New club statement

[prowl]

39 minutes ago, striker said:

I think the point is that our accountant/auditor signed off the accounts, compliant with HMRC and importantly we sought permission from the EFL for the ground sale before proceeding and received authorisation, subsequently having the accounts ratified when submitted.

 

The EFL have now retrospectively raised this issue and quite correctly DC will reserve the right to use the law to intervene if necessary.

 

Pressure firmly on the EFL now, they dont have unlimited resources to pursue and if the evidence noted in our statement is accurate, don't think they would win. 

 

I'm not happy this situation has arisen, (only a matter of time due to idiotic and outdated FFP rules) but proud we are taking a stand. 

The Birmingham case id interesting. The EFL wanted them hung drawn and quartered but they don't have the final decision. A seperate panel is set up of 'experts' who consider the evidence and decide the penalty. From Memory they gave Birmingham the benefit of the doubt on a lot of matters because the EFL had been slack in dealing with some of the stuff. Birmingham got of lighter than the EFL wanted.

 

I didn't study the ruling in detail (it was Birmingham so not that important) I just read some press reports so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[Jim]

I always thought this particular case had as much chance of biting the EFL on the ar$e as much as us and perhaps now more so?

 

Also our championship rivals who are currently baying for our blood may be careful what they wish for as these restrictive rules are also potentially going to affect them the longer they stay in the division and they won’t be so high and mighty then, will they?

 

Unfortunately for the EFL a certain club in the North East are staring relegation in the face and if this club were to drop they would never hear the end of it and this for me is where the crux of our current problems arguably lies as the EFL will obviously want to avoid that particular scenario?

[Mike Hunt]

I wonder if the EFL has turned on us because Gibson has threatened the EFL with legal action ?

[Musn't Grumble]

8 hours ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

In case anyone is interested on why the swfc defense applies to EFL:

https://www.sportresolutions.co.uk/news/view/a-legitimate-expectation-defence-to-sports-regulatory-action

 

 

I vaguely remember a case way back... The received wisdom at the time was that the governing body had jurisdiction on the sports field and anything that went off thereon was within the remit of that governing body.

 

In other words, what went off on the field, stayed on the field.

 

Surprise, surprise, when an assault case was brought after a player got punched and seriously injured, English Law, and not the governing body, took sway and the governing body got a wake up call.

[Musn't Grumble]

50 minutes ago, BARMYARMY2010 said:

Swindon and Tottenham from memory,sure there are others as well.

 

 

Tottenham were docked points, suspended from the FA Cup and fined £600k at the time but the Football Association didn't reckon on taking on Alan Sugar... He took the FA to the cleaners and, despite paying a bigger fine (what's money to Lord Sugar?!), got all the points back and were reinstated into the FA Cup.

 

This action really put Sugar on the map.

 

Let's hope that this little hiccup will do the same for DC and the club.

[pat blondeau]

1 hour ago, Bulgaria said:

Well, our chairman definitely has some balls.

 

I really hope we come out of this smelling of roses because if we don't, the poo is gonna hit the fan.

 

Has any club taken on the powers that be before?

QPR took them on and got shafted. They also had to pay an extra £3 million to cover the EFL’s legal costs.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44980113

[pazowl55]

12 hours ago, Royal_D said:

Was talking earlier about the article saying clubs are pushing for automatic relegation ... surely that doesn’t end well for anybody ?   How do they think the integrity of remaining fixtures is gonna be kept intact if they pull that stunt ?    
 

Chansiri would probably refund season tickets, and not fulfill fixtures , just because he could 

Yeah we could just roll over and let every team win 15-0 except Middlesbrough. 

 

Gibson would be fuming. Probably get on the phone to the EFL about us. Oh wait..........

[Owl999]

14 hours ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

You don't release a statement like that just to keep the fans and staff happy.

 

This is serious fighting talk that's been drafted by a lawyer.

Clutching at straws in my opinion, hopefully not the case 

[sweetsheri]

Just now, Owl999 said:

Clutching at straws in my opinion, hopefully not the case 

Doesn't read like a clutching at straws statement in any shape or form

[Owl999]

6 minutes ago, sweetsheri said:

Doesn't read like a clutching at straws statement in any shape or form

Never do when they are written by the legals 

[asteener1867]

 A major difference with our case , if what Wednesday are stating is correct 

Is the fact that the EFL sanctioned what the club were doing in emails and documentation ,thus allowing it under their rules at that time.

So it's hardly taking the EFL to court under other laws is it ?

Just because the EFL have changed leadership since , shouldn't affect what was done at the time 

Just hope Wednesday have got it right 

[darra]

6 minutes ago, sweetsheri said:

Doesn't read like a clutching at straws statement in any shape or form

Agreed it reads as we have got strong written evidence that the EFL was happy with what the club had done. For people from the far east like Chansiri it's all about "Face" and that makes me think this has been looked at very carefully before he decided to go ahead with it.

[Roscoe P. Coltrane]

46 minutes ago, Musn't Grumble said:

 

 

Tottenham were docked points, suspended from the FA Cup and fined £600k at the time but the Football Association didn't reckon on taking on Alan Sugar... He took the FA to the cleaners and, despite paying a bigger fine (what's money to Lord Sugar?!), got all the points back and were reinstated into the FA Cup.

 

This action really put Sugar on the map.

 

Let's hope that this little hiccup will do the same for DC and the club.

And Swindon Town?

[spurdog]

The billionaire owners of the Premier League clubs walked all over Dave Richards. Let's see if the tables can be turned by our owner.

[SiJ]

17 minutes ago, Owl999 said:

Clutching at straws in my opinion, hopefully not the case 

Yeah, but what do you know? 

 

You and your other log ins? 

[Stoop]

I’m starting to think that this is a last roll of the dice by Chansiri. Go on the offensive, hope it gets ugly, goes to court. Takes months to sort out, which by then he’s hoping we’re in the PL and can then stick 2 fingers up to the EFL like Bournemouth and Wolves did

[BARMYARMY2010]

37 minutes ago, nilsson said:

QPR took them on and got shafted. They also had to pay an extra £3 million to cover the EFL’s legal costs.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44980113

QPR took the p iss.

[swfcGibbo]

49 minutes ago, nilsson said:

QPR took them on and got shafted. They also had to pay an extra £3 million to cover the EFL’s legal costs.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/44980113

The fine was actually 20 million (Including legal fees). The other number was the write off of loans.

 

They also have had 10 YEARS to pay off the fine so it's just 2 million a season. Remove a few expensive players from the books to cover it. I am sure we'd take that all day long.

 

Legally Chansiri has found a loophole and sold the stadium. QPR actively announced their losses.

[HarrowbyOwl]

11 minutes ago, swfcGibbo said:

The fine was actually 20 million (Including legal fees). The other number was the write off of loans.

 

They also have had 10 YEARS to pay off the fine so it's just 2 million a season. Remove a few expensive players from the books to cover it. I am sure we'd take that all day long.

 

Legally Chansiri has found a loophole and sold the stadium. QPR actively announced their losses.

It's not actually a loophole. Under the old FFP rules profit/loss on disposal of tangible fixed assets was excluded from the FFP calculation. Under the new P&S rules (2016) that provision was dropped. So sale and leasback is certainly allowed under the new rules. The dispute is about how that was done.

[Paul Triplo]

It will all depend on what is in the EFL email and documents, but the defence itself is one of promissory estoppel.

 

It is the legal principle that a promise is enforceable by law, even if made without formal consideration.

 

IE:  when a promisor (EFL) has made a promise to a promisee (SWFC) who then relies on that promise to its subsequent detriment it will provide a valid defence to the charges.

 

IE: We relied on promises from the EFL that the transaction was lawful and could be included in the accounts and then in hindsight they have then turned around and charged us for what they have already authorised (promised) was a lawful transaction.

 

My guess is that the EFL authorised the transaction, but its timing was too late to be included in the accounts for the particular tax year and so the EFL will claim that the transaction was authorised but the timing was not.