we disagree. I agree with what your saying entirely. 

 

Wilder beat the system, and is the exception to the rule. That's what we need from Monk now. 

[Maddogbob]

5 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

When was the embargo lifted?

Im fuzzy on that, but wasnt it around 2 to three weeks before the season. Roughly bruces exit?

 

Edit. 

 

Quick google suggested 26 july ish

 

Bruce left 15th july ish

Edited November 16, 2019 by Maddogbob

[Costello 77]

As far as a potential points deduction goes.. Ryan's going to have a nightmare few months with his graph...

[Animis]

1 minute ago, Maddogbob said:

Im fuzzy on that, but wasnt it around 2 to three weeks before the season. Roughly bruces exit?

 

Just looked - 25/26th July seems to be the reported date.

 

Still a week before the season and yes Bruce had left, so you could say DC was keeping his money in his pocket until the new manager was in place, and this was then after the transfer window closed.

 

You could conclude that bar this 'hic-up' DC is planning to spend big in January.

[Lawrie’s Left Peg]

1 hour ago, Carl Shutt is God said:

 

Completely get what your saying and you are of course right.

 

However as a club we have really had it rough, relegated from the prem before you got loads of money for doing so, then the collapse of the ITV digital deal leaving us saddled with contracts we couldn't afford, didnt go into admin like so many others and tried to pay our way which left us rotting in league 1 twice, we finally get an owner willing to spend like so many other clubs have done but the rules have been changed and we are not allowed to spend like other teams who got a rich owner. You can see why our fans are feeling disgruntled.

 

However that doesnt in anyway make anything we have done which is against the rules ok, it's just a massive frustration which is made worse watching teams like wolves break the rules but become untouchable because they are in the Prem. The fact the EFL and Prem are two separate entities and the parachute payments make the current FFP rules totally unworkable.

Also worth noting that Clubs in League 1 and League 2 operate within a third set of rules, Salary Cost Management Protocol (SMCP). Therefore teams promoted into the Championship have 3 years before accounts can be scrutinised. 

[stanningtonowl]

8 hours ago, Royal_D said:

Find me one person who’s backed him ‘unconditionally’.   You can argue all day long about money been spent in wrong places, but find someone else who’s got the finance and willing to do what Chansiri does here ?  If the EFL send a huge fine who’s pocket is it gonna come out of ? 
 

Too many fans still think the extra money on ticket prices funds this club, and yes I’m more than feckin aware the tickets are expensive bore off , but reality is Chansiri funds this club 100% and I wanna know how these regulations the EFL impose are protecting the club ? When it’s likely we will lose our beneficiary through it 

Perhaps if we had independent sponsors, shirt sponsor,  advertising around the ground, executive boxes sold out, competitive match day entrance, a shop that sold stuff people wanted at prices they could afford, shirts out in July to catch the holiday period, normal sort of business  stuff,  Chanisiri wouldn’t have to fund everything. 

Even sell a player or two? 

I might take it to  Dragons Den, make a fortune. How revolutionary!!

[Guest mkowl]

36 minutes ago, A12owl said:

I hope you are right. It's good to have a knowlegable opinion to cling on to. 

Unfortunately facts can be bent or not deemed to be "proven/unproven" by EFL. 

Thats the main worry. Regardless of how much evidence you submit to them they can and do chose to take no notice.

If it was a black and white factual decision then we wouldn't be so concerned.  It's because of the Fernando situation that EFL are not trusted by us.

 

 

See my opinion on that you have professionals if their integrity is questioned won't fall over to the EFL.

 

The EFL cannot choose to override this it's not like the FF case where it's on balance of probabilities