Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

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 .

Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Hookowl said:

 

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.

Entirely possible

Link to post
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.

  • Like 2
Link to post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...