THE EFL HEARING THREAD

[owls-swfc]

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.

I detect that you are borderline, or on the edge of grumbling,. but you musn't! 

[owls-swfc]

Is it just me?... Or is our QC living in some alternative parallel universe or existence........ 

[owls-swfc]

* Sets radio alarm for Sonny and Cher wake up call.... *

[daveyboy66]

16 minutes ago, owls-swfc said:

I detect that you are borderline, or on the edge of grumbling,. but you musn't! 

No he's done his job, got paid and went on holiday like we all do...

[Essix Blue]

7 hours 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.

Depends who the email was from and if that person had the authority to give the ok. 

[darra]

Jeff Peters on the radio last night talking about the championship and spoke about the team's relegated. Mentioned us and a possible points deduction. His take on it was that if we were to get a reduction it wouldn't be enough to relegate us.

[Brad_owl]

8 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.

 

 

My "guess" is the original issue has been concluded with zero points deduction but a whopping fine.

 

As for what is holding up the announcement, it can only be either an appeal or something to do with Derbys case as it has similarities. 

[Guest Ferkorf]

6 hours 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.

Yep....

think you have misunderstood what I was relating to...

Which was around 3 weeks ago a few people said the case was done, what is the hold up etc..

I told them the case wasn't finished at that time, which it wasn't.

Hence why I was asking where they all are now with their made up stories.

 

[Essix Blue]

46 minutes ago, Ferkorf said:

Yep....

think you have misunderstood what I was relating to...

Which was around 3 weeks ago a few people said the case was done, what is the hold up etc..

I told them the case wasn't finished at that time, which it wasn't.

Hence why I was asking where they all are now with their made up stories.

 

I’m still here and I believe the case was finished a few weeks ago. 
 

time will tell......

[Animis]

7 hours 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

 

This is quite possible. In fact, it's unlikely DC got out of bed on the 31st July 2019 and thought, I know, I'll flog the stadium  to myself...

 

He may have been considering the sale for a long time, and it's possibly why the two Directors resigned in Feb 2019, so they distanced themselves from the proposals. 

 

If so, you'd have thought the 'deal' and agreement would have been prepared diligently by accountants and lawyers for some time, not on some fag packet. 

[Kew Owl]

1 hour ago, Essix Blue said:

Depends who the email was from and if that person had the authority to give the ok. 

I would say that, if SWFC had an e mail from someone at EFL, in normal circumstances, they would be entitled to rely on that person as having the appropriate authority within the organisation to state what they did.
 

They would not ordinarily be expected to check that the individual concerned had acted within his scope of authority.

 

IMHO, I suspect the issue with the e mail may be the actual wording therein which might be capable of being interpreted in different ways.
 

Things are not always either black or white - it may be that this e mail is one if the many shades of grey, with our interpretation of what it meant perhaps being slightly different from how EFL are now stating that it should be interpreted.

 

Maybe this is what the IDC are now having difficulty reaching agreement on 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[prowl]

2 hours ago, Essix Blue said:

Depends who the email was from and if that person had the authority to give the ok. 

If 'that person' was an officer of the EFL and might reasonably have been expected to be acting on their behalf then they are tied by his actions. If it was the tea lady or cleaner maybe not, If it was someone in a more senior roll, they don'y have to be officially authorised to act on a particular matter so long as it's not unreasonable for us to think they might be speaking on behalf of EFL.

 

If I phone up a company and the person on the other end of the phone tells me something it's only reasonable that I can act on it. Officers of a company (employee in other words) no need to ask their job description and level of authority. If that was needed commerce would grind to a halt.

[prowl]

14 minutes ago, Kew Owl said:

I would say that, if SWFC had an e mail from someone at EFL, in normal circumstances, they would be entitled to rely on that person as having the appropriate authority within the organisation to state what they did.
 

They would not ordinarily be expected to check that the individual concerned had acted within his scope of authority.

 

IMHO, I suspect the issue with the e mail may be the actual wording therein which might be capable of being interpreted in different ways.
 

Things are not always either black or white - it may be that this e mail is one if the many shades of grey, with our interpretation of what it meant perhaps being slightly different from how EFL are now stating that it should be interpreted.

 

Maybe this is what the IDC are now having difficulty reaching agreement on 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In law it is generally accepted that if anything in a contract is ambiguous it is constued against the drafter. They should have made sure it said what it was intended to say.

 

I'm not sure if general correspondence is considered under the same rule but I don't see why it would be different. They wrote it, they should say what they mean, we can't be expected to guess their meaning.

 

On the other side of it I suppose it could be argued on the reasonable man principal. What would a reasonable man take it to mean.

 

 

[Dick_Turpin]

25 minutes ago, Kew Owl said:

I would say that, if SWFC had an e mail from someone at EFL, in normal circumstances, they would be entitled to rely on that person as having the appropriate authority within the organisation to state what they did.
 

They would not ordinarily be expected to check that the individual concerned had acted within his scope of authority.

 

IMHO, I suspect the issue with the e mail may be the actual wording therein which might be capable of being interpreted in different ways.
 

Things are not always either black or white - it may be that this e mail is one if the many shades of grey, with our interpretation of what it meant perhaps being slightly different from how EFL are now stating that it should be interpreted.

 

Maybe this is what the IDC are now having difficulty reaching agreement on 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The original statement said additional information had come to light in documentation the EFL reviewed. If the bank agreed to lend you money on the basis of your salary being £100k a year and then saw your payslip proving it was only £50k you can’t say oh I can still have the cash because you said I could.

 

It all hangs on what that new information was and it’s been said on here countless times. 

 

 

[Sheff74]

28 minutes ago, EXCALIBUR said:

Honest opinion on this. I think the barrister has tied the EFL and independent panel up on knotts

 

EFL didn't expect this and now rapidly looking for a way to 

 

Wishful thinking I suspect. The EFL do appoint their own barrister as well, who will untangle plenty of those knots, and I dare say throw a few conundrums our way.

 

[Sheff74]

1 hour ago, EXCALIBUR said:

It doesn't take since November 19 to either prosecute us or no case to be answered for here.

 

The case was originally set to be heard in July, when the charges were first laid. That timeline is set by the chair of the panel who hears the case. They haven't been wrangling since November. Each side will have been preparing their evidence for the hearing, which in the end was actually brought forward a few weeks.

 

I do agree though, that it looks like they now can't make their mind up, based on the evidence presented. And the longer it goes on, I am also confident that they will have to clear us, because there is enough doubt in there.

[Binky Griptite]

I regularly dealt with estoppel in a former job in regards to employee pay, it can be very nuanced and open to interpretation.

 

Q1: "Dear EFL, can I sell the Sheffield Wednesday Ground to myself for an inflated price and backdate the sale to the previous reporting year?"

A1: "You could..."

 

is not the same as:

 

Q2 "Dear EFL, within the bounds of the P&S guidelines as they currently stand would I be able to sell the Sheffield Wednesday Ground to myself for an inflated price and backdate the sale to the previous reporting year without breach?"

A2: "You could..."

 

You might ask Q1 thinking you've actually asked Q2 but you haven't, Q1 would rely on existing 'T&Cs' to determine legitimacy whereas Q2 could be argued to supersede any existing T&Cs in terms of legitimising the sale, assuming the steps outlined in the enquiry mirrored the actual actions to a sufficient threshhold of accuracy. However A1 could also be argued to be green lighting in so much as the EFL hadn't taken the opportunity to point out the potential for breach (even though they were not asked specifically around guidelines / potential breaches); it would then come down to who had answered the question and whether the club had cause to rely on their answer as a complete unequivocal response.

 

Often in my previous job there was stalemate and it would go to court, we mostly won but occasionally a judge would deem that a payslip stating 'Night Shift £90' was a statement of fact of payment entitlement, rather than a statement of fact of payment receipt (even in the face of ERA1996 and unequivocal proof that the employee in question hadn't worked anything other than 7am-3pm for 18mths...).

 

In Summary: Depends what we asked and what the EFL responded with and even then sometimes the law is an ass.

[Guest]

Can see this just getting dropped if it drags on much longer without a resolution

 

Gotta be waiting on evidence or something 

[N0rtherner]

I don't think we'll get a points deduction this season, EFL needs to resolve relegations from Championship soon so that teams can plan ahead for next season starting in just 7-8 weeks or so, and if we were to be handed this deduction, we would have 14 days to appeal it and then be entitled hearings, etc. within 21 days of that, so 5 weeks of delays to confirm or overrule the initial verdict. That just wouldn't do for any of the other teams involved who would be affected if they take the drop instead of us, EFL would face a shitstorm and new lawsuits, I would guess.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and they could dock us 9 points and relegate us this season, but I'm think it more likely they'll slap us for 12 or even 21 points on next season. At least the problems would be behind us then, but from a sporting perspective we'd be sentenced to death and have a massive mountain to climb.

[Key]

33 minutes ago, N0rtherner said:

I don't think we'll get a points deduction this season, EFL needs to resolve relegations from Championship soon so that teams can plan ahead for next season starting in just 7-8 weeks or so, and if we were to be handed this deduction, we would have 14 days to appeal it and then be entitled hearings, etc. within 21 days of that, so 5 weeks of delays to confirm or overrule the initial verdict. That just wouldn't do for any of the other teams involved who would be affected if they take the drop instead of us, EFL would face a shitstorm and new lawsuits, I would guess.

 

Of course, I could be wrong and they could dock us 9 points and relegate us this season, but I'm think it more likely they'll slap us for 12 or even 21 points on next season. At least the problems would be behind us then, but from a sporting perspective we'd be sentenced to death and have a massive mountain to climb.

On what grounds are you basing your guilty verdict?