Jump to content

THE EFL HEARING THREAD


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, Jeffjohnsonmyhero said:

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 .

 

Could be that we have an email from the EFL agreeing the sale, but nobody thought to put a date on which accounting year the sale was to be included in.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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.

 

 

 

Given that our legal representative on this case has seemingly been on holiday twice recently it does appear as though the case has finished as has been said and the panel is deliberating on the evidence presented and the outcome.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Jeffjohnsonmyhero said:

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 .

 

Maybe the EFL agreed with the stadium sale at the value placed on it, but when the documents were lodged with the EFL and they saw we had "sold" the stadium to a "company" which did not exist until a year after we claimed they bought it, the EFL smelled something fishy and said they were not having that  

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, mkowl said:

 

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

 

 

 I have thought for a while that DC held back on the legal completion as he didn't want it in th public domain until after the completion of the 2018/2019 season

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, mkowl said:

 

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

 

 

Cheers mk. Of course with the evidence we will never truly know. It does indicate a reason for the delay. It's complex and involves professionals making judgements. It is that though that makes me feel that even if found guilty a severe punishment would be seen as inappropriate? A charge of misconduct doesn't seem quite right if there is so much conjecture? 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

 I have thought for a while that DC held back on the legal completion as he didn't want it in th public domain until after the completion of the 2018/2019 season

 

Maybe with very good reason. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Given that our legal representative on this case has seemingly been on holiday twice recently it does appear as though the case has finished as has been said and the panel is deliberating on the evidence presented and the outcome.

 

If the panel are deliberating on the evidence presented and the outcome...........................................then the case isn't finished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, HarrowbyOwl said:

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

Yes that has been my view throughout. But why the delay if we don't need to go that far? Political/the Derby case etc. Perhaps this is far too hard for the panel. How can you give a harsh punishment for something so open to debate. If found guilty of course. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, twolaptops said:

This reported EFL email...................From : P Rudi.........................think the alarm bells should have rung !!!


Hey! I was careful to use someone else's account.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest timrud
2 hours 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.

 

 

 

Sorry - this was in relation to the comment made about FF

 

However, the financial proceedings we are facing are more of a regulatory nature and I agree are far more factual.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Hookowl said:

 

If the panel are deliberating on the evidence presented and the outcome...........................................then the case isn't finished.

 

If you read back through the posts that's not how it was inferred, but then it probably isn't worth the trouble across 570 pages of virtually nothing factual.

This might not be the longest thread on the site but so far has to be one of the most pointless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, chorleyowl said:

Cheers mk. Of course with the evidence we will never truly know. It does indicate a reason for the delay. It's complex and involves professionals making judgements. It is that though that makes me feel that even if found guilty a severe punishment would be seen as inappropriate? A charge of misconduct doesn't seem quite right if there is so much conjecture? 

 

 

 

Wouldn’t get too exercised about the word ‘misconduct’. Any breach of the EFL regulations or any order/direction of the EFL is classified as misconduct. So if you are referred to disciplinary proceedings it means ipso facto that you are charged with misconduct.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, HarrowbyOwl said:

 

Wouldn’t get too exercised about the word ‘misconduct’. Any breach of the EFL regulations or any order/direction of the EFL is classified as misconduct. So if you are referred to disciplinary proceedings it means ipso facto that you are charged with misconduct.

Ahhh. I see. I'm a retired teacher and misconduct in my world required ass kicking. Not literally I hasten to add. Haha. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rudi said:

"The Club has also notified the EFL that it stands ready to bring a claim against the EFL to obtain compensation for its conduct."

Could the delay be related to our counterclaim? 

 

Loads of "ifs" and "buts" here and this is another one. Essentially, the counterclaim was probably a defence against defamation of character so it's no surprise that the charges against DC and the other two were dropped like a hot potato.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if DC is also going down the "restraint of trade" route which might cause the EFL even more problems if DC wins.

 

For example, let's assume that someone buys a restaurant on London Road and then wants to spend £1m to make it the best eating hole in the city. The EFL equivalent might well be to prevent you investing that money because it is then to the detriment of your competitors on London Road.

 

It might be, therefore, that the FFP rules are not enforceable. Imagine that as an outcome particularly as Manchester City have had a similar argument with UEFA which was settled with a £10m "fine" and a handshake but no other sanctions were imposed.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Musn't Grumble said:

 

Loads of "ifs" and "buts" here and this is another one. Essentially, the counterclaim was probably a defence against defamation of character so it's no surprise that the charges against DC and the other two were dropped like a hot potato.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if DC is also going down the "restraint of trade" route which might cause the EFL even more problems if DC wins.

 

For example, let's assume that someone buys a restaurant on London Road and then wants to spend £1m to make it the best eating hole in the city. The EFL equivalent might well be to prevent you investing that money because it is then to the detriment of your competitors on London Road.

 

It might be, therefore, that the FFP rules are not enforceable. Imagine that as an outcome particularly as Manchester City have had a similar argument with UEFA which was settled with a £10m "fine" and a handshake but no other sanctions were imposed.

The restraint of trade stuff is absolute rubbish. Chansiri can spend what he likes on his business, it is his to do with what he wants. He just needs to resign Wednesday’s membership of the EFL and away he goes.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Musn't Grumble said:

 

Loads of "ifs" and "buts" here and this is another one. Essentially, the counterclaim was probably a defence against defamation of character so it's no surprise that the charges against DC and the other two were dropped like a hot potato.

 

It wouldn't surprise me if DC is also going down the "restraint of trade" route which might cause the EFL even more problems if DC wins.

 

For example, let's assume that someone buys a restaurant on London Road and then wants to spend £1m to make it the best eating hole in the city. The EFL equivalent might well be to prevent you investing that money because it is then to the detriment of your competitors on London Road.

 

It might be, therefore, that the FFP rules are not enforceable. Imagine that as an outcome particularly as Manchester City have had a similar argument with UEFA which was settled with a £10m "fine" and a handshake but no other sanctions were imposed.

The member clubs of the EFL are shareholders in the Football League Limited. So who is restraining who?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...