Jump to content

THE EFL HEARING THREAD


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, room0035 said:

Where do you get that from we can lose £39m over 3 years if the July 2019 figures are worse than £21m loss we will breach the limits.

 

Taking the sale of the stadium out of the July 2018 figures we lost £36m it was a 14 month period but even over a year that £31m about £10m more losses than we can have.

 

There are allowable expenses such as youth development but if the losses for July 2019 accounting figures are north of £20m we are going to be very close to breaching the limits again for last season.

 

If this hearing going on into next week do not be surprised if the accounts are not filed by Friday 

 

We hope for the best but we fear the worse it is the Wednesday way.

I’m guessing for the current charge we are defending, if we are found guilty and receive a deduction PLUS a suspended deduction, the suspended part would come into play if we broke PnS rules again?

 

So in theory, if we are found guilty and let’s say get a -9 deduction (whether this season or next), then find we’ve broken PnS AGAIN when the 2018/19 accounts are published (which is imminent), we could have a further deduction. That’d be either -9 now (and relegation) and a further deduction in L1 - OR -9 next season in Championship then a further deduction next season also, which would mean we’d be favourites to go down. 
 

Yeh I know I’m being pessimistic but hey, I’ve supported this lot for over 40 years 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Essix Blue said:

I’m guessing for the current charge we are defending, if we are found guilty and receive a deduction PLUS a suspended deduction, the suspended part would come into play if we broke PnS rules again?

 

So in theory, if we are found guilty and let’s say get a -9 deduction (whether this season or next), then find we’ve broken PnS AGAIN when the 2018/19 accounts are published (which is imminent), we could have a further deduction. That’d be either -9 now (and relegation) and a further deduction in L1 - OR -9 next season in Championship then a further deduction next season also, which would mean we’d be favourites to go down. 
 

Yeh I know I’m being pessimistic but hey, I’ve supported this lot for over 40 years 

Which is exactly what I am saying...

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Royal_D said:

Don’t the EFL get eyes on the accounts prior to them actually been filed 

 

Yep they've seen them and ok'd them.................................wait a minute they've changed their minds................................................again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Essix Blue said:

I’m guessing for the current charge we are defending, if we are found guilty and receive a deduction PLUS a suspended deduction, the suspended part would come into play if we broke PnS rules again?

 

So in theory, if we are found guilty and let’s say get a -9 deduction (whether this season or next), then find we’ve broken PnS AGAIN when the 2018/19 accounts are published (which is imminent), we could have a further deduction. That’d be either -9 now (and relegation) and a further deduction in L1 - OR -9 next season in Championship then a further deduction next season also, which would mean we’d be favourites to go down. 
 

Yeh I know I’m being pessimistic but hey, I’ve supported this lot for over 40 years 

 

If we have broken the rules in the current case then it will be because the stadium sale will have been disallowed from the 2017-18 accounts, in which case it will surely be allowed into the 2018-19 accounts due to be released by the end of the week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

If we have broken the rules in the current case then it will be because the stadium sale will have been disallowed from the 2017-18 accounts, in which case it will surely be allowed into the 2018-19 accounts due to be released by the end of the week.

That still doesn’t necessarily mean we’d be clear. Also, I believe, the panel could decide we overvalued the ground. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, jamese said:

I wonder how much the running costs of hillsborough are. This is something that won’t be the responsibility of the club anymore and fall to DC/his wife/whichever company owns the ground

I guess it depends on the terms of the lease. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jamese said:

Which you’d hope would have been ‘negotiated’ in favourable terms to the club....


You would hope so wouldn’t you seeing as it’s Chansiri that funds it regardless ! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, theowlsman said:

I came here to argue nonsense with somebody else who knows nowt.

 

Who wants to start?

Is UK election process fair?

Should animals be used in experiments/testing?

Is the death penalty effective?

Do religious movements cause war?

Are season tickets priced too high? 

Is the independent tribunal taking too long? 

Should Sophie Ridge be allowed on TV more than once a week? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, owls-swfc said:

Is UK election process fair?

Should animals be used in experiments/testing?

Is the death penalty effective?

Do religious movements cause war?

Are season tickets priced too high? 

Is the independent tribunal taking too long? 

Should Sophie Ridge be allowed on TV more than once a week? 

 

 

Yes you’re right, I apologise lol

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A very long time ago, when I was at school.  We were taught, if we were not 100% sure of the facts, it's better not to offer an opinion.  

A few contributing to this thread could have done with similar advice. 

Edited by Sham67
  • Like 1
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Essix Blue said:

That still doesn’t necessarily mean we’d be clear. Also, I believe, the panel could decide we overvalued the ground. 

 

I agree, we could still more than likely be over in the 3-year period regardless of which period they put the sale into. If they do disallow from 2017-18 though, we would then show a £20M or loss for 2016-17, around £25-£30M for 2017-18 and potentially a small profit for the forthcoming accounts with the stadium sale, given that the wage bill should also have reduced compared to the previous year.

Yes we would possibly still be over, but when clubs are so far over in previous years they do take signs of doing something about the losses into account and we would have gone from a £25-£30M loss to a profit in one season! 

:Chansiri:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Sham67 said:

A very long time ago, when I was at school.  We were taught, if we were not 100% sure of the facts, it's better not to offer an opinion.  

A few contributing to this thread could have done with similar advice. 

 

The forum, never mind this thread, would be dead if everyone followed that advice!

 

:bullen:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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