Nut Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 11 minutes ago, Animis said: This impact of this virus will cross two financial years, and the fixed costs (contracts); ground adjustments against the lack of revenue and tax re-calculations will be a nightmare for everyone not just football clubs. I can't see how the EFL can carry on measuring clubs on an out-of-date P&S criteria, when the world will look very different. Everyone will need to be cut some slack. And also the possibility that some tv money has to be repaid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanharper Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 Wasn't the deadline to impose a points deduction for this season the last weekend in March or something like that? That's clearly not going to happen as they obviously haven't even had the hearing yet. The season is going to be extended for at least another couple of months of course, but if that March date was set in the EFL rules they may not be able to arbitrarily change that - meaning there's a very real possibility of starting next season with a points deduction. Which would be worse than getting it this season imo, it'd put new players off signing for a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, alanharper said: Wasn't the deadline to impose a points deduction for this season the last weekend in March or something like that? That's clearly not going to happen as they obviously haven't even had the hearing yet. The season is going to be extended for at least another couple of months of course, but if that March date was set in the EFL rules they may not be able to arbitrarily change that - meaning there's a very real possibility of starting next season with a points deduction. Which would be worse than getting it this season imo, it'd put new players off signing for a start. No deadline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogbad Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 58 minutes ago, Royal_D said: Again, I’d like to know how the EFL still have a case ? If our accounts are been accepted and Chansiri has done nothing wrong in terms of ‘fudging’ them for want of a Better word ... how have we failed FFP ? This. At the time of the charges being made the basis of the charge against the club was the inclusion of the stadium sale in the 31st July 2018 accounts, no reference was made to the stadium valuation. Now the EFL have withdrawn all charges against the 3 individuals we have to presume that the stadium sale inclusion in the said accounts is all legal & above board. I'm struggling to see why the case against the club would continue unless the stadium value is being argued. Even then the EFL must have agreed the stadium valuation with the club at some point in the process to accept the accounts & lift the transfer embargo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animis Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 7 minutes ago, mogbad said: This. At the time of the charges being made the basis of the charge against the club was the inclusion of the stadium sale in the 31st July 2018 accounts, no reference was made to the stadium valuation. Now the EFL have withdrawn all charges against the 3 individuals we have to presume that the stadium sale inclusion in the said accounts is all legal & above board. I'm struggling to see why the case against the club would continue unless the stadium value is being argued. Even then the EFL must have agreed the stadium valuation with the club at some point in the process to accept the accounts & lift the transfer embargo. My understanding from the EFL rules, is that they can assess the ground sale valuation once the accounts are issued to them, but this would have to done by their own surveyors. It's unlikely; almost unknown, other than in cases of discipline by the RICS (regulative body) where expert witnesses are called, that another surveying practice would go against a practice's signed off valuation. I don't know who did the 2019 valuation, but LSH did the 2015 one. LSH are an international renowned surveying practice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarrowbyOwl Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 2 hours ago, Striggy said: It may be just me misunderstanding but the Statement to me does not suggest that the arbitration has been concluded, but that the EFL have written to the club dropping the charges having seem the evidence disclosed. Is the club going on to a hearing the final stages of the arbitration regarding charges against the club only now that individual charges have been withdrawn. Really not sure? That’s how I read it. SWFC still contesting (before the arbitration panel) the authority of the EFL to bring disciplinary charges against the club only now the charges against the individuals have been dropped 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitcat Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, HarrowbyOwl said: That’s how I read it. SWFC still contesting (before the arbitration panel) the authority of the EFL to bring disciplinary charges against the club only now the charges against the individuals have been dropped But the individuals were the club...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nero Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 36 minutes ago, alanharper said: Wasn't the deadline to impose a points deduction for this season the last weekend in March or something like that? That's clearly not going to happen as they obviously haven't even had the hearing yet. The season is going to be extended for at least another couple of months of course, but if that March date was set in the EFL rules they may not be able to arbitrarily change that - meaning there's a very real possibility of starting next season with a points deduction. Which would be worse than getting it this season imo, it'd put new players off signing for a start. Birmingham deduction landed 22nd March Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nero Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 5 minutes ago, Hitcat said: But the individuals were the club...... Acting on behalf of the club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarrowbyOwl Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Hitcat said: But the individuals were the club...... Not really. The club is a legal entity in its own right. The misconduct clauses in the EFL rules are very specific about misconduct charges applying to either ‘clubs, officers and players’ or clubs only Edited March 21, 2020 by HarrowbyOwl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animis Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 2 minutes ago, Hitcat said: But the individuals were the club...... That's how I read it - unless the EFL were investigating the three directors 'conduct', as opposed to the club's process. I always thought the charges were for going against the 'spirit' of the EFL rules. That can only be done by the Directors of the club and not some administrative mistake? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitcat Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 6 minutes ago, HarrowbyOwl said: Not really. The club is a legal entity in its own right. The misconduct clauses in the EFL rules are very specific about misconduct charges applying to either ‘clubs, officers and players’ or clubs only It is, but it can only be judged on the decisions made for it by others. Redgate, Meire and Chansiri were responsible for signing off the finances, selling the ground and also the decision to file the profit in the previous year's accounts.. if they've been cleared of wrongdoing, how on earth can they still charge the club? They were the decision makers. Surely they'd need to be guilty for the club to be guilty.. please correct me if I'm wrong, I might be totally missing something obvious!? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitcat Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 10 minutes ago, Animis said: That's how I read it - unless the EFL were investigating the three directors 'conduct', as opposed to the club's process. I always thought the charges were for going against the 'spirit' of the EFL rules. That can only be done by the Directors of the club and not some administrative mistake? Exactly... It's baffling to me how you can drop the charges against the decision makers but not the club that clearly doesn't have a say.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nbupperthongowl Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 1 hour ago, sweetsheri said: Thing is if this lasts well into the autumn then the league rules on P&S will be worthless. Clubs don’t have any revenue coming in.. we are all going to break the rules. Cancel ffp for 19/20 season, so any losses allowed... Wednesday buy the stadium back off DC for £100m which becomes the valuation of the ground, buy a shed load of players and post a £120 m loss nobody cares about...we still have the ground to sell again next season Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hitcat Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 1 minute ago, nbupperthongowl said: Cancel ffp for 19/20 season, so any losses allowed... Wednesday buy the stadium back off DC for £100m which becomes the valuation of the ground, buy a shed load of players and post a £120 m loss nobody cares about...we still have the ground to sell again next season Good plan, but I'm guessing they've closed that ground sale loophole, the buggers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
soldierboyblue Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 1 hour ago, ChinaOwl said: The idea that Chansiri should sue the EFL for bringing charges against him is crass and unimaginable. It would have legal implications for millions of cases where plaintiffs or defendants have had charges placed against them and then dropped or found not guilty. It would raise the bar in terms of what constituted a violation and, if applied in common law, would result in thousands of cases being dropped by the CPS in fear of legal implications if the case is not proven. It is already difficult enough to bring charges against some offenders without making it worse. It would also affect the "no win, no fee" concept operated by legal firms. That would impact on low income victims seeking justice. But these weren’t criminal charges these were brought by an unanswerable EFL not the CPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mus Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 Call me thick, but were there two sets of differing charges, one against the club and one against individuals? If so, what was the difference? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animis Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 15 minutes ago, Hitcat said: It is, but it can only be judged on the decisions made for it by others. Redgate, Meire and Chansiri were responsible for signing off the finances, selling the ground and also the decision to file the profit in the previous year's accounts.. if they've been cleared of wrongdoing, how on earth can they still charge the club? They were the decision makers. Surely they'd need to be guilty for the club to be guilty.. please correct me if I'm wrong, I might be totally missing something obvious!? Timings are interesting as well - Redgate and Meire had already resigned as Directors when we (eventually) filled the accounts in June/July 2019. DC was the only signature on the accounts, and he would have relied on the auditors sign-off before signing. I always thought investigating Redgate and Meire was odd due to the above, but as they've not only dropped any further investigate into them, but also DC, implies to me that the EFL don't believe DC did anything wrong up to submitting the accounts, at which the new company was already set up, albeit in name. I can only see the valuers; accountants and auditors having to answer anything here, and I think they're already covered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinaOwl Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 1 minute ago, soldierboyblue said: But these weren’t criminal charges these were brought by an unanswerable EFL not the CPS I am not making any judgement on guilt or otherwise here. The point is possible legal precedent. Organisations in both public and private cases issue charges. That does not mean that they are saying that the plaintiff or defendant is guilty. They are issuing charges. Chansiri and the other two named persons were charged. If it ever came to the point that a defendant or plaintiff could sue for defamation when cases are dropped or unproven, it would open up floodgates that I guarantee would not be of benefit to any of us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jack Posted March 21, 2020 Share Posted March 21, 2020 (edited) Somebody is going to sue the EFL over their FFP rules due to their ambiguity and inconsistencies. The farce around FFP and parachute payments cannot continue. Are we to be that test case?? Edited March 21, 2020 by Big Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now