Jump to content

Article on The Athletic


Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, The only way is S6 said:

 

Would you prefer it if he just accepted the charges, even if they were unlawful, took a points deduction and relegation, just to maintain our morals? Look at us everybody, we did everything by the book, rolled over & got tickled, and we're off to Exeter City this weekend. 

Nobody is pleased with his handling, but if the EFL sanctioned everything, why shouldn't we contest it?

 

I'd rather we conducted ourselves with competence, integrity and dignity in the first instance.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

so it seems the main complainent's are the four clubs that had and probably wasted their parachute payments ,

 

Among those threatened with the drop are Huddersfield Town, Hull City, Middlesbrough and Stoke City, four teams with recent Premier League experience and owners who have robust views on the EFL’s spending regulations, while the sides currently in the relegation places,

sour grapes perhaps because they failed to utilize their rewards for relegation and begrudge Wednesday for trying to compete with their hand outs ,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, DJMortimer said:

 

I'd rather we conducted ourselves with competence, integrity and dignity in the first instance.

 

Too late I'm afraid. And it doesn't strike me as a common trait amongst Championship club owners, DC included. All he did was follow the lead of a number of clubs who did the same. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shouldn’t the EFL be concentrating on proving there charges are lawful .?  Rather than getting excited about a points deduction the independent panel may not even reward ?

 

Bit of a nothing article that to be honest 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

A post event investigation that resulted in charges that the EFL were misled. 


They need to prove they were ‘misled’ though as much as we need to prove we acted with good intentions,   Wide open case 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Triple O said:

The Athletic obviously read Owlstalk. Nothing in that article which hasn't been suggested, at some stage, on here lol

Would agree, except for a couple of interesting details

1) naming of ex EFL CEO Shaun Harvey as the person involved in agreeing to the ground sale price

2) the bit about “forcing the EFL to defend its stance in two arbitration hearings.” Given that arbitration judgements are binding and can’t be appealed that is a bit of a puzzle

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cowl said:

 

You've not read the article then? It states this is what the EFL and some other Championship clubs want the punishment to be.

In that case it's a good job they don't have the right to decide our guilt or the penalty.

 

They would also have penalised Birmingham who have just effectively been let off by the independent panel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very good article which details what all of us already know but in a logical format. 
Still doesn’t take us forward or really give any real clue as to what the outcome will be or when. 
But I agree with others that, even if we get away with this or just receive a points deduction we’ll below 21 points, it makes us look pretty grubby. We already have enough lack of goodwill because of the 1989 disaster and all the inquiries and court cases (whether fair or otherwise).

 

We just don’t need this and the result of all the expenditure on the team, without a points deduction, is heading us towards another spell in the third tier rather than promotion to the Premier League. 
 

I think my Father and most of our Fathers would be holding their heads in shame. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, nevthelodgemoorowl said:

Signed off in agreement by EFL rep. Guess we'll have to disagree.  

I’m not agreeing or disagreeing with the EFL. I haven’t seen the evidence.

 

If they were misled the fact that they signed off on it is somewhere between irrelevant and something that makes things worse because they were actively deceived. If they weren’t then all is well. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Royal_D said:


They need to prove they were ‘misled’ though as much as we need to prove we acted with good intentions,   Wide open case 

Indeed. We have no way of knowing. I’m guessing we’ll win - Chansiri convinced the auditors after all - but it’s all evidence of an incompetently run club. 

 

The biggest puzzle for me is Chansiri suggesting we were up poo creek re FFP when he had apparently already sorted it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, DJMortimer said:

 

I'd rather we conducted ourselves with competence, integrity and dignity in the first instance.

I said exactly the same on here at the weekend and was slagged off for it ..... I want a transparent.. honest...fan friendly club .......if chansiri has been corrupt and shady in his dealings...I hope the EFL name and shame him...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article talks about the ground sale valuation. I understood that the charge did not relate to the valuation, only the timing of the sale.

This article also puts great store on the fact that the company that now owns the ground did not exist before the sale. I believe one or two Owlstalk accountants has suggested that this need not be an issue if there was an intention to sell the ground during the accounting period.

 

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...