Jump to content
Guest addedtime

Chansiri charged - could be banned from football

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, rickygoo said:

Wednesday and the directors are certainly entitled to defend themselves as far as the courts if need be. None of us know the facts and how that will pan out. The EFL haven't immediately rolled over in response to Chansiri's warning shots. Let's hope they think again.  

 

The concern is we did something different to what the EFL said was ok. My guess is still the backdating to avoid breaking the rules again.

Share this post


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

 

The concern is we did something different to what the EFL said was ok. My guess is still the backdating to avoid breaking the rules again.

Yeah I think so too

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Animis said:

 

Indeed - the charges of misconduct are clearly not to be taken lightly, and it would have been astonishing if their response was anything other than what was reported yesterday.

 

They are now on the back foot, and I imagine there would have been a hastily arranged meeting between the EFL senior management team, and their lawyers today. 

 

How this pans out is anyone's' call - a good outcome is the EFL announce quickly that there's no significant evidence to suggest SWFC can be found guilty. SWFC would do well to then walk away, and get on with the season. 

 

It will all start again in the Summer with our 2018/19 accounts submission - oh joy...

 

 

How sweet does this scenario sound... 

Share this post


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

 

The concern is we did something different to what the EFL said was ok. My guess is still the backdating to avoid breaking the rules again.


Whatever we did or didn’t do the EFL can’t lose this case, if they can’t make these charges stick as an organisation there going to be a laughing stock 

 

If we were to win a civil case against them they could probably still enforce punishment in the lawless world of football 

Share this post


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

Yeah I think so too

 

 

A sale cannot be backdated it can only be recognised when there is a binding contract and without sight of this nobody knows the correct date. 

 

By sounds of it we were discussing the sale with EFL before 31.6.18 so there is every chance a contract was signed.then.

Share this post


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


Whatever we did or didn’t do the EFL can’t lose this case, if they can’t make these charges stick as an organisation there going to be a laughing stock 

 

If we were to win a civil case against them they could probably still enforce punishment in the lawless world of football 

No they couldn't in these circumstances if we can prove the charges themselves are unlawful

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

No they couldn't in these circumstances if we can prove the charges themselves are unlawful


Forestieri was proved innocent in court ... what happened there ?      
 

Football is lawless 

Share this post


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


Forestieri was proved innocent in court ... what happened there ?      
 

Football is lawless 

Time will tell ...... 

Share this post


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


Forestieri was proved innocent in court ... what happened there ?      
 

Football is lawless 

 

Exactly. If they want to dock us points they will. DC stamping his feet won't stop it if they are on a mission.

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Royal_D said:


Forestieri was proved innocent in court ... what happened there ?      
 

Football is lawless 


As I understand it the difference here is that we didn’t challenge the lawfulness of the EFL’s Forestieri ruling in court. Even though he was cleared in court the club didn’t legally challenge the EFL’s ban after the fact. This time we’re challenging the legality of the EFL’s position. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Animis said:

 

Indeed - the charges of misconduct are clearly not to be taken lightly, and it would have been astonishing if their response was anything other than what was reported yesterday.

 

They are now on the back foot, and I imagine there would have been a hastily arranged meeting between the EFL senior management team, and their lawyers today. 

 

How this pans out is anyone's' call - a good outcome is the EFL announce quickly that there's no significant evidence to suggest SWFC can be found guilty. SWFC would do well to then walk away, and get on with the season. 

 

It will all start again in the Summer with our 2018/19 accounts submission - oh joy...

 

 

They won't do that. It will go to the independent panel and they will decide on the evidence presented. Any interference by Gibson or anyone else will give us a perfect excuse to use the courts to question the independence of the independent panel.

 

If we have the required evidence they will probably give us a few points deduction for breaching the rules in the first place. If we haven't they will throw the book at us. What the EFL won't do is cave in because DC gets stroppy.

 

It will be up to DC to decide if he accepts the points deduction or goes legal. It may be that the points deduction might not affect our position at the end of the season anyway. If we come 7th they can deduct points to take us down to 4th from bottom and we can swallow it without a problem. Come 6th and there might be a fight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Royal_D said:


Whatever we did or didn’t do the EFL can’t lose this case, if they can’t make these charges stick as an organisation there going to be a laughing stock 

 

If we were to win a civil case against them they could probably still enforce punishment in the lawless world of football 

That wouldn't be likely. They would be in contempt of court and courts don't like that. I mean really don't like that.

Share this post


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

They won't do that. It will go to the independent panel and they will decide on the evidence presented. Any interference by Gibson or anyone else will give us a perfect excuse to use the courts to question the independence of the independent panel.

 

If we have the required evidence they will probably give us a few points deduction for breaching the rules in the first place. If we haven't they will throw the book at us. What the EFL won't do is cave in because DC gets stroppy.

 

It will be up to DC to decide if he accepts the points deduction or goes legal. It may be that the points deduction might not affect our position at the end of the season anyway. If we come 7th they can deduct points to take us down to 4th from bottom and we can swallow it without a problem. Come 6th and there might be a fight.

What rule have we breached though? 

Share this post


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

They won't do that. It will go to the independent panel and they will decide on the evidence presented. Any interference by Gibson or anyone else will give us a perfect excuse to use the courts to question the independence of the independent panel.

 

If we have the required evidence they will probably give us a few points deduction for breaching the rules in the first place. If we haven't they will throw the book at us. What the EFL won't do is cave in because DC gets stroppy.

 

It will be up to DC to decide if he accepts the points deduction or goes legal. It may be that the points deduction might not affect our position at the end of the season anyway. If we come 7th they can deduct points to take us down to 4th from bottom and we can swallow it without a problem. Come 6th and there might be a fight.

 

But it hinges on the test of the EFL's assertion that we have been guilty of misconduct. The actual definition of misconduct in the EFL's rules will need to be proven, and to what level we are guilty. Is it like criminal and civil proof where there's reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence/clear and convincing etc? Who knows.

 

Like any private members' club, they have their own rules. However, as SWFC's press release states, if the EFL's actions prove unlawful, which presumably means breaching other commercial/business laws, meaning we suffer financial and reputational damages, we presumably are threatening them against breaching these laws in the first place. We either got a good case or it's a desperate ploy. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

What rule have we breached though? 

We overspent. We then had to come to an agreement with EFL to rectify the breach. It could be argued that the original breach is against the rules even though the sale of the stadium was agreed with EFL and the date of sale was also agreed.

 

It's a legal point that finer minds than mine can argue.

 

As I understand it the EFL brief is that if clubs overspend they don't necessarily go straight to punishment but work with the club on ways to rectify the situation. Birmingham fell foul of the rules because they bought a player not sanctioned by EFL. That meant they got punished. We have had embargoes but we've worked with EFL to sort it so we shouldn't really suffer punishment. It looks like there's a new shariff in town who wants to act tough.

 

I can argue the situation either way to be honest. In reality we are all guessing.

Share this post


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


Forestieri was proved innocent in court ... what happened there ?      
 

Football is lawless 

Can we just stop this. For goodness sake, this isn't difficult. FF was acquitted of criminal charges. He wasn't proved innocent nor did he need to be. 

 

The disciplinary process was not using criminal burden of proof standards. It was using balance of probabilities. You may think this was done wrongly. I think myself it was done wrongly. But there is nothing particularly unclear about any of this, nor is the court outcome relevant. 

 

As I say on what I know FF not fairly treated but it is one mighty stretch to see it as unlawful

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, thewookieisdown said:

Can we just stop this. For goodness sake, this isn't difficult. FF was acquitted of criminal charges. He wasn't proved innocent nor did he need to be. 

 

The disciplinary process was not using criminal burden of proof standards. It was using balance of probabilities. You may think this was done wrongly. I think myself it was done wrongly. But there is nothing particularly unclear about any of this, nor is the court outcome relevant. 

 

As I say on what I know FF not fairly treated but it is one mighty stretch to see it as unlawful


Yep, Fair points by someone who knows more than I do about the system 

Share this post


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

 

But it hinges on the test of the EFL's assertion that we have been guilty of misconduct. The actual definition of misconduct in the EFL's rules will need to be proven, and to what level we are guilty. Is it like criminal and civil proof where there's reasonable doubt or preponderance of evidence/clear and convincing etc? Who knows.

 

Like any private members' club, they have their own rules. However, as SWFC's press release states, if the EFL's actions prove unlawful, which presumably means breaching other commercial/business laws, meaning we suffer financial and reputational damages, we presumably are threatening them against breaching these laws in the first place. We either got a good case or it's a desperate ploy. 

It seems to be that the main misconduct relates to fiddling the date of the sale, That should be fact based but it could be we approached them along the lines of, we've had an offer to buy the stadium but we want to make sure it complies with all your rules. We could sell today (in the last financial period) but is it ok to delay it until you tell us how to structure it. If EFL agree then it seems legit to say they accepted the sale at the earlier date but it didn't go through until later due to EFL taking their own sweet time.

 

I think that might be the clubs position. It may be that the old EFL regime were happy with that but the new executive isn't. Again it will be for the courts to decide. It could be that they decide the EFL acted in bad faith.

 

I did see somewhere that EFL agreed the sale price of the stadium. I'm not sure if that was someone speculating or if that was legit. If it's legit it solves one problem.

Share this post


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

It seems to be that the main misconduct relates to fiddling the date of the sale, That should be fact based but it could be we approached them along the lines of, we've had an offer to buy the stadium but we want to make sure it complies with all your rules. We could sell today (in the last financial period) but is it ok to delay it until you tell us how to structure it. If EFL agree then it seems legit to say they accepted the sale at the earlier date but it didn't go through until later due to EFL taking their own sweet time.

 

I think that might be the clubs position. It may be that the old EFL regime were happy with that but the new executive isn't. Again it will be for the courts to decide. It could be that they decide the EFL acted in bad faith.

 

I did see somewhere that EFL agreed the sale price of the stadium. I'm not sure if that was someone speculating or if that was legit. If it's legit it solves one problem.

Had an offer, from our owner..

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, prowl said:

It seems to be that the main misconduct relates to fiddling the date of the sale, That should be fact based but it could be we approached them along the lines of, we've had an offer to buy the stadium but we want to make sure it complies with all your rules. We could sell today (in the last financial period) but is it ok to delay it until you tell us how to structure it. If EFL agree then it seems legit to say they accepted the sale at the earlier date but it didn't go through until later due to EFL taking their own sweet time.

 

I think that might be the clubs position. It may be that the old EFL regime were happy with that but the new executive isn't. Again it will be for the courts to decide. It could be that they decide the EFL acted in bad faith.

 

I did see somewhere that EFL agreed the sale price of the stadium. I'm not sure if that was someone speculating or if that was legit. If it's legit it solves one problem.

 

Reading, Villa and Derby have all sold the ground essentially to themselves, avoiding P&S breaches - no one is really hiding the fact. As you say it's the date. I think the EFL would have to accept that the principle of the ground sale timings, in accountancy terms, is legitimate. We have apparently followed all the normal business accounts rules. I imagine they reluctantly said yes, it seems you can do this, but they then must have had second thoughts and are looking at the spirit of their rules.

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...