Essix Blue Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Just thinking why Derby’s case hasn’t been heard yet. How convenient it’d be if they got promoted first, eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Essix Blue Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Just now, ChapSmurf said: Or alternatively, have you considered that there is actually nothing to say at this point, or nothing that they can legally advise? Why do some of our fans just jump straight on to the back of the club if we don't get to hear any news, like it's some absolute right that fans must be kept in the loop at all times? It just baffles me. TBF to fans, we haven’t even been told officially the hearing is taking place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matt68owls Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 1 minute ago, Essix Blue said: Just thinking why Derby’s case hasn’t been heard yet. How convenient it’d be if they got promoted first, eh? when is Reading's hearing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S36 OWL Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, Essix Blue said: Just thinking why Derby’s case hasn’t been heard yet. How convenient it’d be if they got promoted first, eh? Ask Derby's chief exec, he's on the EFL board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upperwinngardensowl Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, dorian gray said: Christ where have you been? dc says he had 'authorisation' in writing to do what he did. 'authorisation' means you haven't 'broken the rules'. If thats the case it should have been an open and shut case, end of story. Obviously its not as clear cut as that 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daveyboy66 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 4 minutes ago, Essix Blue said: Just thinking why Derby’s case hasn’t been heard yet. How convenient it’d be if they got promoted first, eh? I think they were charged in October...so Xmas next year Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChapSmurf Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Just now, Essix Blue said: TBF to fans, we haven’t even been told officially the hearing is taking place. I'm fairly sure we have heard, although perhaps not officially. But why does the club need to tell us the hearing is taking place anyway? It doesn't actually affect us, does it, just the club we support? I know that's a bit of a contradiction, but we aren't actual stakeholders/shareholders in the company, just fans of the football club. There is a huge difference. It doesn't affect our investment or our own personal finances, but that of the business that controls the club we support. Don't get me wrong, I do agree that football is very different to other businesses, and the fans should be updated on things of this nature, but the club don't have to and probably can't until such times as a decision has been made, and can be made public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EcclesallOwl Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 (edited) Came back to see how much Neil’s struggling and all I can see are posts about Wednesday FFS Edited July 7, 2020 by EcclesallOwl 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Therealrealist Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 10 minutes ago, Bucksowl said: And to some Chansiri can do no right, the truth is some ware in the middle What has he done right? Not havin a dig just interested cus I can’t think of much.. new scoreboard new pitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gizowl Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 6 minutes ago, Essix Blue said: TBF to fans, we haven’t even been told officially the hearing is taking place. According to Sky after the game on Sunday the meeting had finished and were just waiting the panels decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChapSmurf Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 Just now, EcclesallOwl said: Came back to see how much Neil’s struggling and all I can see are posts about Wednesday FFS He still can't find his socks or shoes.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Grandad Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, ChapSmurf said: But why does the club need to tell us the hearing is taking place anyway? It doesn't actually affect us, does it, just the club we support? I know that's a bit of a contradiction, but we aren't actual stakeholders/shareholders in the company, just fans of the football club. There is a huge difference. It doesn't affect our investment or our own personal finances, but that of the business that controls the club we support. Anybody that holds that kind of view really doesnt understand football or its fans Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theowlsman Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 5 minutes ago, gizowl said: According to Sky after the game on Sunday the meeting had finished and were just waiting the panels decision. Is it a panel of women? Yes but no but yes but no. I’ve changed my mind again. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mogbad Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 All this blaming the EFL for delaying the procedure, which it may well have done but it could just as easily be the club or the clubs legal representatives that have delayed the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animis Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 27 minutes ago, mogbad said: No, the EFL don't have the authority to do that. It's interesting about the tactics from both parties - SWFC and the EFL leading up to the charges. SWFC, through the three then board Directors, agreed to delay the accounts. The two directors then resigned; one left altogether and the other stayed as FD. This left DC as the sole party to essentially sign off the delayed accounts, and presumably take the full responsibility for the actions of setting up the phantom company and selling (transferring) the ground to it and releasing £60m to off-set the debt. DC clearly only did this to satisfy the FFP rules. In the end, it's all his debt. The EFL tried to 'charge' the three directors with misconduct. I assume they thought there was a conspiracy and wanted to punish them from being directors of any football club in future? This failed and leaves the question about evidence and weight of the EFL case against all three, inarticulacy DC as the remaining director. I assume the other two former directors resigned to protect themselves, against any charges etc, which in the end wasn't required. What puzzles me is the jurisdiction of the EFL. They are after all just a 'club' with members, who sign up to their 'rules'. They clearly can not influence English Law in particularly Finance/Accountancy law. Providing SWFC have fulfilled all that is required under the Finance laws, SWFC and its director(s) are in the clear. In the end, the accounts, albeit delayed, were audited and signed-off and submitted to company's house. What processes SWFC failed to comply with under the EFL 'rules' remain to be seen. What I very much doubt is even if SWFC have broken any EFL 'rules', they won't have broken any laws. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sonofbert2 Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 8 minutes ago, Therealrealist said: What has he done right? Not havin a dig just interested cus I can’t think of much.. new scoreboard new pitch 1 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Grandad Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 3 minutes ago, Animis said: It's interesting about the tactics from both parties - SWFC and the EFL leading up to the charges. SWFC, through the three then board Directors, agreed to delay the accounts. The two directors then resigned; one left altogether and the other stayed as FD. This left DC as the sole party to essentially sign off the delayed accounts, and presumably take the full responsibility for the actions of setting up the phantom company and selling (transferring) the ground to it and releasing £60m to off-set the debt. DC clearly only did this to satisfy the FFP rules. In the end, it's all his debt. The EFL tried to 'charge' the three directors with misconduct. I assume they thought there was a conspiracy and wanted to punish them from being directors of any football club in future? This failed and leaves the question about evidence and weight of the EFL case against all three, inarticulacy DC as the remaining director. I assume the other two former directors resigned to protect themselves, against any charges etc, which in the end wasn't required. What puzzles me is the jurisdiction of the EFL. They are after all just a 'club' with members, who sign up to their 'rules'. They clearly can not influence English Law in particularly Finance/Accountancy law. Providing SWFC have fulfilled all that is required under the Finance laws, SWFC and its director(s) are in the clear. In the end, the accounts, albeit delayed, were audited and signed-off and submitted to company's house. What processes SWFC failed to comply with under the EFL 'rules' remain to be seen. What I very much doubt is even if SWFC have broken any EFL 'rules', they won't have broken any laws. It is entirely feasible that the 'club' (EFL) that we are a member of can have different rules that apply to its members that have stricter rules on finances than those set out in law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brommers Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 40 minutes ago, Manwë said: If we are sanctioned, and then relegated because we are docked points, how could we sue for damages? As a football club, we agree to the rules and regulations of the game in order to take part in the EFL structure, that includes spending and disciplinary rules. We are allowed to play football outside of the EFL structure if we choose, go back to Sheffield Rules football and play Hallam FC every week, or whatever, but we won't be playing in the EFL again. Can you imagine any other aspect of life where you agree to a set of rules, break them, and then ask those who hold the rules to pay you compensation for upholding them? If we've broken the rules, we'll be punished and rightly so. If we've not broken the rules, we won't be punished, and rightly so. Stop it with your common sense and logic. There's no place for it on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple O Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 40 minutes ago, Manwë said: If we are sanctioned, and then relegated because we are docked points, how could we sue for damages? As a football club, we agree to the rules and regulations of the game in order to take part in the EFL structure, that includes spending and disciplinary rules. We are allowed to play football outside of the EFL structure if we choose, go back to Sheffield Rules football and play Hallam FC every week, or whatever, but we won't be playing in the EFL again. Can you imagine any other aspect of life where you agree to a set of rules, break them, and then ask those who hold the rules to pay you compensation for upholding them? If we've broken the rules, we'll be punished and rightly so. If we've not broken the rules, we won't be punished, and rightly so. Maybe so but there is leave to appeal the decision and/or the penalty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChapSmurf Posted July 7, 2020 Share Posted July 7, 2020 7 minutes ago, Grandad said: Anybody that holds that kind of view really doesnt understand football or its fans Okay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts