Jump to content

Clubs demand Sheffield Wednesday points deduction


Recommended Posts

57 minutes ago, bazapeps said:

It’s not just about the loophole though is it. Our situation is v different with the accounts issue etc. Why does this keep coming up, do people just hear what they want to hear?

 

What's most fascinating is that our FFP situation wasn't a sudden realisation either. DC was  banging on about it ages ago.

 

The levels of incompetency behind foooking up the loophole is staggering. It's like buying a lottery ticket with last night's winning numbers, and wondering why Camelot aren't letting you claim your prize.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bobness said:

 

What's most fascinating is that our FFP situation wasn't a sudden realisation either. DC was  banging on about it ages ago.

 

The levels of incompetency behind foooking up the loophole is staggering. It's like buying a lottery ticket with last night's winning numbers, and wondering why Camelot aren't letting you claim your prize.

Yes but if an official from Camelot tells you it's ok then that's different.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Going by the Boro forum and elsewhere Gibson does seem to have deflected their issues well and given them the feeling of if we struggle it's bearable as long as Derby and in particular Wednesday suffer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Hookowl said:

 

Not sure where this "the full 21 points" comes from, there has been no precedent for anything more than 12 as far as I am aware (may be wrong) apart from rumours on here.

 

Does Gibson read owlstalk?


21 points is referenced in the sky article in the opening post on this thread.
 

It says league guidelines allow up to a 12 point deduction for the financial failure and up to a further 9 points for ‘aggravated circumstances’

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, pazowl55 said:

Yes but if an official from Camelot tells you it's ok then that's different.

 

Perhaps not when there are established rules, and common sense dictates one should know better.

 

My point though, was that a conversation with the EFL should have been totally unnecessary, as we had so much time to plan.

 

I really do hope the club end up on the right side of this, but am not expecting the "EFL let us" argument to hold much water. If there is something, I expect it will be vague. If I had to pull something out of my arse, I'd guess the EFL advised that if a sale could be legitimately deemed to be in an accounting year, then they would respect it. Considering we had accountants sign off on it, it is then considered "legitimate".

 

With that said, there is a possible angle that could run in the club's favour: the date of our communication with the EFL. There might be a decent argument if the communication took place while the club still had time to sort it out in 2018, but only carried it over into 2019 because they relied on the EFL's blessing.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bobness said:

 

Perhaps not when there are established rules, and common sense dictates one should know better.

 

My point though, was that a conversation with the EFL should have been totally unnecessary, as we had so much time to plan.

 

I really do hope the club end up on the right side of this, but am not expecting the "EFL let us" argument to hold much water. If there is something, I expect it will be vague. If I had to pull something out of my arse, I'd guess the EFL advised that if a sale could be legitimately deemed to be in an accounting year, then they would respect it. Considering we had accountants sign off on it, it is then considered "legitimate".

 

With that said, there is a possible angle that could run in the club's favour: the date of our communication with the EFL. There might be a decent argument if the communication took place while the club still had time to sort it out in 2018, but only carried it over into 2019 because they relied on the EFL's blessing.
 

I was saying that more as a joke. But there must be some element of truth in it. Looking at us, Derby and Man City. We have all come out fighting and saying the charges are wrong and we are going to fight them. So dont be surprised if we all come out on top as we all have the money and chairman willing to spend money to fight against it. City especially. Where as how much money would the likes of Bolton, Bury, even Birmingham been willing to throw at top lawyers to get the charges overturned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, bobness said:

 

What's most fascinating is that our FFP situation wasn't a sudden realisation either. DC was  banging on about it ages ago.

 

The levels of incompetency behind foooking up the loophole is staggering. It's like buying a lottery ticket with last night's winning numbers, and wondering why Camelot aren't letting you claim your prize.

 

It's worse than that. It's like Camelot checked your ticket, paid out the money, sent you a letter saying it was fine, let you spend the money and then decided that it wasn't fine and went you to give the money back.

 

Sellers remorse basically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, bobness said:

 

Perhaps not when there are established rules, and common sense dictates one should know better.

 

My point though, was that a conversation with the EFL should have been totally unnecessary, as we had so much time to plan.

 

I really do hope the club end up on the right side of this, but am not expecting the "EFL let us" argument to hold much water. If there is something, I expect it will be vague. If I had to pull something out of my arse, I'd guess the EFL advised that if a sale could be legitimately deemed to be in an accounting year, then they would respect it. Considering we had accountants sign off on it, it is then considered "legitimate".

 

With that said, there is a possible angle that could run in the club's favour: the date of our communication with the EFL. There might be a decent argument if the communication took place while the club still had time to sort it out in 2018, but only carried it over into 2019 because they relied on the EFL's blessing.
 

 

Hopefully we'll get away with it. But fundamentally a paper transaction to switch assets around in order to get round the rules should not have been necessary.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

 

Hopefully we'll get away with it. But fundamentally a paper transaction to switch assets around in order to get round the rules should not have been necessary.

 

That is true, but when you constantly overspend above agreed limits you need to pull a rabbit out of the hat

 

I would prefer to agree with you and say it should not have been necessary if we had a workable, or in fact any, strategy in place to be successful and be within the rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Minton said:

 

It's worse than that. It's like Camelot checked your ticket, paid out the money, sent you a letter saying it was fine, let you spend the money and then decided that it wasn't fine and went you to give the money back.

 

Sellers remorse basically.

Your suggestion is that the efl agreed the ground sale and then went back on that agreement. 

Now, none of us are privileged to what documents were presented to the efl and so its pointless speculating on who is in the wrong. 

Can you give an opinion on if the ground sale was signed and sealed by the end of the 17-18 accounts, why did DC say we were in serious trouble with ffp/p&s in late 2018 at the fan's forum. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not too sure what the future of the EFL will be if they lose these cases to be honest,  I think they have to make it stick 

 

Suspect it will turn into appeal after appeal though, they need to prove they had no knowledge of the transaction been done in the way it was or gave agreement of any form as alleged by the club , likewise for the chairman if it’s the other way round 

 

Will go on and on and on this 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

Would Gibson be moaning if Boro were top of the league? I very much doubt it. 

 

Total irrelevance.

 

We have either done something wrong or we haven't. That will come out in due course. But if it turns out that we actually are guilty of wrongdoing, Gibson had a legitimate grievance. Don't blame him for that. Blame those guilty (if that is indeed the case). If Gibson's accusations had no basis, you can be pretty fekkin' sure it will come back to bite him in due course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Royal_D said:

Not too sure what the future of the EFL will be if they lose these cases to be honest,  I think they have to make it stick 

 

Suspect it will turn into appeal after appeal though, they need to prove they had no knowledge of the transaction been done in the way it was or gave agreement of any form as alleged by the club , likewise for the chairman if it’s the other way round 

 

Will go on and on and on this 

Think I read that as part of the arbitration process both parties agree that the findings are final and not appealable. 

As for the efl hearing if it gets that far, does anyone know if that can be challenged 

Link to comment
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...