Chansiri charged - could be banned from football

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

2 minutes ago, bigdan2003 said:

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. 

 

 

This.

 

All media etc is one sided and can't believe our fans are so quick to jump on the bandwagon.

 

The whole independent article stinks of an EFL leak to send warning to other clubs and people are not angry we are being tee'd u as the scapegoat / example.

[Dick_Turpin]

4 minutes ago, bigdan2003 said:

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. 

 

 

They do indeed and I'm sure they will have their say - but I'd say they've been mildly rebuked as opposed to hung, drawn and quartered which is a pretty extreme punishment. 

[asteener1867]

3 minutes ago, bigdan2003 said:

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. 

 

 

Absolutely...but due to that not happening, all fans can do is speculate on the one side of the story we have.

I doubt there are any posters enjoying this...but lets be honest, most are going to look on the bleak side...cos the only information we have is hardly sayin' "Merry Xmas" is it?

[Minton]

1 minute ago, room0035 said:

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.

 

 

I see you've missed the whole point of Chansiri sponsoring things.

 

Shirt sponsor offers us £1m (for example), Chansiri sponsors it himself for £1.5m. It is a step around the limit on the amount an owner is allowed to put into the club each year.

 

If anything, we have benefitted from the arrangement.

[Dick_Turpin]

Just now, Minton said:

 

I see you've missed the whole point of Chansiri sponsoring things.

 

Shirt sponsor offers us £1m (for example), Chansiri sponsors it himself for £1.5m. It is a step around the limit on the amount an owner is allowed to put into the club each year.

 

If anything, we have benefitted from the arrangement.

And when it comes to FFP amounts over the commercial value are disallowed aren't they?

 

[darra]

All we know as "fact" is that the accounts we're produced audited and signed off as being correct and accepted by the EFL Then the EFL a few weeks later said hang on a minute we're not happy with them. Surely the blame then rests with the auditors for not doing their job properly? 

[asteener1867]

1 minute ago, Minton said:

 

I see you've missed the whole point of Chansiri sponsoring things.

 

Shirt sponsor offers us £1m (for example), Chansiri sponsors it himself for £1.5m. It is a step around the limit on the amount an owner is allowed to put into the club each year.

 

If anything, we have benefitted from the arrangement.

Point taken Minton...Otherwise he would look like  a madman , walkin' about selling his own stuff back to himself, then wonderin' where his money has gone

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

1 minute ago, rickygoo said:

And on that basis they would bring purely spurious charges? Seems far-fetched to me. 

Again never said charges were spurious. 

 

Two sides to argument and two will be fought.

 

Any area of judgement can be argued both for and against.  

 

Please read the EFLs statement from 14 November, it reads they they believe there is sufficient evidence to support a charge, this reads as though they were looking for evidence to make charges not just reviewing submissions

[pat blondeau]

3 minutes ago, S1Owl said:

Get Mandaric in to bail us out again ffs

Mandaric is 81 years old now. Do you think he’d have the appetite or energy to take a club like us on again?

[Dick_Turpin]

1 minute ago, darra said:

All we know as "fact" is that the accounts we're produced audited and signed off as being correct and accepted by the EFL Then the EFL a few weeks later said hang on a minute we're not happy with them. Surely the blame then rests with the auditors for not doing their job properly? 

Depends if there's anything wrong with what's been done. If there are no problems no-one is to blame. If there is something  wrong and it's a genuine mistake/error/misunderstanding not picked up by the auditors then yes they are to blame. If it's deliberate falsehood then the auditors may share some of the blame but the prime fault lies with someone within the club. Until the facts emerge it's alls peculation.

 

What's not speculation is the accounts are appalling and we've had to sell Hillsborough.  

[Minton]

1 minute ago, rickygoo said:

And when it comes to FFP amounts over the commercial value are disallowed aren't they?

 

 

That's the FIFA FFP for the Champions League. We aren't talking about £50m for a shirt deal from Chansiri.

 

[Dick_Turpin]

2 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Again never said charges were spurious. 

 

Two sides to argument and two will be fought.

 

Any area of judgement can be argued both for and against.  

 

Please read the EFLs statement from 14 November, it reads they they believe there is sufficient evidence to support a charge, this reads as though they were looking for evidence to make charges not just reviewing submissions

And they found that evidence. 

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

Just now, rickygoo said:

And they found that evidence. 

Time will tell.... Again you're ingnoring the point that same evedence can be interpreted different ways depending on what the person is attempting to prove....

[bobness]

6 hours ago, vulva said:

Wasn’t this Redgate chap brought in because he was an FFP expert? Good job we didn’t bring in someone who didn’t know anything about FFP. 

 

I think Redgate posts on here. Might explain it! 

 

[Frazzlebeak]

11 minutes ago, darra said:

All we know as "fact" is that the accounts we're produced audited and signed off as being correct and accepted by the EFL Then the EFL a few weeks later said hang on a minute we're not happy with them. Surely the blame then rests with the auditors for not doing their job properly? 

You need to sit with Mycroft and his straws.

[N0rtherner]

13 hours ago, SiJ said:

Owned by Red Bull is one thing.

 

Having our name changed too.

 

Really? 

 

Nah, it'll be fine... Rheffield Bednesday will grow on you eventually ;)

[Dick_Turpin]

4 minutes ago, Minton said:

 

That's the FIFA FFP for the Champions League. We aren't talking about £50m for a shirt deal from Chansiri.

 

 

The old EFL FFP rules said this:-

 

3 Principle of Adjustment

3.1 Where any element of profit / loss before tax relates to any transaction(s) with Related Party(ies) above or below fair value then, for the purpose of the Fair Play Result, the Championship Club must determine the fair value of any Related Party Transaction(s).  If the estimated fair value is different to the recorded value then an appropriate adjustment must be made in calculating the Fair Play Result, bearing in mind, however, that:

3.1.1 no upward adjustments can be made to income; and

3.1.2 no downward adjustments can be made to costs / expenses.

4 Examples of Related Party Transactions

4.1 Examples of Related Party Transactions that require a Championship Club to demonstrate the estimated fair value of the transaction include, but are not limited to:

4.1.1 sale of sponsorship rights by a Championship Club to a Related Party;

4.1.2 sale of corporate hospitality tickets and / or sale of the right to use of an executive box, by a Championship Club to a Related Party; and

4.1.3 any transaction with a Related Party whereby goods or services are provided to a Championship Club.

 

That seems to still apply. There's a really good summary of the current rules and the tests applied here  - https://www.mikethornton.xyz/new-ffp-tests/  -which explains it's not as simple as the old £39m losses over three years test.  

 

It includes the following:-

 

All club accounts are adjusted by the EFL to remove any excessive sponsorship or advertising income received from owners or related parties before the Tests are started.

 

Using D Taxis and his own company to sponsor us is a way of siphoning money in at market rate if he doesn't have the infrastructure in place to secure that investment/spend from third parties. If he did he could do both. 

 

 

.

[Dick_Turpin]

8 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Time will tell.... Again you're ingnoring the point that same evedence can be interpreted different ways depending on what the person is attempting to prove....

I'm ignoring nothing. I've been very careful to say guilt hasn't been proven but there seems to be a prima facie case to answer.  I simply don't believe there is a conspiracy against us. 

[sonofbert2]

13 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

And when it comes to FFP amounts over the commercial value are disallowed aren't they?

 

There’s a “nominal” amount allowed for owners in all areas I.e. shirt sponsorship, stadium etc

 

I’m fairly sure we’ll have stuck to the limits as an offset for DC’s dough and this is the least of our worries.

 

The poster making the point always makes the point but it’s peanuts in the scale of things, half million tops for the shirts as an example.

 

The cost is wages.  The limit was set in 2014.  Wages have risen and there are far more than us in bother in this area.

 

They, the EFL, should have raised the limit and spent their time and energy getting a fairer cut of TV monies and clubs, not just us, wouldn’t have to be fuckingabout finding loopholes constantly.

 

 

[N0rtherner]

14 hours ago, Hitcat said:

He fudged the accounts. Do the EFL come down hard, or will it be a points deduction and a slap on the wrists? Could go either way.

 

Well, I'd rather they ban him from football than penalise the club over his alleged financial trickery. Or they need to re-open the cases of Derby, Reading, etc. and the others who used this loop hole.

Or they now state explicitly that what's done is done, anyone else using this loop hole in the future will be penalised. Going back on a "shady" practice and deciding some should be penalised but not all, that sounds just too shady too. Why is it ok Derby's stadium was worth 80 million?