New club statement

[sweetsheri]

1 hour ago, darra said:

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.

Yeah true. Its too specific to be clutching at straws. Clutching at straws would have been along the lines of " we strongly believe

we have acted within the EFL rules and will contest this strenuously"

 

It mentions specific written agreements and emails.

[sweetsheri]

51 minutes ago, Paul Triplo said:

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.

According to the statement those promises are in the form of written documents and emails.

[The Regulator]

1 hour ago, Paul Triplo said:

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.

The timing will have been subject to audit however as well as potentially having also been agreed with the EFL. As has been mentioned many times before, the auditors will have wanted to be absolutely certain on the timing of the most material transaction in the accounts they were signing off.

 

Taking a step back, the EFL knew that we had extended our accounting year end. Surely therefore, if we discussed the validity of the transaction with them, the timing must also have come up in discussion. Or at least it must have been as clear as day to the EFL which accounting period we wanted to book the profit in.

[Nut]

9 minutes ago, The Regulator said:

The timing will have been subject to audit however as well as potentially having also been agreed with the EFL. As has been mentioned many times before, the auditors will have wanted to be absolutely certain on the timing of the most material transaction in the accounts they were signing off.

 

Taking a step back, the EFL knew that we had extended our accounting year end. Surely therefore, if we discussed the validity of the transaction with them, the timing must also have come up in discussion. Or at least it must have been as clear as day to the EFL which accounting period we wanted to book the profit in.

Absolutely. What would be the point in going to all that trouble  of discussing the validity of what we were doing then sneak a £60m transaction into the wrong years accounts and hope no-one would notice? The worry for me is that the EFL say there is new information that has come to light and I have no idea what this could be. 

[CalmJimmers]

That statement 

 

[WalthamOwl]

So the EFL have confirmed they have enough evidence to charge us. 

[SiJ]

1 minute ago, WalthamOwl said:

So the EFL have confirmed they have enough evidence to charge us. 

No sh*t Sherlock. 

[WalthamOwl]

1 minute ago, SiJ said:

No sh*t Sherlock. 

they have said that this morning, scanned a few pages in this thread but couldn’t see where it had been mentioned. Sorry SiJ, no need to be a tw@t though. 

[Animis]

5 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said:

So the EFL have confirmed they have enough evidence to charge us. 

 

BBC reported, an EFL spokesman yesterday - it reads like a reaction to SWFC's press release.

 

An EFL spokesman said it would "clearly be inappropriate" to comment specifically on matters linked to their "comprehensive investigation".

"Other than to reiterate that, following the review of a large number of documents provided by the club - some of those seen for the first time - evidence came to light to justify multiple charges of misconduct," they added.

[BIG D]

We’re going to get absolutely hammered aren’t we. 

[cardiffowl06]

If we've got it in black and white with specific references to regulations from the EFL (any employee of) we will have the upper hand. This appears to be a shift in the EFL's position with the new head taking a tougher line on P&S. Problem is for EFL, if the institution has given professional advice then Wednesday should be able to claim against the equivalent of professional indemnity (if a governing body require it?). Theoretically, no matter what points deduction is applied, Wednesday could claim compensation which would need to be paid to counteract any points deduction served.

 

 

 

[WalthamOwl]

Just now, BIG D said:

We’re going to get absolutely hammered aren’t we. 

cant see anything else but that. Just looking at the decisions DC has made in his time with us do you really think all this about the ground sale is going to be above board. I would be amazed. 

[owls-swfc]

3 minutes ago, BIG D said:

We’re going to get absolutely hammered aren’t we. 

The tide is high but we're holding on.... On HMS p*stheleauge! 

[Jim]

It seems to me the EFL are going for us and we’re going for them? The EFL’s P&S rules are designed to stop clubs getting into financial trouble? I think Bury fans will be more than fulsome in their praise of how these rules work? 

[Animis]

On the timings issue, which is where this case seems to sit, with SWFC extending the accounts period just over a month, and them saying they were in contact with senior employees of the EFL about their intentions, why didn't the EFL say at that point 'sorry, you can't do that' (back-date the ground sale). It all must have been discussed, and agreed.

 

It seems once SWFC made the case, that this practice is perfectly sound under normal business Financial Accountancy rules, the EFL accepted the accounts and P&S submission. They may have then (November - four months later) thought, 'hold on...' However, the horse has appeared to have bolted, and the EFL are trying to wind the clock back.

 

On face value it's the EFL who look like a shambles here.

[billyblack]

1 minute ago, Animis said:

On the timings issue, which is where this case seems to sit, with SWFC extending the accounts period just over a month, and them saying they were in contact with senior employees of the EFL about their intentions, why didn't the EFL say at that point 'sorry, you can't do that' (back-date the ground sale). It all must have been discussed, and agreed.

 

It seems once SWFC made the case, that this practice is perfectly sound under normal business Financial Accountancy rules, the EFL accepted the accounts and P&S submission. They may have then (November - four months later) thought, 'hold on...' However, the horse has appeared to have bolted, and the EFL are trying to wind the clock back.

 

On face value it's the EFL who look like a shambles here.

How can anyone back date a sale legally?

[Owl999]

3 hours ago, SiJ said:

Yeah, but what do you know? 

 

You and your other log ins? 

No more than anyone else  on this forum, thats why I wrote “ in my opinion “ as for the multiple log ins, I’ve only ever had this one .

Edited December 5, 2019 by Owl999

[Dick_Turpin]

11 minutes ago, Animis said:

why didn't the EFL say at that point 'sorry, you can't do that' (back-date the ground sale). It all must have been discussed, and agreed.

The EFL are talking about documents they hadn't seen before in relation to the misconduct charge. That could change the picture considerably. 

[Animis]

5 minutes ago, billyblack said:

How can anyone back date a sale legally?

 

It's just a term - DC agreed (in theory) to buy the ground in the 2017/18 accounts period. He agreed Heads of terms and a legally binding contract. This has been entered into the accounts as a sale, in name to show the 'transaction and adjustment in the accounts to show us having a profit of £2m. I understand from the accountants on here that this is all perfectly acceptable in Accountancy practice.

 

DC then sets up a company in 2019 to formally 'complete' the sale. Again, all perfectly acceptable. The Land Registry Registration is then completed. SWFC appear to have shared all this with the EFL and they said 'right you go then'. Nothing to see here as far as we know. 

[Animis]

2 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

The EFL are talking about documents they hadn't seen before in relation to the misconduct charge. That could change the picture considerably. 

 

It could do - but how does this work. Have SWFC sent more documents following the charges on 14 November - the press release yesterday didn't imply this at all?

 

If not, you can only assume the EFL had all the documents when all this was discussed and agreed in the Summer.