When will we be within the spending limits?

[mogbad]

44 minutes ago, neo hippy said:

Spend too much in year 2 as mentioned above and then on wages for the years after too. That why we need the clear out to get the wage bill down.

 

Having said that we did sell the stadium so as long as that's not deemed against the rules then we should be able to spend again

Selling the stadium isn't against the rules, the EFL are saying it shouldn't have been included in the accounts ending July 2018.  If the EFL win then presumably the stadium sale will be included in the accounts ending July 2019 which are due to be published at the end of April.

[ChinaOwl]

2 minutes ago, mogbad said:

Selling the stadium isn't against the rules, the EFL are saying it shouldn't have been included in the accounts ending July 2018.  If the EFL win then presumably the stadium sale will be included in the accounts ending July 2019 which are due to be published at the end of April.

 

Yeah obviously because you can do things like that with audited accounts submitted to Companies House.

[mogbad]

2 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

Yeah obviously because you can do things like that with audited accounts submitted to Companies House.

 

[mogbad]

11 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

Yeah obviously because you can do things like that with audited accounts submitted to Companies House.

That's where I'm confused, if the EFL say we can't include the sale in the 2018 accounts do they actually have the authority to make us restate those accounts to Company's House & they're also questioning the integrity of respected accountants & auditors who aren't going to take it lying down.

[ChinaOwl]

1 minute ago, mogbad said:

That's where I'm confused, if the EFL say we can't include the sale in the 2018 accounts do they actually have the authority to make us restate those accounts to Company's House & they're also questioning the integrity of respected accountants & auditors who aren't going to take it lying down.

 

The EFL have brought charges based on an alleged breach of their own rules. It is difficult to comment on because I doubt anyone other than the parties involved know exactly what the alleged breach is. But it is possible that the club could could satisfy all legal and accounting requirements and still be in breach of the EFL rules.

[teddybeararmy]

37 minutes ago, Markowski77 said:

If we get away with the stadium sale - I think spendageddon 2 could go back into production as we will have posted a profit 

We have only posted a profit in one year,17-18 accounts. We still have the 9m and 19m losses. 

The 9m loss drops off to be replaced by the 18-19 accounts, we will probably be up around the 20m losses again, so very close to the 39m p&s limit. The massive elephant in the room is if the efl decided to not allow the stadium sale in the 17-18 accounts, then we would have a 19m and a 30 odd millions losses Sat on the accounts. The 18-19 accounts would then have to post a 10 m profit to stay within p&s.

[legendaryswan]

Saving money on wages alone wont be enough to balance the books,weve no doubt run up further debt this season.We will need some hefty fees in for players to cancel out the overspend.

Were around 30M over the limit,plus this season which youd expect to be another 20M plus? Wage savings alone aren't going to wipe that off,neither is a ground sale

[Nut]

47 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

Yeah obviously because you can do things like that with audited accounts submitted to Companies House.

Why is that China Owl? If it is a genuine sale then it has to appear in the accounts at some point doesn't it? Are you saying that if it's in the wrong year the transaction is null and void?

[ChinaOwl]

1 minute ago, Nut said:

Why is that China Owl? If it is a genuine sale then it has to appear in the accounts at some point doesn't it? Are you saying that if it's in the wrong year the transaction is null and void?

 

No, I'm just saying that it would be unwise from an accountancy perspective to try and move the sale from the last set of accounts to the latest. If things were that simple!

[striker]

37 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said:

 

The EFL have brought charges based on an alleged breach of their own rules. It is difficult to comment on because I doubt anyone other than the parties involved know exactly what the alleged breach is. But it is possible that the club could could satisfy all legal and accounting requirements and still be in breach of the EFL rules.

I doubt that the EFL rules are sufficiently explicit which is why our defence suggests we sought clarification and received acceptance for the transaction, which was also compliant with accepted legal and accounting methods.

 

In the absence of clearly defined and explicit rules, this has been relied on to underpin a multi million pound deal and remain compliant with conditions set by EFL re FFP. 

 

Reading between the lines, EFL unhappy that registration of the deal was not concluded with land registry etc at an earlier point and funds for the sale also subject to delayed payments. 

 

As our actions were compliant with accepted legal and accounting practices, EFL are unable to prove the sale didnt happen as reported lawfully. Their argument refers to their own rules, which I understand is the issue to be interpreted. 

 

At the point of sale, permission was granted by the EFL for the transaction and now seeking retrospective punishment unde rules which didnt exist at the time of the transaction (legal and compliant in the real world) which is punitive.

 

For all some may critisice DC for his football knowledge, property is his area of expertise and expect the deal to be watertight. It's a case of whether a court allows the EFL to rescind prior agreement and retrospectively apply a different set of conditions to the deal. 

 

Their case is not helped that they also signed off on the accounts initially and lifted the embargo in place at the time, which has not been reinstated since.

[Inspector Lestrade]

At least we haven't been kicked out of the Champions League

 

 

Every cloud

[ChinaOwl]

2 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said:

At least we haven't been kicked out of the Champions League

 

 

Every cloud

 

Don't give them ideas.

 

A two year ban from playing in Europe would be a complete disaster for the club. 

[Nut]

19 minutes ago, striker said:

I doubt that the EFL rules are sufficiently explicit which is why our defence suggests we sought clarification and received acceptance for the transaction, which was also compliant with accepted legal and accounting methods.

 

In the absence of clearly defined and explicit rules, this has been relied on to underpin a multi million pound deal and remain compliant with conditions set by EFL re FFP. 

 

Reading between the lines, EFL unhappy that registration of the deal was not concluded with land registry etc at an earlier point and funds for the sale also subject to delayed payments. 

 

As our actions were compliant with accepted legal and accounting practices, EFL are unable to prove the sale didnt happen as reported lawfully. Their argument refers to their own rules, which I understand is the issue to be interpreted. 

 

At the point of sale, permission was granted by the EFL for the transaction and now seeking retrospective punishment unde rules which didnt exist at the time of the transaction (legal and compliant in the real world) which is punitive.

 

For all some may critisice DC for his football knowledge, property is his area of expertise and expect the deal to be watertight. It's a case of whether a court allows the EFL to rescind prior agreement and retrospectively apply a different set of conditions to the deal. 

 

Their case is not helped that they also signed off on the accounts initially and lifted the embargo in place at the time, which has not been reinstated since.

That's how I see it and what gives me hope we'll be ok. I dont know what experience DC has of property but i doubt he has much in this country so am hoping he realises there's different rules in different countries and has taken full legal and accounting advice regarding this transaction. However poorly he has run the club, i can't see this not being the case. He can't be that stupid, although I've heard a few stories about his personality and what he's like to deal with. 

[S36 OWL]

12 hours ago, shandypants said:

Serious question:

 

If we assume that the players that we have recently recruited into“permanent” contract are on “sensible” wages, when will we be back within the £39m spending limit? In other words, how long is left on the contracts of the big earners? 

The reason I ask this is because I think that Chansiri won’t sell the club until it is within the £39m limits thus becoming a more saleable asset. 

 

I've heard we will be in profit on 2018 

[ChinaOwl]

3 minutes ago, Nut said:

That's how I see it and what gives me hope we'll be ok. I dont know what experience DC has of property but i doubt he has much in this country so am hoping he realises there's different rules in different countries and has taken full legal and accounting advice regarding this transaction. However poorly he has run the club, i can't see this not being the case. He can't be that stupid, although I've heard a few stories about his personality and what he's like to deal with. 

 

Considerably more than he has of football. 

[striker]

1 minute ago, Nut said:

That's how I see it and what gives me hope we'll be ok. I dont know what experience DC has of property but i doubt he has much in this country so am hoping he realises there's different rules in different countries and has taken full legal and accounting advice regarding this transaction. However poorly he has run the club, i can't see this not being the case. He can't be that stupid, although I've heard a few stories about his personality and what he's like to deal with. 

Agree. That's the point, it's accepted that the transaction is perfectly legal and compliant with UK law.  

 

The EFL are trying to retrospectively apply competition rules which didn't exist at the time.

 

 

[Ian]

3 hours ago, The Horse said:

I think that there is some double jeopardy rule in place where we can't get a points deduction and a fine.

Or can't have points deduction and embargo.

The three year don't-you-dare-try-to-compete-with-the-parachute-clubs rule remains permanent though.

At least that's my understanding but I'm probably way off as I'm just a horse that can type.

Also, we're SWFC so they'll still find a way to hammer us with everything regardless.

Double jeopardy means you can’t be tried for the same offence twice, not that you can’t have two different types of punishment for one.

 

its a regular occurrence for, as an example, a speeding driver to get 3 point on his license as well as a £50 fine

[ChinaOwl]

3 minutes ago, striker said:

Agree. That's the point, it's accepted that the transaction is perfectly legal and compliant with UK law.  

 

The EFL are trying to retrospectively apply competition rules which didn't exist at the time.

 

 

 

That's my take on it as well.

 

Obviously it's hard to comment without all the facts but I have a feeling that the EFL are retrospectively shoehorning rules into the book to cover for their own lack of foresight.

 

From a natural justice perspective, it is wrong for any person or organisation to be found guilty of a breach of regulations when none existed at the alleged time of the breach.

[DJMortimer]

1 hour ago, teddybeararmy said:

We have only posted a profit in one year,17-18 accounts. We still have the 9m and 19m losses. 

The 9m loss drops off to be replaced by the 18-19 accounts, we will probably be up around the 20m losses again, so very close to the 39m p&s limit. The massive elephant in the room is if the efl decided to not allow the stadium sale in the 17-18 accounts, then we would have a 19m and a 30 odd millions losses Sat on the accounts. The 18-19 accounts would then have to post a 10 m profit to stay within p&s.

 

What tremendous foresight, planning and strategy from the boardroom.