THE EFL HEARING THREAD

[Sheff74]

5 minutes ago, Jim said:

I don’t see how the club would’ve gone ahead and done this without seeking permission and clarity from the EFL? During the initial process the club were under a transfer embargo which was then lifted once it all went through. You would’ve thought everything did comply with EFL regulations otherwise the transfer embargo wouldn’t have been lifted? As has also been pointed out on here, various professional organisations where professionalism and integrity are paramount would’ve been involved in the process, so in charging the club the EFL are arguably questioning them as well. Personally I would be amazed if this doesn’t go in our favour and if it doesn’t I can’t see us getting hammered in the way a lot on here are expecting?

 

That all makes sense, but the worrying aspect is that the EFL stated that 'new evidence' had come to light after they had ratified everything. This could suggest that some sort of skullduggery was involved, and I also think that they would look rather stupid to pursue a case, after they had already given the green light, unless they were absolutely sure. If authorisation was given to backdate the stadium sale, then the EFL are effectively undermining themselves by pursuing this, unless there is evidence that this done in an improper manner, and the club are somehow complicit.

 

The fact that the EFL employee involved has allegedly moved on, and the fact that Chansiri regularly referenced 'friends in the EFL' is what I consider to most worrying. Suggesting a man on the inside, type situation.

 

Then again, you consider that the individual charges were dropped, so on the face of it that is quite positive, but then they persist with charging the club, presumably because it is easier to press one case than the 3 other individual ones.

 

Who knows? This whole thing is making my brain ache to be honest.

[room0035]

10 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

You were doing ok till you said that mate

 

 

Ridiculous thing to say

Investment means you have improved something. 

 

Brentford over the last 5 years have invested in their recruitment, their team and are moving into a new stadium that is investment

 

 

In the 5 years under DC he has SPENT in excess of £100m

 

We are homeless having to sell the stadium to cover his losses, we have a team full of kids, frees and loans because all the money wasted on recruitment will be  leaving in 10 days. We are not allowed to watch games at our stadium (before Co Vid) because big section are not deemed safe.

 

Where has DC improved the football club with his investment?? 

[WalthamOwl]

4 minutes ago, Sheff74 said:

 

That all makes sense, but the worrying aspect is that the EFL stated that 'new evidence' had come to light after they had ratified everything. This could suggest that some sort of skullduggery was involved, and I also think that they would look rather stupid to pursue a case, after they had already given the green light, unless they were absolutely sure. If authorisation was given to backdate the stadium sale, then the EFL are effectively undermining themselves by pursuing this, unless there is evidence that this done in an improper manner, and the club are somehow complicit.

 

The fact that the EFL employee involved has allegedly moved on, and the fact that Chansiri regularly referenced 'friends in the EFL' is what I consider to most worrying. Suggesting a man on the inside, type situation.

 

Then again, you consider that the individual charges were dropped, so on the face of it that is quite positive, but then they persist with charging the club, presumably because it is easier to press one case than the 3 other individual ones.

 

Who knows? This whole thing is making my brain ache to be honest.

very good post. Yes the ‘new evidence’ is the thing that is a massive worry. 

Edited June 24, 2020 by WalthamOwl

[room0035]

9 minutes ago, Minton said:

 

Where on earth are you getting that £100m on players who are no longer here figure from? It's certainly not from transfers and even if you include wages.

We have a wage bill in the last filed account of £40m+ (2017/18), last season that figure will have been similar, this season too and the two previous to that we have signed Hooper, Fessi, Matias, Rhodes , JVA, Hunt, Pudil, Abdi.

 

I think £100m is probably a little on the low side.

[Burnsie]

5 minutes ago, room0035 said:

Investment means you have improved something. 

 

Brentford over the last 5 years have invested in their recruitment, their team and are moving into a new stadium that is investment

 

 

In the 5 years under DC he has SPENT in excess of £100m

 

We are homeless having to sell the stadium to cover his losses, we have a team full of kids, frees and loans because all the money wasted on recruitment will be  leaving in 10 days. We are not allowed to watch games at our stadium (before Co Vid) because big section are not deemed safe.

 

Where has DC improved the football club with his investment?? 

Pitch. TV scree. Ermmm... Porter cabins

[striker]

13 minutes ago, Jim said:

I don’t see how the club would’ve gone ahead and done this without seeking permission and clarity from the EFL? During the initial process the club were under a transfer embargo which was then lifted once it all went through. You would’ve thought everything did comply with EFL regulations otherwise the transfer embargo wouldn’t have been lifted? As has also been pointed out on here, various professional organisations where professionalism and integrity are paramount would’ve been involved in the process, so in charging the club the EFL are arguably questioning them as well. Personally I would be amazed if this doesn’t go in our favour and if it doesn’t I can’t see us getting hammered in the way a lot on here are expecting?

I made that point the other day and it's relevant. My assumption is that regulations are trying to be interpreted differently in retrospect after they agreed to it. 

 

Our defence is that we made decisions on information from the EFL which could be reasonably relied on. In court, I'm confident we would win but remain sceptical of the independence of the 'independent' panel. If (and I dont think it will) it goes against us, think we have a very strong case for appeal.

[room0035]

I just think a lot of people mistake the word investment with spending.

 

When you invest you look to improve what you have, or in money turns look to gain a profit from it.

 

When you spend you pay for good and services.

 

There is no doubting DC has spent a lot of money

[Minton]

13 minutes ago, room0035 said:

We have a wage bill in the last filed account of £40m+ (2017/18), last season that figure will have been similar, this season too and the two previous to that we have signed Hooper, Fessi, Matias, Rhodes , JVA, Hunt, Pudil, Abdi.

 

I think £100m is probably a little on the low side.

 

But that is part of running a club and you're using our outgoings without considering any income for starters and using the argument I quoted, any club not winning promotion has wasted the figure they have going out.

 

You can argue that the signings we made weren't any good, but for someone to be claiming we have wasted £100m on players no longer at the club is misleading. Even the EFL aren't claiming we have lost a figure of that magnitude.

Edited June 24, 2020 by Minton

[pioowl]

4 minutes ago, room0035 said:

Investment means you have improved something. 

 

Brentford over the last 5 years have invested in their recruitment, their team and are moving into a new stadium that is investment

 

 

In the 5 years under DC he has SPENT in excess of £100m

 

We are homeless having to sell the stadium to cover his losses, we have a team full of kids, frees and loans because all the money wasted on recruitment will be  leaving in 10 days. We are not allowed to watch games at our stadium (before Co Vid) because big section are not deemed safe.

 

Where has DC improved the football club with his investment?? 

Investment is supplying funds hoping the business will benefit from it.The club is not homeless.The clubs  owner owns the stadium which is certainly not unsafe.The little bit about Brentford is partly true!!

[punkskaphil]

2 minutes ago, room0035 said:

I just think a lot of people mistake the word investment with spending.

 

When you invest you look to improve what you have, or in money turns look to gain a profit from it.

 

When you spend you pay for good and services.

 

There is no doubting DC has spent a lot of money

 

You're getting "investment" mixed up with "investment that ultimately succeeds". Two very different things. And it's very easy to invest money when you have the benefit of hindsight, or do you think DC has invested his money in the hope/expectation that it'll end in failure?

[Jim]

16 minutes ago, Sheff74 said:

 

That all makes sense, but the worrying aspect is that the EFL stated that 'new evidence' had come to light after they had ratified everything. This could suggest that some sort of skullduggery was involved, and I also think that they would look rather stupid to pursue a case, after they had already given the green light, unless they were absolutely sure. If authorisation was given to backdate the stadium sale, then the EFL are effectively undermining themselves by pursuing this, unless there is evidence that this done in an improper manner, and the club are somehow complicit.

 

The fact that the EFL employee involved has allegedly moved on, and the fact that Chansiri regularly referenced 'friends in the EFL' is what I consider to most worrying. Suggesting a man on the inside, type situation.

 

Then again, you consider that the individual charges were dropped, so on the face of it that is quite positive, but then they persist with charging the club, presumably because it is easier to press one case than the 3 other individual ones.

 

Who knows? This whole thing is making my brain ache to be honest.

 

All fair points but I think for whatever reason the EFL have been placed under pressure from other clubs in the championship? Don’t forget it’s not just us, Derby have been charged for something similar. I think Reading are under investigation? Should Villa come down, I think they’ll be under scrutiny?

 

I think the EFL have got to be very careful? We’re living in very uncertain financial times and the very structure and maybe existence of the EFL is at risk? I think it’s a very dangerous game to play when you’re seen as going after Clubs who are ambitious but still paying the bills which will be more paramount than ever now? If the EFL’s determination to see Wednesday found guilty for whatever they are deemed to have done sees Wednesday face serious financial problems and ultimately sees them go to the wall then the P&S rules have done exactly what they are supposed to prevent?

[room0035]

8 minutes ago, pioowl said:

Investment is supplying funds hoping the business will benefit from it.The club is not homeless.The clubs  owner owns the stadium which is certainly not unsafe.The little bit about Brentford is partly true!!

 

We no longer own our stadium another person/company does that makes us homeless or at best tenants. Too often in football chairman separate the club from the ground and often it does not end well.

[Spookone]

45 minutes ago, room0035 said:

 

 

DC has made no investment in the club.

 

 

 

[bigthinrob]

6 minutes ago, room0035 said:

I just think a lot of people mistake the word investment with spending.

 

When you invest you look to improve what you have, or in money turns look to gain a profit from it.

 

When you spend you pay for good and services.

 

There is no doubting DC has spent a lot of money

Your actual definition is not far from the mark.

 

Where your argument falls down is that your opinion (like a lot on here) is purely based on hindsight.

 

Do you seriously think that for one minute, DC throwing money at it, was for any other reason than his belief (if now seen as misguided) that his spending would IMPROVE what we had, get promotion and subsequently GAIN A PROFIT FROM IT.

 

It is ridiculously easy to judge any event from football to the response to Covid after events have already unfolded.

[Guest Grandad]

I must admit - Ive criticised the Chairman for the last 3 years - but I don't think for one minute I'd try to argue hes not invested in the club  

 

 

Brave move  

[bigthinrob]

9 minutes ago, punkskaphil said:

 

You're getting "investment" mixed up with "investment that ultimately succeeds". Two very different things. And it's very easy to invest money when you have the benefit of hindsight, or do you think DC has invested his money in the hope/expectation that it'll end in failure?

Sorry mate, done it again.

 

Made a point further down that had already been covered.

 

I need to learn to type faster. 

[Minton]

6 minutes ago, room0035 said:

 

We no longer own our stadium another person/company does that makes us homeless or at best tenants. Too often in football chairman separate the club from the ground and often it does not end well.

 

Not many clubs in the UK fully own their stadia. I can think of Bolton, Coventry and Bury that have had issues, but who are the others that quantify it "often" not ending well? 

Edited June 24, 2020 by Minton

[room0035]

11 minutes ago, Minton said:

 

But that is part of running a club and you're using our outgoings without considering any income for starters and using the argument I quoted, any club not winning promotion has wasted the figure they have going out.

 

You can argue that the signings we made weren't any good, but for someone to be claiming we have wasted £100m on players no longer at the club is misleading. Even the EFL aren't claiming we have lost a figure of that magnitude.

in 2015/16 we got to Wembley 

 

With a team made up of a lot of loan players that we eventually signed, Pudil, Forestieri, Hooper, Lopez, Turner, Mcgeagy that season that ended in Wembley we as a club spent £19.2m on players and club staff wages, in 2016/17 that figure had increased to £29.3m, in 2017/18 season that figure was up to £42.4m this does not include players transfer fee so up to the 2017/18 season we had spent £91m on wages alone.

 

The playing squad from the play off final season after 1st July still at the club Bannan, Westwood, Palmer, Lees, Lee all signed on frees, after that season we signed Abdi, Rhodes, Reach, JVA. We paid big figures for loan deals for Murphy, Wickham, Windass, McManaman, Hector Omamah to name a few.

 

 

[nbupperthongowl]

12 minutes ago, Jim said:

 

All fair points but I think for whatever reason the EFL have been placed under pressure from other clubs in the championship? Don’t forget it’s not just us, Derby have been charged for something similar. I think Reading are under investigation? Should Villa come down, I think they’ll be under scrutiny?

 

I think the EFL have got to be very careful? We’re living in very uncertain financial times and the very structure and maybe existence of the EFL is at risk? I think it’s a very dangerous game to play when you’re seen as going after Clubs who are ambitious but still paying the bills which will be more paramount than ever now? If the EFL’s determination to see Wednesday found guilty for whatever they are deemed to have done sees Wednesday face serious financial problems and ultimately sees them go to the wall then the P&S rules have done exactly what they are supposed to prevent?

A balanced view, it would be very difficult for them to relegate a club who is supported financially by an owner into a league which they know probably won't exist next season, thereby potentially causing us to fold. What then happens if a championship club folds, do we stay up?

 

I wonder if a cocktail of a smaller points deduction, a fine, suspended future penalties and a hard umbongo would work for all parties?

[bigthinrob]

8 minutes ago, Jim said:

 

All fair points but I think for whatever reason the EFL have been placed under pressure from other clubs in the championship? Don’t forget it’s not just us, Derby have been charged for something similar. I think Reading are under investigation? Should Villa come down, I think they’ll be under scrutiny?

 

I think the EFL have got to be very careful? We’re living in very uncertain financial times and the very structure and maybe existence of the EFL is at risk? I think it’s a very dangerous game to play when you’re seen as going after Clubs who are ambitious but still paying the bills which will be more paramount than ever now? If the EFL’s determination to see Wednesday found guilty for whatever they are deemed to have done sees Wednesday face serious financial problems and ultimately sees them go to the wall then the P&S rules have done exactly what they are supposed to prevent?

I think you're absolutely right mate.

 

I also happen to think the EFL are on very dodgy ground here.

 

They remind me of the EU in a lot of ways. Threats, warnings, more threats until we are brainwashed into thinking 'we can't win'.

 

Stand up to them, throw their threats back in their faces & they shrink like any bullies.

 

The EFL in bringing the case forward to placate Steve Gibson & some bitter 6 fingered types who are already doomed regardless, shows the nature of the EFL beast. 

 

I also wonder whether they have come across someone as stubborn as DC (and the Derby protagonists) not to mention the money on Barristers he will be willing to throw at it.

 

The EFL can't back out now, they'd lose face, but they will see our case, they will see the might of Derby's case looming and be thinking "what have we taken on here".

 

They have already lost the first round. I fully expect an agreement where we allow our wrist to be tickled but it be called a "slap" accept a token punishment & move on.

 

I also happen to think it will mark the beginning of the end (to quote Churchill) of the current structure and modus operandi of the EFL and not before time.