Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

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...