BREAKING - Club Statement

[Guest mkowl]

17 minutes ago, dorian gray said:

those documents are no business of yours, or mine, or likely anyone else on here. 

 

Might get to see them should this ever go to Court !

 

The whole situation is a convoluted mess because there are some documents in the public domain but the real key ones are not and doubt ever will be

 

Eg what evidence the auditors saw 

[Guest LondonOwl313]

9 minutes ago, 2roland2 said:

without investment we would be near the bottom? That’s just bullshit mate, we could have steadily invested and still made playoffs or gone up, it’s hardly worked out well thus far as it.  
 

and it’s ok saying it’s his money let him spend it, im all for that if he writes up something saying he will write off any gamble he takes. But he hasn’t. So at this moment we are at his mercy if he gets pissed off or gets fed up. 
let’s be honest his record of getting pissed off with people is pretty high. 

Well the facts are that Milan said we were losing £6m a year under him and that’s before investment. And our highest finish in those three seasons was 13th, and we came nowhere near challenging top 6. In fact, you can take that further back and say we never once challenged the top 6 at any time between 2000-2015. So that’s what no investment looks like.. investment got us FF, Hooper, Fletcher, Bannan, Wallace et al and they got us in the play offs but fell short. So I don’t think it’s bullshit to think that without investment we wouldn’t have made it. This has been done before, but there aren’t any clubs made it up without any money to spend at all.. either parachute payments, player sales or rich owners have always funded it. 
 

And surely you realise that losses are sunk costs? We aren’t borrowing from external sources so the £65m or whatever we’ve lost is gone now with or without Chansiri. What is relevant is the clubs commitments on the wage bill vs the value of the squad. And we look fine in that department, we’ve already cut costs.. plus most of the contracts are now 1-2 years from expiry so we aren’t committed to paying big wages for 3-4 years anymore. If we had to sell off the whole squad tomorrow for whatever we could get and pay up the rest of the squad who nobody wants, that number would be a positive figure. So you’re just scaremongering about the club being on the verge of going under for no reason 

[bigthinrob]

1 hour ago, Essix Blue said:

spot on

Apart from it’s not spot on.

[Guest mkowl]

6 minutes ago, Royal_D said:

If our claim is ‘entirely without merit’ then the EFL will be able to crack on and get this sorted ASAP won’t they ???? 

 

Legal bjollocks and sabre rattling by both sides. Classic back and forth correspondence that would normally be in private but we are getting to see some via these public statements 

[Sonny]

24 minutes ago, 2roland2 said:

so we found one person as I said not a brigade, typical owlstalk hyperbole to try and point score. 

 

So if you ask for evidence and it’s provided then people are point scoring. Be easier if you just admitted you were wrong and then we could all move on.

[sherlyegg]

32 minutes ago, Anlaby Owl said:

Because Its that transaction that they are questioning the validity of (the 60m ground sale) but as i said if there weren't any doubts in their minds, they would put us under embargo staight away until it was all sorted. 

How can they do that...so far we have not been 'found guilty' of anything...have we?

We are not under embargo cos the efl (thus far) have no grounds to issue one..imho of course

 

[Anlaby Owl]

3 minutes ago, sherlyegg said:

How can they do that...so far we have not been 'found guilty' of anything...have we?

We are not under embargo cos the efl (thus far) have no grounds to issue one..imho of course

 

They put us under a soft embargo two years running. This was before any charges were even brought. 

[sherlyegg]

1 minute ago, Anlaby Owl said:

They put us under a soft embargo two years running. This was before any charges were even brought. 

Thought that was because accounts showed losses were nailed on to be greater than allowed

[fpowl]

1 hour ago, prowl said:

That all sounds great but companies can agree to contracts and are by and large bound by them. We willingly agreed  to be bound by the terms of the EFL, as not to do so would have meant exclusion from the league. On that basis we are bound by the rules. If we go to arbitration we have to show we have abided by those rules and it is the EFL that are acting ultra vires (outside the rules) or possibly that we agreed a course of action with them to remedy our breach of the rules and then they went back on that agreement after we relied on it.

 

If it was a private individual we might have been able to argue that the contract terms were unfair under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 but that generally doesn't apply to companies.who willingly entered into an agreement with another company.

That’s exactly my point if we what the club have said we believe them the club have constantly been in dialogue with the EFL about all our finances and the EFL have allowed the sake of the ground and the delayed accounts only to go back and give further investigation

 

its this where the club stands in a good position unless the club has broke the EFLs rules or the EFLs rules gave not been water tight or communicated out to the club properly then lawfully the club have every right if the EFL give any punishment to us that may prevent us from progressing 

 

in short the EFL need to be confident without reasonable doubt we’ve broken their rules because in a court of law we are confident we haven’t

[Anlaby Owl]

Just now, sherlyegg said:

Thought that was because accounts showed losses were nailed on to be greater than allowed

It was but over the three years theoretically we could still have (and with the ground sale we did) got the overall figures down.  It could almost be described as preemptive punishment. 

[bigthinrob]

36 minutes ago, 2roland2 said:

A bit late with that, so we have one like I said, hardly the what did you call it again ? Brigade ? 
 

but carry on The Hyperbole that you are so against if it’s not in line with your view.  

Just pointing out that someone HAD actually said what I said they had said regarding "accepting the punishment". 

 

If someone had previously pointed that out then so be it. No big deal.

 

Just one more thing. It's sort of not great form to keep negging someone you are debating directly with. If you notice, in all our recent little differences of opinion I haven't negged you once even though you got quite personal in your 'observations' 

 

If someone else takes a view that either one of us is talking sh**te then fair do's, but if you're debating directly then your argument should be sufficient.

 

One thing I will say though, is at least you stick your head above the parapet and argue what you believe in rather than make little or no contribution or just glib one liners like plenty on here.

[Dick_Turpin]

47 minutes ago, dorian gray said:

those documents are no business of yours, or mine, or likely anyone else on here. 

I never said they were my business. But without knowing their nature it’s impossible to know what on earth this is all about. Which was my point. It’s all speculation. 

[Dick_Turpin]

8 minutes ago, fpowl said:

That’s exactly my point if we what the club have said we believe them the club have constantly been in dialogue with the EFL about all our finances and the EFL have allowed the sake of the ground and the delayed accounts only to go back and give further investigation

 

its this where the club stands in a good position unless the club has broke the EFLs rules or the EFLs rules gave not been water tight or communicated out to the club properly then lawfully the club have every right if the EFL give any punishment to us that may prevent us from progressing 

 

in short the EFL need to be confident without reasonable doubt we’ve broken their rules because in a court of law we are confident we haven’t

Just because we issue statements doesn’t mean we are confident. Lawyers fire warning shots all the time as scare tactics. We have no idea of the merits of our case. Or the EFL’s. 

 

All we we do know is that if we hadn’t been run so badly we wouldn’t have needed to sell the ground therefore the misconduct charge wouldn’t have risen its head. 

[bigthinrob]

44 minutes ago, Anlaby Owl said:

Couldn't agree more, six or eight teams facing points deductions and three quarters of the league under embargo. 

And Bury already gone.

 

Badly thought out from the off, is & always has been a restriction on fair trade. 

 

It's on it's last legs & we could be the catalyst that applies the last rites. 

[Dick_Turpin]

Just now, bigthinrob said:

And Bury already gone.

 

Badly thought out from the off, is & always has been a restriction on fair trade. 

 

It's on it's last legs & we could be the catalyst that applies the last rites. 

I hope you’re right - or it could be the catalyst that applies the last rites to us. 

[Maddogbob]

1 minute ago, bigthinrob said:

And Bury already gone.

 

Badly thought out from the off, is & always has been a restriction on fair trade. 

 

It's on it's last legs & we could be the catalyst that applies the last rites. 

We could be pioneers. 

 

Or we could get blasted into outerspace. 

 

That said, it's about time someone was crazy enough to challenge it. 

 

 

[bigthinrob]

Just now, rickygoo said:

I hope you’re right - or it could be the catalyst that applies the last rites to us. 

But it wouldn't be the last rites to us would it?

 

It would be a temporary set back (albeit quite a severe one) but 'temporary' nevertheless.

 

in contrast I get a feeling the EFLs stance regarding P&S is becoming more & more unsustainable month on month.

 

 

[FreshOwl]

“The EFL considers the claim bought by the club to be entirely without merit and is seeking an early determination to enable the disciplinary proceedings to continue”

 

This reads to me like a crazy person (SWFC) making up some unjustified bullshiiit in order to halt the inevitable happening 

[Anlaby Owl]

3 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

Just because we issue statements doesn’t mean we are confident. Lawyers fire warning shots all the time as scare tactics. We have no idea of the merits of our case. Or the EFL’s. 

 

All we we do know is that if we hadn’t been run so badly we wouldn’t have needed to sell the ground therefore the misconduct charge wouldn’t have risen its head. 

The trouble is ricky if the investment hadn't been there and if we had ended up in league 1 or two there would be a damned sight more people all saying how badly the club has been run.  Its a shxt situation.  If i had a few hundred million i wouldn't be investing it in the wednesday 'charity' because it is a mugs game. 

[Essix Blue]

9 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

I never said they were my business. But without knowing their nature it’s impossible to know what on earth this is all about. Which was my point. It’s all speculation. 

Following a guy on twitter who’s involved in football finance, seems to know his stuff. 
 

He claims it all revolves around documents exchanged around July last year between EFL and us. Also claims the 2 ex directors who have been charged, are furious as they were under assumption they had assurances from EFL that the clubs actions were above board.