Chansiri charged - could be banned from football

[billyblack]

19 minutes ago, Box_Man said:

 

How can you have an audit trail that leads back to a company that never existed?

 

Its clear what he’s tried to do, unfortunately for us, he did it too late and this big cover up to try and back date it screams of dodgy practices. 

 

He’s been charged so the EFL know they have a case. If we are still in the championship next season it will be a miracle. 

Why would he need an extension to file accounts if all this stuff was done 12 months earlier? He wouldnt. It was all done last minute, on top of that he actually missed the extension deadline as well.

[Animis]

10 minutes ago, Box_Man said:

 

How can you have an audit trail that leads back to a company that never existed?

 

Its clear what he’s tried to do, unfortunately for us, he did it too late and this big cover up to try and back date it screams of dodgy practices. 

 

He’s been charged so the EFL know they have a case. If we are still in the championship next season it will be a miracle. 

 

We don't know that yet - he hasn't tried to hide anything, as it was all in the accounts; accounts which were signed off and in line with accountancy practice and rules.

 

If the EFL think it's all pushing the boundaries too much - but how much is too much? They may just be going through the motions to warn any club of this type of behavior in future.

 

At present I'm struggling to see what rules we've actually broken.

[shezzas left peg]

21 minutes ago, bradowl said:

 

A lot of fans would have been complaining that club is showing no ambition. 

I've said it before and I'll still stay firm. 

I was quite happy under MM and stu. 

We weren't wold beaters, but we were slowly improving the aquad and heading in the right direction due to shrewd signings and good business. Remember half the playoff final side was signed iunder those two. 

Yes the football wasn't great, but it was slowly improving and effective. 

I loved the whole alamo defending when we got our noses in front and had you on the edge of your seat with every Westwood save or Sam or Lees six yard block. 

[Dick_Turpin]

2 minutes ago, billyblack said:

Why would he need an extension to file accounts if all this stuff was done 12 months earlier? He wouldnt. It was all done last minute, on top of that he actually missed the extension deadline as well.

 

I think we need to be careful not to pre-judge the EFL inquiry. Lots of financial shenanigans go on that can baffle the layman. I used to be an accountant - many moons ago - and I struggle to keep up. Clearly, however, they think there is a case to answer. 

[Dick_Turpin]

3 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

We don't know that yet - he hasn't tried to hide anything, as it was all in the accounts; accounts which were signed off and in line with accountancy practice and rules.

 

If the EFL think it's all pushing the boundaries too much - but how much is too much? They may just be going through the motions to warn any club of this type of behavior in future.

 

At present I'm struggling to see what rules we've actually broken.

 

Likewise we shouldn't pre-judge the other way. We aren't privy to the full facts.

 

The EFL had a look and feel there is a case to answer. And once you are into an investigation who knows what will happen - even being innocent didn't help the Birmingham Six or Timothy Evans and being found not guilty in a court didn't help Forestieri when a different burden of proof was applied.

 

Speculating about what will happen if we are or aren't found guilty and punished is fair game because potentially this is very,very serious. A big points penalty could set us back years and that is fair game for a forum. But saying Chansiri definitely broke the rules or even committed fraud is way too much given we don't have access to all the information.   

 

However I am still miffed by that January 2019 statement which, if the accounts are accurate, is not being straight with the fans. 

[Guest Ash76]

51 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

 

All is fine and dandy in the Wednesday garden. 

 

No one said that but stamping my feet on here won't sort owt ffs

 

Just have to wait and see what comes our way

[Inspector Lestrade]

10 minutes ago, shezzas left peg said:

I've said it before and I'll still stay firm. 

I was quite happy under MM and stu. 

We weren't wold beaters, but we were slowly improving the aquad and heading in the right direction due to shrewd signings and good business. Remember half the playoff final side was signed iunder those two. 

Yes the football wasn't great, but it was slowly improving and effective. 

I loved the whole alamo defending when we got our noses in front and had you on the edge of your seat with every Westwood save or Sam or Lees six yard block. 

 

At no point was anyone on the edge of their seat under Stu stewardship, nice bloke that he was and he did indeed sign some decent players but his tactics and the football he conjured was terrible.  

 

Having said that he would have made a very decent trainer and was disappointed that he didn't stick around.

 

Edge of your seat  

[Dick_Turpin]

Just now, Ash76 said:

 

No one said that but stamping my feet on here won't sort owt ffs

 

Just have to wait and see what comes our way

But it's a forum where we discuss Wednesday. Being found guilty could have huge implications and could set us back years if it results in relegation. It's bound to be discussed. 

[theowlsman]

I’m sure things will work themselves out for the better if we can get this thread to 200 pages.

[Guest Ash76]

Just now, rickygoo said:

But it's a forum where we discuss Wednesday. Being found guilty could have huge implications and could set us back years if it results in relegation. It's bound to be discussed. 

 

But we discussed it 3 or 4 weeks ago. Nothing has actually changed since then

[Dick_Turpin]

1 minute ago, Mycroft said:

 

At no point was anyone on the edge of their seat under Stu stewardship, nice bloke that he was and he did indeed sign some decent players but his tactics and the football he conjured was terrible.  

 

Having said that he would have made a very decent trainer and was disappointed that he didn't stick around.

 

Edge of your seat  

The football hasn't been edge of the seat under Carlos, Jos, Bruce or Monk - barring CC's first season when it was entertaining. 

[room0035]

10 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

 

I think we need to be careful not to pre-judge the EFL inquiry. Lots of financial shenanigans go on that can baffle the layman. I used to be an accountant - many moons ago - and I struggle to keep up. Clearly, however, they think there is a case to answer. 

I do agree but what I think a lot are missing on here is the EFL can basically do what they want, if we want to stay in the EFL we have to abide by their rules.

 

Fessi  got banned twice in two season for something a law court said there was insufficient evidence.

 

The accounts and paperwork has been filed with the relevant bodies not in breach of any rule as far as we know, but clearly the EFL think we have breach league rule hence the charges and if they prove to be correct and we have breach league rules (not filing or land registry rules) then we are looking at some sort of fine, points deduction or worse.

 

What does make me laugh is all of this about selling you stadium to a third party - which is normally a company owned by your chairman which has been done by a lot of clubs not just us, is still allowed within football league rules - why have they simple said this is not allowed from this season forward. 

[Dick_Turpin]

Just now, Ash76 said:

 

But we discussed it 3 or 4 weeks ago. Nothing has actually changed since then

The personal charges against the three directors was new information that hadn't been considered by many. Nothing has changed about FF's commitment, Nuhui's ability or the rob dog prices either. We're always going round in circles. That's what forums do.  

[Inspector Lestrade]

Just now, rickygoo said:

The football hasn't been edge of the seat under Carlos, Jos, Bruce or Monk - barring CC's first season when it was entertaining. 

 

You have just debunked your own argument very honest of you.   

[Dick_Turpin]

1 minute ago, room0035 said:

I do agree but what I think a lot are missing on here is the EFL can basically do what they want, if we want to stay in the EFL we have to abide by their rules.

 

Fessi  got banned twice in two season for something a law court said there was insufficient evidence.

 

The accounts and paperwork has been filed with the relevant bodies not in breach of any rule as far as we know, but clearly the EFL think we have breach league rule hence the charges and if they prove to be correct and we have breach league rules (not filing or land registry rules) then we are looking at some sort of fine, points deduction or worse.

 

What does make me laugh is all of this about selling you stadium to a third party - which is normally a company owned by your chairman which has been done by a lot of clubs not just us, is still allowed within football league rules - why have they simple said this is not allowed from this season forward. 

I think it came in when the EFL tried to align more with Premier League rules. That opened up the loophole as it had been excluded before.

[room0035]

4 minutes ago, Mycroft said:

 

At no point was anyone on the edge of their seat under Stu stewardship, nice bloke that he was and he did indeed sign some decent players but his tactics and the football he conjured was terrible.  

 

Having said that he would have made a very decent trainer and was disappointed that he didn't stick around.

 

Edge of your seat  

But had Stu had a decent pitch to play on and not a sand pit things could have been different.

 

It was no surprise we did so well the first year under Carlos Stu had the team fit and well look after it was only when Carlos team got to work did basic fitness seem to be an after thought.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, room0035 said:

What does make me laugh is all of this about selling you stadium to a third party - which is normally a company owned by your chairman which has been done by a lot of clubs not just us, is still allowed within football league rules - why have they simple said this is not allowed from this season forward. 

Because there an unfit , not fit for purpose sham of an organisation 

[Dick_Turpin]

1 minute ago, Mycroft said:

 

You have just debunked your own argument very honest of you.   

It wasn't my argument. 

[Dick_Turpin]

Just now, Royal_D said:

Because there an unfit , not fit for purpose sham of an organisation 

Which sounds like a description of Wednesday under Chansiri - only more so. 

[Inspector Lestrade]

Just now, room0035 said:

But had Stu had a decent pitch to play on and not a sand pit things could have been different.

 

It was no surprise we did so well the first year under Carlos Stu had the team fit and well look after it was only when Carlos team got to work did basic fitness seem to be an after thought.

 

A bit desperate mate hundreds of teams have played entertaining football on sandpits.  Did Stu hang about for that long, thought it was only a few weeks?