Jump to content

Chansiri charged - could be banned from football


Guest addedtime

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Offside_Owl said:

 

Remember these charges have come after the EFL examined all the official documents.

And has been said many times on here accounting treatment is a matter of judgement not black Vs white.

 

The documents have been examined (in my opinion) with the sole intention of finding an argument to raise charges against us not to see if the treatment was reasonable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, flo said:

The charges for the club are a 15 point deduction and a 3.2 million fine which is going to tribunal. We are blaming auditors for it. Source is one of those auditors. 

Blaming the auditors for what?

 

Surely the auditors didn't suggest back dating a financial transaction in order to keep within P&S rules?

 

Only thing I can see the auditors can be culpable for is accepting the "directors explanations" and signing off the accounts.

 

I saw this sh*t coming two years ago and got berated for saying it.

 

Same thing with the ground sale, I think I described it as the last desperate act of a compulsive gambler.

 

I've been quiet through the latest debacles because despite having predicted it gives me no pleasure whatsoever but to blame the auditors for the actions of the owners is more than I can take.

 

I'll read on now and see what our resident accountants thoughts are on this one.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

And has been said many times on here accounting treatment is a matter of judgement not black Vs white.

 

The documents have been examined (in my opinion) with the sole intention of finding an argument to raise charges against us not to see if the treatment was reasonable.

 

Well if that's the case the independent commission will find no case to answer....... Hmm. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

And has been said many times on here accounting treatment is a matter of judgement not black Vs white.

 

The documents have been examined (in my opinion) with the sole intention of finding an argument to raise charges against us not to see if the treatment was reasonable.

And the reason for that unfair treatment would be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Peacenocchio said:

One thing is sure, the punishment is not going to reflect the crime.

 

In 2018 we finished 15th and our wage bill was 14th in the league.

 

Our average crowd was 8th I think. Hardly pumping billions in to financially dope the league.

 

This ought to be our line of attack in my opinion. Natural justice. In rugby Saracens cheated the wage cap massively, won the league for 3 years and Europe twice. They got the equivalent of a 21 point deduction at the start of the season via an independent tribunal.

 

wages.JPG.e268d1201c15f25910f393bae7ce179b.JPG

 

The wage bill or league position is not the problem its the level of losses

 

Since DC has been here nearly 5 years now we have had no shirt sponsor other than Chansiri, no stadium sponsor, next to no stands or hording sponsor, we have sold only 1 player, we have signed 30+ players who have barely played or currently sit in the stands.

 

The off field side of the club is run so so badly the merchandise is not of a great standard or often not even the right season. 

 

We have 28 corporate boxes and for the last 4 years barely any have been sold.

 

The club has probably loss a conservative £3-5m a season in revenues from sponsorship, we have also probably waste £5m+ a season in players that have barely played, add the off field farce probably another £1m lost in merchandise sales, the money the club could have made from the 150th anniversary the list goes on.

 

Under Dc we have gone from one disaster to the next. Maybe now is the time for him to listen to offers and let get someone in who knows how to run a football business. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Offside_Owl said:

 

Well if that's the case the independent commission will find no case to answer....... Hmm. 

No didn't say that at all, got to understand that Lawyers make a very good living being able to convincingly argue polar opposite points based on exactly the same facts / evedence.

 

This is what this will be and comes down to whose lawyers are most convincing.

 

This will be a long ugly battle and until proven otherwise I would rather give club benefit of doubt

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, room0035 said:

The wage bill or league position is not the problem its the level of losses

 

Since DC has been here nearly 5 years now we have had no shirt sponsor other than Chansiri, no stadium sponsor, next to no stands or hording sponsor, we have sold only 1 player, we have signed 30+ players who have barely played or currently sit in the stands.

 

The off field side of the club is run so so badly the merchandise is not of a great standard or often not even the right season. 

 

We have 28 corporate boxes and for the last 4 years barely any have been sold.

 

The club has probably loss a conservative £3-5m a season in revenues from sponsorship, we have also probably waste £5m+ a season in players that have barely played, add the off field farce probably another £1m lost in merchandise sales, the money the club could have made from the 150th anniversary the list goes on.

 

Under Dc we have gone from one disaster to the next. Maybe now is the time for him to listen to offers and let get someone in who knows how to run a football business. 

 

Based on what? Because shirt and advertising sponsorship outside the Premier League is not a lot. Huddersfield only received £1.5m for their shirt deal in 2018 and they were in the Prem.

 

http://www.sportspromedia.com/analysis/premier-league-preview-2018-19-sponsors-kit-deals-every-club

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is the EFL are massively in the Premier Leagues shadow so have try and show they are relevant. Take the racism cases. They tell everybody they are strong on racism so no matter what the courts decide they find them guilty and ban them. They're constantly trying to justify their existence. It's like that Gordon bloke who was in charge of the PFA. When he retired everybody was asking what did he actually do?
As for the press it's filling column inches. I read the other day we are buying Kodja(?) for 15 million. We haven't got 15 quid at the moment ffs.

Edited by darra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Ok just find someone else to give him his 60m plus back?

 

Jesus, wait for result of charges before going overboard.

 

All this is a show of EFL wanting to be seen as doing something, whose to say we cannot prove that we have done nothing wrong (legally anyway, morally possibly)

 

Monk was very clear the opinion of the club that all the charges were made against issues the club had been in open communication throughout the year and had been ratified by the EFL.

 

Stinks that charge only came after new EFL chair appointment,.  Anger  should be aimed outside club until proven guilty

£60m???

 

I bet DC is balls deep here to the tune of £100m. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One things for sure; the club and the individuals involved deserve the chance to have their own side of story heard. There seems to be a few posters that have us hung drawn and quartered already...some seemingly can't wait for the EFL to make an example of us. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Ok just find someone else to give him his 60m plus back?

 

Jesus, wait for result of charges before going overboard.

 

All this is a show of EFL wanting to be seen as doing something, whose to say we cannot prove that we have done nothing wrong (legally anyway, morally possibly)

 

Monk was very clear the opinion of the club that all the charges were made against issues the club had been in open communication throughout the year and had been ratified by the EFL.

 

Stinks that charge only came after new EFL chair appointment,.  Anger  should be aimed outside club until proven guilty

No need to be angry inside or outside about the charges. Presumably there's a case to answer at face value otherwise they wouldn't bother bringing charges. But nothing's proven yet so we don't know how strong that case is. Fingers crossed

 

We know some odd things have gone on though  - D Taxis for example is risible. The accounts are a car crash and having to sell Hillsborough is wee wee poor. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Minton said:

 

Based on what? Because shirt and advertising sponsorship outside the Premier League is not a lot. Huddersfield only received £1.5m for their shirt deal in 2018 and they were in the Prem.

 

http://www.sportspromedia.com/analysis/premier-league-preview-2018-19-sponsors-kit-deals-every-club

We have no shirt sponsorship, no stadium sponsorship, no ground hoarding sponsorship, not training top sponsorship, no sponsorship other than the chairman's name every where - football is big business and we are so very very bad at getting the best out of any deals.

 

Link to comment
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...