Article on The Athletic

[@owlstalk]

Just now, dan1980 said:

Anybody who wanted joey to be captain should be banned from posting ever again

Reyt.

[Guest mkowl]

1 minute ago, billyblack said:

Im not an accountant, surely though you cant sell something one year and report it in a different year can you? I mean whats the point otherwise. May as well not bother.

You might have sold it and reported it in the same period - selling as a very wide definition in accounting terms

[billyblack]

1 minute ago, toppOwl said:

 

If it can be proved that an agreement for the sale was in place the date the money changed hands doesn't matter.

Ok. Thats why i asked. How long can that apply for though. Is that indefinite? If i agreed to sell my house to someone in writing but didnt actually sell it for 5 years i could declare the house was sold sold 5 years ago? 

[room0035]

So based on our current form we are getting dragged into the relegation dog fight.

 

Then the case about the sale of the stadium and losses accumulated could go into next season.

 

So we could be relegated this season then start next season on -21 points. 

 

Fantastic - there is nothing like a well run football club to truly depress the life out of a Wednesday fans.

[billyblack]

2 minutes ago, mkowl said:

You might have sold it and reported it in the same period - selling as a very wide definition in accounting terms

Ok. Can you agree to 'sell' to an entity that doesnt exist yet? I dont believe the entity that 'bought' the ground didnt exist the year it was reported in? Or is that wrong? 

[Bing Cosby]

The amount of money we must have spent on lawyers and accountants this year.. No wonder there's no money for Monk's own coaching team.

[Dick_Turpin]

3 minutes ago, billyblack said:

Ok. Can you agree to 'sell' to an entity that doesnt exist yet? I dont believe the entity that 'bought' the ground didnt exist the year it was reported in? Or is that wrong? 

I read somewhere that he agreed to sell it to himself initially.  

 

I am still mystified by the conflicting evidence of the audited accounts - and the ground sale is so critical to the figures it would have been rigorously checked - and the fact Chansiri was still worrying about FFP months after the accounting date when he had apparently already solved the problem. It's a murky business.

[DeeJayOne]

20 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

Yet I can 100% GUARANTEE you that what they posted will be new to some, news to many, and the first time many people will have read that information.

 

THIS.

It is why comments like 'Pope's Dead' and "We already know this" really frustrates me... there are ALWAYS some readers who didn't know and you're just egotistically showing off that YOU know. If you know, then just move on and read something you don't know. You don't have to point out that you know and act superior to those who might not have seen those details about that topic yet.

 

19 minutes ago, steelowl said:

this article is a regurgitation 

 

Not to everyone.

 

18 minutes ago, toppOwl said:

 

Seeing as your using capitals - IT MIGHT BE BUT ITS NOT ACTUALLY SAYING ANYTHING NEW AND ANYONE WHO FREQUENTS THIS FORUM WOULD KNOW ANYWAY.

 

But there ARE people who will read it and not know. Just because you know, it doesn't mean that anywhere close to 100% of readers on any particular site or forum knows.

 

 

 

But anyway... In context of the article from The Athletic, it is all new to their audience, and by extension to a number of people who read it where it is posted. It confirms a number of speculative points from other various sources - adding credence to those points. It shows that this is an important topic to a wider audience that has been worthy of its own article on a different publication platform. There's lots we can take from the article being published on The Athletic, other than "well, we already speculated about that on a niche, dedicated fans forum so this article shouldn't be acknowledged or debated at all".

 

[@owlstalk]

15 minutes ago, dan1980 said:

Anybody who wanted joey to be captain should be banned from posting ever again

Apologies for wanting a brand new signing at the club to go on and be an outstanding player

Silly me

[billyblack]

2 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

I read somewhere that he agreed to sell it to himself initially.  

 

I am still mystified by the conflicting evidence of the audited accounts - and the ground sale is so critical to the figures it would have been rigorously checked - and the fact Chansiri was still worrying about FFP months after the accounting date when he had apparently already solved the problem. It's a murky business.

Totally agree

 

Sorry. Just to add though, changing the parties involved in the sale agreed surely negated the original agreement. Again, otherwise whats the point.

 

Im sure details will be released at some point. Its a mess and whats more, a mess that could have been avoided.

Edited March 11, 2020 by billyblack
Addition

[SiJ]

2 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

I read somewhere that he agreed to sell it to himself initially.  

 

I am still mystified by the conflicting evidence of the audited accounts - and the ground sale is so critical to the figures it would have been rigorously checked - and the fact Chansiri was still worrying about FFP months after the accounting date when he had apparently already solved the problem. It's a murky business.

I've never sold a stadium to myself before, but you'd think that selling a stadium to yourself would be straight forward enough (relatively speaking). 

 

Perhaps the setting up all the different companies was to create a similar set up to what Dem Blades had when the ownership of Bramall Lane was transferred to McCabe's holding company? 

 

WIth that though, there wouldn't have been the transfer of any funds? I assume not. 

 

Whole thing from us, to the EFL, to those chomping at the bit for a 21-point deduction is all very grubby. 

[Dick_Turpin]

32 minutes ago, toppOwl said:

 

If you have a grasp of basic English you'll see that all the words and phrases I've highlighted above prove they don't have a scooby do, have not done any actual journalism or investigation but have just copied and pasted whats been said elsewhere, a blank page would tell you as much.

I have a grasp of basic English. I also know a bit about journalism. These are words and phrases that are generally used to indicate when sources can't be revealed. 

 

It's scooby doo by the way. You need to improve your grasp of basic English if you're going to talk about having a grasp of basic English. 

  

[Costello 77]

A lot of the back and fore in this thread seems to be the upshot of a misunderstanding of reportage/article against opinion piece.

[@owlstalk]

Just now, Costello 77 said:

A lot of the back and fore in this thread seems to be the upshot of a misunderstanding of reportage/article against opinion piece.

 

And some very deliberate trolling

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

Apologies for wanting a brand new signing at the club to go on and be an outstanding player

Silly me

Ha ha 

[Samurai Blue]

53 minutes ago, toppOwl said:

If you have a grasp of basic English you'll see that all the words and phrases I've highlighted above prove they don't have a scooby do, have not done any actual journalism or investigation but have just copied and pasted whats been said elsewhere, a blank page would tell you as much.

 

Irrespective of all the personal sniping that's going on that I have no interest in getting involved in, ToppOwl is making a valid point about the English being used.

 

"Several Championship clubs have told...", "It is understood...", "Sources have told..." are prime examples of a passive voice structure that absolves anyone of any ownership about the information given. I'm not debating whether what they're writing about is true or not, but it's a common technique in journalism that swerves important details. i.e. Which Championship clubs? Understood by whom? What sources?

 

It is understood to have happened in this conversation between Vic Buckingham and Garry Monk:

 

 "It's been said that you need help."

 "Who said that?"

 "Sources."

 "Whatever. How can I turn this around, Vic?"

 "Things need to be done."

 "You're trolling me. I'm off home."

 "A bus needs to be taken."

 

 

 

 

Edited March 11, 2020 by Samurai Blue

[Chris Apolon]

I've found many owlstalkers criticise ANY and ALL articles written about Wednesday in the misguided opinion that that they themselves are journalists because they sit on owlstalk all day.

 

I come onto owlstalk to read other fans perspective on all things wednesday.

 

I read news articles to receive unbiased objective reporting.

 

The 2 are very very different

[@owlstalk]

2 minutes ago, Chris Apolon said:

I've found many owlstalkers criticise ANY and ALL articles written about Wednesday in the misguided opinion that that they themselves are journalists because they sit on owlstalk all day.

 

I come onto owlstalk to read other fans perspective on all things wednesday.

 

I read news articles to receive unbiased objective reporting.

 

The 2 are very very different

 

 

 

Bang on

[the mighty wednesday]

8 hours ago, mkowl said:

Think I have got my head around the numbers

 

Ignoring the stadium sale for a minute we made accounting losses over the 3 years of 10m, 20m and 35m. So a total of 65m.

 

For FFP that is reduced by 8m to 57m for allowable costs on infrastructure, the academy etc

 

The limit for losses is 39m so we are 18m over the limit. 

 

We however sell our stadium for 60m, creating a book profit of 38m. 

 

Our FFP losses become 57m - 38m = 19m.

 

We are now 20m below the limit. 

 

So theoretically the stadium sale transaction value could be as low as 40m and we are ok for that review period.

 

However it has to be remembered this is a continual 3 year rolling assessment so the benefit of the 60m stadium valuation is it stores up profit and you can make a bigger loss in the last season and this. 

 

So as we know the EFL are challenging both the date of recognition of the sale and the sales value. So basically even if we win on the first but lose on the 2nd we are just deferring a punishment 

This article is the first one I've seen that suggests that the valuation is being challenged in addition to the timing.

I'm fairly sure I have seen other articles which say that it is the timing rather than the valuation under scrutiny. Other reports seemed to have made a point of contrasting our case to Derby's which is solely the valuation.

[HarrowbyOwl]

Don't like the sound of "the EFL iis pressing on with a “revised timetable” that could still see the matter concluded before the last round of Championship fixtures on Saturday, May 2."