bubbleowl Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 3 minutes ago, Essix Blue said: Well I’ve not seen many say that. However, I do agree somewhat to the thought that DC might well be setting us up for a bigger fall if, as some say, he’s p***ing in the wind with these charges against the EFL. Some are worried we might get a heftier deduction if it’s found that DCs counter claims hold no truth. As i understand it is it not an independent panel who decides the punishment not the EFL and should then only look at facts and not give us extra punishment because we upset the EFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nbupperthongowl Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 Just now, Costello 77 said: The club are pushing for arbitration so that fairness is done.. the EFL can't keep running riot with double standards. Absolutely, after the FF debacle we (rightly) don't trust the EFL, so we are following the legal process Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANDY Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 Just now, nbupperthongowl said: Absolutely, after the FF debacle we (rightly) don't trust the EFL, so we are following the legal process Once again.... Forestieris case was NOTHING to do with the EFL it was the FA 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirksandallowl Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 2 minutes ago, bubbleowl said: As i understand it is it not an independent panel who decides the punishment not the EFL and should then only look at facts and not give us extra punishment because we upset the EFL Don't let facts get in the way of a chance to stick the boot in to DC & the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Costello 77 Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 1 minute ago, ANDY said: Once again.... Forestieris case was NOTHING to do with the EFL it was the FA Which shows up the fiasco that we and other clubs get involved with... FF was playing in a f*cking friendly.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sonny Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 14 minutes ago, Essix Blue said: As I understand it, and I know about as much as anyone else on here, our accounts are signed off by our accountant and then filed at companies house - with a copy going to the EFL for them to study RE PnS rules. Weren’t we under the original embargo due to our accounts being late? So the EFL receive our accounts and lift the embargo. They then study the accounts and discover what they believe to be an anomaly regarding the sale of the ground, hence us being charged. IMO. I dunno if that’s exactly correct Yeah but their initial look isn’t just around whether they were on time or not. If we’d spent too much then we’d have been kept under an embargo, like we were the summer before. Our claim seems to be that the league gave the nod for what we planned to do, our auditors passed the accounts as being above board and the league allowed us out of the embargo accordingly (or didn’t put us under a new one). I get that the league can operate to their own standards but the arbitration panel will rule on law, and if the audit was legal then the arbitration may rule that back dating the sale wasn’t misconduct. Maybe. All guesswork really. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookieisdown Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 3 minutes ago, ANDY said: Once again.... Forestieris case was NOTHING to do with the EFL it was the FA And also once again, whether right or wrong, the FA did not overturn the criminal court's verdict, or reach a decision that was inconsistent with the court's verdict, and this is not a hard point to grasp, and please could everyone now just grasp it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essix Blue Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 1 minute ago, Sonny said: Yeah but their initial look isn’t just around whether they were on time or not. If we’d spent too much then we’d have been kept under an embargo, like we were the summer before. Our claim seems to be that the league gave the nod for what we planned to do, our auditors passed the accounts as being above board and the league allowed us out of the embargo accordingly (or didn’t put us under a new one). I get that the league can operate to their own standards but the arbitration panel will rule on law, and if the audit was legal then the arbitration may rule that back dating the sale wasn’t misconduct. Maybe. All guesswork really. The bold part does seem to be the crux of the argument from what I’ve heard the club come out with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SallyCinnamon Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 20 minutes ago, kirksandallowl said: No what you’re doing is what you always do and that is take anything that could have even a slight negative angle for the club, then taking that view and exaggerating it, running with it and moaning about the club you claim to support. if a police officer waves you through a red light to clear a junction the 2 weeks later you get a ticket through the post because that red light had a camera on it would you just accept the ticket or would you challenge it because you believe you had authority to go through it? After all you did go through the red light or you would have got the ticket. The EFL are not just accusing the club and it’s officers here, they are inadvertently accusing our auditors of either knowingly breaking the law of the land, or doing so through incompetence. Do you recon they are going to bend over and take it or do you recon they may fight it? I’ve said from the start the club are completely doing the right thing by fighting it. Still think we’ll get hammered for it though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirksandallowl Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 Just now, SallyCinnamon said: I’ve said from the start the club are completely doing the right thing by fighting it. Still think we’ll get hammered for it though. By whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animis Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 The move to Arbitration is outlined in the EFL's Governance section. The move here is to get an independent party to arbitrate the charges of misconduct, not arbitrate on the decision of guilty or otherwise. It's about the process to date, which seems to me very subjective, in that there is no precedence in this particular case, and arbitration is controlled under general English law. How on earth is a party going to determine a he said she said dispute, when we seemingly have abided with all Finance Laws of the country, but the EFL don't like what we've done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Costello 77 Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 2 minutes ago, Essix Blue said: The bold part does seem to be the crux of the argument from what I’ve heard the club come out with. Isn't that what I was saying? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S36 OWL Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 7 minutes ago, Costello 77 said: Which shows up the fiasco that we and other clubs get involved with... FF was playing in a f*cking friendly.. And had been found NOT GUILTY in a court of law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the mighty wednesday Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 I may be wrong but if the audit is deemed legal or in line with accounting conventions then the sale of the ground could not be deemed as being back dated. I would also think that if it has not been back dated illegally or judged to be against accounting conventions then the EFL can't punish us for some conjecture surrounding the spirit of the rule or it being a loophole that they wish to close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daleblue Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 3 minutes ago, kirksandallowl said: By whom? them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 (edited) Most people on here seem to think the EFL will win. It’s the Wednesday Way and all that sh!t that gets spouted on here regularly. My own take on it is the club feel they have a strong case and they wouldn’t be taking the action they are doing if they feel they hadn’t? Let’s face it no one can argue the club haven’t worked with the EFL over the last couple of years hence the transfer embargoes we have found ourselves under and I would be amazed if they didn’t get advice from them with regards to the legitimacy of the sale of Hillsborough? As I’ve said before there is just as much chance of the EFL having egg on their face over this situation as there is us? Edited December 27, 2019 by Great Big Galaa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANDY Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 3 minutes ago, thewookieisdown said: And also once again, whether right or wrong, the FA did not overturn the criminal court's verdict, or reach a decision that was inconsistent with the court's verdict, and this is not a hard point to grasp, and please could everyone now just grasp it People are using the FF case to highlight the inadequicies [sp] within the EFL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewookieisdown Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 I have scrolled through this thread very quickly, and also looked at local news sites, in vain. I have perhaps missed it. The two obvious questions are: (a) we talk about arbitration, and the appointment of arbiters. Which institution (if any) is responsible for the arbitration process? (b) does anyone know what our case is? .I think I know we are denying the misconduct charge on the grounds that we took EFL advice and acted on it. Which may be so, or may not be: none of us can know. If it is so, then that might make us innocent, but it doesn't mean that the charge is unlawful, or that the EFL have acted unlswfully. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigthinrob Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 In response to the “we’ve broken the rules, let’s just be good boys & take the punishment” lobby. Nobody ever gets anywhere with that point of view. It just makes it easier for bullies like the EFL to f**k you over more easily. Just a thought & no doubt people will scream irrelevant, but do you imagine for one millisecond, the likes of LFC would hold their hands up and say “It’s a fair cop, we’ve broke the rules, we’ll take our punishment”. Yeah right. Do you also think for one millisecond, (& yeah I do realise they are under the Prem hierarchy) that the EFL would ever do to LFC what they are trying to do to us together with the attitude they adopted in doing it. No chance! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kirksandallowl Posted December 27, 2019 Share Posted December 27, 2019 1 minute ago, daleblue said: them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now