Jump to content
@owlstalk

EFL drop some of the charges

Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:


 

 

THERE IS NO BOY NEV

 

THE BOY DOES NOT EXIST

Schrodingers boy?

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, nevthelodgemoorowl said:

OK let me put it simply, as I say I'm not a legal bod. 

 

A boy walks past your front garden and bangs a brick through your window.

 

The police arrest a boy and charge him with criminal damage.

 

At court the judge proclaims there is insufficient evidence to obtain a conviction.

 

The police immediately leave the court building and arrest the brick.

 

Ultimately any further charge has to be against individual or individuals acting on behalf of the club. If not Mr Chansiri, Ms Meire and Mr Redgate   then who ?

Well I’m encouraged. Presumably they are the only people who could have misled the EFL. And if they have done nothing wrong then how can the club? Fingers crossed. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, lanzaroteowl said:

Oh no!!!

What are the DC haters going to do now?

What if we whup them on the charges against the club?

They'll be jumping off buildings or licking hand rails!

DC dislikers will be happy. But the bigger picture doesn’t change.,

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, rickygoo said:

And if they have done nothing wrong then how can the club? 


 

No no no

 

That isn’t how it works

 

The three individuals getting cleared is a totally separate issue 
 

They got cleared of individually doing stuff they shouldn’t have that broke EFL rules. The EFL has said sorry and let them go (rightly) 

 

‘The club’ Is still being charged with breaching FFP spending regulations 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:


 

Probably get back to moaning about ticket pricing, quality of football, getting spanked 5-0 every week, shirt prices, league position, current form, our record in the transfer market, why players are frozen out etc etc etc etc 

 

etc

 

etc

 

Set of moaning lobbers

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don’t really have to turn this into a DC hater / defender argument do we 

 

pretty boring that 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, darra said:

Schrodingers boy?


Apparently the boy didn’t exist; but he did have a cat. Go figure!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:


 

No no no

 

That isn’t how it works

 

The three individuals getting cleared is a totally separate issue 
 

They got cleared of individually doing stuff they shouldn’t have that broke EFL rules. The EFL has said sorry and let them go (rightly) 

 

‘The club’ Is still being charged with breaching FFP spending regulations 

But that breach involves the ground sale doesn’t it? A ground sale that was allegedly agreed as pukka by the EFL.

 

If no individual acted improperly when it came to the ground sale, it means at the very least it’s more likely that the club didn’t act improperly given the club can only act via its officers. It’s encouraging surely. Please allow me a bit of cheer in these tough times! 

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:


 

From my bedroom window I can hear a massive party going on on the next road

 

Sounds like thirty or fourty there having a mass Covid19 infect each other karaoke party

 

Theyre singing Human League songs currently 

 

Don’t know whats sadder.. their lack of singing, or knowing their actions could impact on their families in a week or so’s time

 

And with that lovely news I will bid you all goodnight from Owlstalk HQ

Sleep well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems to me, the efl did make alligations of the three mentioned, not fit to run a football club....and they could be banned for having any involvement in football.

They, the efl, now have dropped the alligations...and all three are free to carry on.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its a good start. Disappointing to see the other charge moving to a hearing though. 

 

I wonder what the EFL's case is? Transaction discussed and approved by EFL beforehand, accounts including transaction submitted, ratified and embargo lifted. Dropping individual charges proves directors did nothing before or subsequently to mislead EFL. 

 

Whether or not the EFL didnt like the timing of the transaction  (surely they were absolutely aware of our financial position and intentions, given embargoes and having to submit financials and seek permission to recruit) how can we then be held to a different set of standards (not that any explicit EFL rules existed at the time regarding FFP/stadium sales) than is lawful in the UK and HMRC compliant.

 

I got the sense with the recent leak by EFL they were struggling and sincerely hope we prevail in the outstanding case and show them up for the incompetent organisation they are.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Efl had to drop the charges with what has been going on recently.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm beginning to think this site is totally populated by Blunts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

But that breach involves the ground sale doesn’t it? A ground sale that was allegedly agreed as pukka by the EFL.

 

If no individual acted improperly when it came to the ground sale, it means at the very least it’s more likely that the club didn’t act improperly given the club can only act via its officers. It’s encouraging surely. Please allow me a bit of cheer in these tough times! 

 

Getting you a Chansiri scarf if we make through to Christmas lol 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ronio said:

The Efl had to drop the charges with what has been going on recently.  


Or, as per the statement, “there was no proper basis for the charges. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Key said:


Or, as per the statement, “there was no proper basis for the charges. 

 

 

Possibly, but I still think with the events going on at the moment, the Efl's backs are against the wall.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

But that breach involves the ground sale doesn’t it? A ground sale that was allegedly agreed as pukka by the EFL.

 

If no individual acted improperly when it came to the ground sale, it means at the very least it’s more likely that the club didn’t act improperly given the club can only act via its officers. It’s encouraging surely. Please allow me a bit of cheer in these tough times! 

Good point. As I understand, sale of stadiums not prohibited at the time of sale, an oversight by EFL, exploited by a number of clubs and they dont like being shown up. 

 

What EFL rule have we broken?

 

If the transaction is lawful and HMRC compliant, on what grounds can the EFL refuse professionally audited accounts to apply their own interpretation? (Notwithstanding the fact the transaction was discussed, agreed and accounts ratified)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ronio said:

Possibly, but I still think with the events going on at the moment, the Efl's backs are against the wall.  

 

 


So you think the EFL are dropping the case against the three individuals because of Coronavirus, but they are going ahead with the case against the club despite Coronavirus. How does that make any sense?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
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...