THE EFL HEARING THREAD

[Hodgyowl]

14 hours ago, modboy said:

 

Heard rumours "Sheffield 69" now own La chambre. Next season's sponsor? 

That will take some licking, best sponsor we've ever had if true

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

15 minutes ago, Plonk said:

Yes but we are dealing with the EFL here. Remember FF. Don’t care if you’ve been cleared in a court of law we think your guilty 

 

That had nothing to do with the EFL, though; it was an FA charge.

[pahowl]

This is a great read which considers the legal arguments behind ours and dcfc case :- 

it is complex to read but better than anything offered by so called football experts 

https://www.footballlaw.co.uk/articles/the-owls-and-the-rams 

[Modfather100]

1 hour ago, Plonk said:

Yes but we are dealing with the EFL here. Remember FF. Don’t care if you’ve been cleared in a court of law we think your guilty 

 

Its the same in any civil case. Criminal courts have a different burden of proof. It isn't a conspiracy against us.

 

Plus, once again, any sanctions will not be down to the EFL.

Edited July 26, 2020 by Modfather100

[Modfather100]

3 hours ago, owls-swfc said:

Sophie Ridge on Sunday,, wearing a nice blue dress today..... 

 

*sits wringing hands in anticipation*

 

Can I get this on catch up? Bada bing.

 

 

[Guest Ferkorf]

573 pages on, where are all the ITK members that were giving it the big one about me being wrong when I told you the case hadn't finished yet.

 

 

[royalowlisback]

23 minutes ago, pahowl said:

This is a great read which considers the legal arguments behind ours and dcfc case :- 

it is complex to read but better than anything offered by so called football experts 

https://www.footballlaw.co.uk/articles/the-owls-and-the-rams 

Reading that actually gives me more hope that we will 'get off'.

[Guest timrud]

2 hours ago, Plonk said:

Yes but we are dealing with the EFL here. Remember FF. Don’t care if you’ve been cleared in a court of law we think your guilty 

 

The struggle to understand two different standards of proof is real here.

 

Criminal Court - Beyond reasonable doubt

 

EFL - Balance of probabilities

[Guest mkowl]

36 minutes ago, pahowl said:

This is a great read which considers the legal arguments behind ours and dcfc case :- 

it is complex to read but better than anything offered by so called football experts 

https://www.footballlaw.co.uk/articles/the-owls-and-the-rams 

 

It is interesting stuff the legal bits. The point being if we have successfully argued this then phase 2 the date of the transaction and phase 3 the valuation presumably would not come into play IF that was documented in the original correspondence

 

But its no surprise to me if the argument is one about legal principles that this is taking so long. 

 

If you have ever sat in the middle of an argument between lawyers it is a sight to behold - unless you are paying for one of em.

 

 

[Guest mkowl]

2 minutes ago, timrud said:

 

The struggle to understand two different standards of proof is real here.

 

Criminal Court - Beyond reasonable doubt

 

EFL - Balance of probabilities

 

Really don't think this comes down to balance of probabilities - certainly if it gets to the Phase 2 stage  date of transaction it either is or it isn't because it is based on accounting convention and whether the evidence supports our view.

 

 

[HarrowbyOwl]

13 minutes ago, mkowl said:

 

Really don't think this comes down to balance of probabilities - certainly if it gets to the Phase 2 stage  date of transaction it either is or it isn't because it is based on accounting convention and whether the evidence supports our view.

 

 

On Radio Sheff yesterday Tom Horton was saying the strength of the estoppel defence would likely come down to the evidence of the EFLs agreement to the ground sale AND the assignment of the transaction to the 2017-18 accounts

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

58 minutes ago, Ferkorf said:

573 pages on, where are all the ITK members that were giving it the big one about me being wrong when I told you the case hadn't finished yet.

 

Ah, come on - name names.

 

Let's get this bunfight started!

 

[chorleyowl]

29 minutes ago, HarrowbyOwl said:

On Radio Sheff yesterday Tom Horton was saying the strength of the estoppel defence would likely come down to the evidence of the EFLs agreement to the ground sale AND the assignment of the transaction to the 2017-18 accounts

Yes that's what I thought he said. What do you think of 2017 - 2018 accounts transaction part mk? 

[keepitsteel89]

1 hour ago, pahowl said:

This is a great read which considers the legal arguments behind ours and dcfc case :- 

it is complex to read but better than anything offered by so called football experts 

https://www.footballlaw.co.uk/articles/the-owls-and-the-rams 

Estoppel By Representation..fancy way of saying "but he said it was cool"

[keepitsteel89]

3 minutes ago, chorleyowl said:

Yes that's what I thought he said. What do you think of 2017 - 2018 accounts transaction part mk? 

Won't the EFL prosecution be relying on estopple also though? Given the rules were already set out in place well before the stadium contracts

[Guest mkowl]

1 minute ago, chorleyowl said:

Yes that's what I thought he said. What do you think of 2017 - 2018 accounts transaction part mk? 

 

The reality is without access to the evidence it is impossible to make a judgement. 

 

Because it rests on what the contract says. I am less phased about the date the transaction was reported to Land Registry, or that the ultimate legal entity did not exist at the purported date or that the consideration is going to be paid in instalments. 

 

If there was an unconditional contract for sale / purchase at the year end date then it could be reported then, indeed probably should be then. That would be the tax point as far as HMRC are concerned. 

 

The flip side is it is quite unusual to have such a time gap between sale and legal completion. And when I have mentioned this case to other accountants there is a rolling of eyes 

 

However without access to the key documents - which I suspect will never see light of day - no one can actually give a definitive view.

 

Like I say I can see why this is taking time. Not quite the same process but anyone who has ever engaged with HMRC will tell you how technical this aspect can get. Notwithstanding the legal arguments preceding this are probably even more involved

 

 

[stocksyuto]

48 minutes ago, HarrowbyOwl said:

On Radio Sheff yesterday Tom Horton was saying the strength of the estoppel defence would likely come down to the evidence of the EFLs agreement to the ground sale AND the assignment of the transaction to the 2017-18 accounts

The club did bring out it's original statement they said they had email proof from someone at the efl to say they could do it. If that's true then how can we be found guilty with that evidence it's crazy.

[WalthamOwl]

1 minute ago, stocksyuto said:

The club did bring out it's original statement they said they had email proof from someone at the efl to say they could do it. If that's true then how can we be found guilty with that evidence it's crazy.

completely agree. The worrying thing though is if we do have that evidence why is the decision taking so long? Surely if we have evidence it should be pretty straight forward. 

[Jeffjohnsonmyhero]

someone in the EFL has dropped a clanger ,If we have a confirmed email ,They  have got out of it passed it on to another panel so the EFL looks clean ,I think Chansiri will sue the arse off the EFL if we get any points deduction ,If we have a email saying what we did was above board .

[HarrowbyOwl]

34 minutes ago, chorleyowl said:

Yes that's what I thought he said. What do you think of 2017 - 2018 accounts transaction part mk? 

The thing is, provided we can prove we have estoppel, it doesn’t matter about the rights and wrongs vis-a-vis the Companies Act and IFRS. If we have convincing evidence the EFL were cool with it that is enough