Jump to content

Recommended Posts

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
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 post
Share on other sites

"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? 

  • Like 1
Link to post
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 post
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 2
Link to post
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 post
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 post
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.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites
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...

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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......

  • Love 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
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. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

 

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