Jump to content
Guest addedtime

Chansiri charged - could be banned from football

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, billyblack said:

No idea if she has to attend in person or not, but i'm assuming if she is being charged as well then she will have to make a statement of some sort. Even though she no loneger works for the club she still has her professional reputation to consider and if found guilty she could also face charges from her time there. She will have to say something I would have thought.

 

Its very coincidental to me that she left around the time the accounts were originally due. Something went amiss there in my opinion.   

It’s not the Old Bailey though is it ?

If she is not working within the constraints of the EFL she could just ignore them I would have thought 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


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

 

Again - there's absolutely nothing news in these articles, which wasn't reported three weeks ago.

 

Like this thread, just going over old news.


Chansiri, Redgate and Meire have been individually charged (as well as the club). That wasn’t reported three weeks ago

  • Like 1
  • Agree 4

Share this post


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

 

He sold the ground back to himself.  And not really for his own benefit.


we as a club do t own the ground, if Chansiri walks away it isn’t Sheff wed property. And if he walks away at any point if the club liquidates then yes it quite clearly would be too his benefit. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kameron said:

 

Not as simple as that, no money has changed hands

 

For it to be a sale actual money needs to have been exchanged and relevant taxes paid. Obviously Chansiri will be able to provide proof and the EFL will drop everything once this misunderstanding has been cleared up. 

Absolute rubbish from accounting perspective under frs102

Edited by wellbeaten-the-owl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours 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

 

Who cares about the money? Look at Sheff U. They’ve done loads with very little. We’ve done very little with loads. The business plan stinks. I’d take a less wealthy owner who promotes the Club properly.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


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


Chansiri, Redgate and Meire have been individually charged (as well as the club). That wasn’t reported three weeks ago

 

They were all Directors at the time of the accounts so like the companies act requirements, I assume they have a corporate responsibility to shoulder with the EFL as fit and proper persons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, 2roland2 said:


we as a club do t own the ground, if Chansiri walks away it isn’t Sheff wed property. And if he walks away at any point if the club liquidates then yes it quite clearly would be too his benefit. 

Apart from he still has to pay for it your argument is correlolct 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, 2roland2 said:


we as a club do t own the ground, if Chansiri walks away it isn’t Sheff wed property. And if he walks away at any point if the club liquidates then yes it quite clearly would be too his benefit. 

 

The club owned the ground, and he owns the club.  He's created a new company that he owns and sold the ground from one company he owns to another company he owns.  So he still owns the ground.  True that he can now more easily sell either in separation from the other, but he always could have done that if he chose to, and not in a manner that is clearly designed to exploit a financial loophole (which he wouldn't need to do at all if he was doing it for his own personal benefit).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, billyblack said:

I cant wait to hear Katriens view at the hearing

I will let you know once she gets out the shower.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 3

Share this post


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

 

Again - there's absolutely nothing news in these articles, which wasn't reported three weeks ago.

 

Like this thread, just going over old news.

Must all be a load of cack then. Its probably not even happening.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

I will let you know once she gets out the shower.

3 timing strumpet 

Edited by hugeowl
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billyblack said:

Must all be a load of cack then. Its probably not even happening.

 

I'm not saying it's a load of cack - I'm saying the 'new' news is nothing new.

 

We knew all the details three weeks ago. The then three Directors will of course have to answer - why wouldn't they - there not just grounds man and the tea lady.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do find it laughable that the EFL like to keep things quiet when it suits. 
 

The embargo’s for example - they don’t like to publicise those for some reason. But in this case, they can’t wait to sing like birds to the media. 
 


 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, hugeowl said:

Apart from he still has to pay for it your argument is correlolct 


no he doesn’t it’s a write off against his loans ( at a guess )

Edited by 2roland2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, BingleyOwl said:

 

Who cares about the money? Look at Sheff U. They’ve done loads with very little. We’ve done very little with loads. The business plan stinks. I’d take a less wealthy owner who promotes the Club properly.

DC will care about the money just saying not that simple to just get another owner and n.

 

Like it or not the guy has blown over £60m of his own cash in trying to compete in the league.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, oz_owl said:

 

The club owned the ground, and he owns the club.  He's created a new company that he owns and sold the ground from one company he owns to another company he owns.  So he still owns the ground.  True that he can now more easily sell either in separation from the other, but he always could have done that if he chose to, and not in a manner that is clearly designed to exploit a financial loophole (which he wouldn't need to do at all if he was doing it for his own personal benefit).


he couldn’t have done it without a fan stampede in normality, many people were willing for him to do this with impending ffp problems.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kameron said:

 

It's correct in terms of what the EFL are looking for, the revenues generated from the stadium sale cannot be backdated to be included into a year of your choice.  They'll be looking for solid proof, hopefully Chansiri can supply it.

The EFL start with audited pre tax profit. The cash doesn’t have to be transferred for the sale to be included in the pre tax profit. Like I said so long as there is a legally binding contract as at the end of the 2018 accounts then it is correct to be included in the 2018 accounts.

 

I would be staggered (being an ex auditor) if the auditors signed off the accounts without sufficient proof of sale being provided. If it turns out to be wrong then the auditors are finished because this will be massively in the spotlight.

 

But, as I mentioned before the EFL do not have the powers to make us restate accounts. That is way above their powers and there is nothing to suggest that the regulatory bodies that could make us restate are involved at this stage.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, hugeowl said:

Selling Hillsborough?

Has Chansiri sold it again ?

 

colossal losses , wonder who will fund the losses

 

the rest is just pure conjecture 

 

 

He sold Hillsborough. He caused the colossal losses and the embargoes. None of us wished for that but we got it. The rest as you say we’ll see. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

Again - there's absolutely nothing news in these articles, which wasn't reported three weeks ago.

 

Like this thread, just going over old news.

Was it reported before that the three directors were personally charged with misconduct? 

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...