THE EFL HEARING THREAD

[WalthamOwl]

1 minute ago, Sergeant Tibbs said:

Best part of 50 years I’ve followed this club, thick and thin. This guys running of the club over the last 3 years have been as embarrassing as it gets.

To be run by a multi millionaire family who has allowed us to be questioned about our finances is incomprehensible. 

completely agree. We have been through some very embarrassing times but if we are found guilty of this it will top the lot. Putting our club in a very bad light. 

[WalthamOwl]

1 minute ago, the monk said:

Read this angle on things a few times but if we are found guilty of filing the sale in the wrong year then surely it means the sale of the ground millions will be put into later accounts 

Meaning we have a lot of scope to spend on players 

let’s hope we don’t get handed another transfer embargo then. 

[Guest struckanerve]

1 minute ago, paulvcooke said:

90.3 A Disciplinary Commission shall consist of:

90.3.1 a chairperson who shall be either:

(a) a qualified solicitor or barrister; or

(b) a ‘member’ or ‘fellow’ of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators,

in either case with at least 5 years post-qualification experience who shall be appointed independently by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (or such other body as the Board may from time to time determine); and

90.3.2 two suitably qualified side members one of whom shall be selected by the Claimant and the other (subject to Regulation 90.4), by the Respondent,

PROVIDED ALWAYS that:

(a) the side members must be independent of the parties and able to render an impartial decision;

(b) the parties may agree that the Disciplinary Commission be constituted by the Chairman sitting alone; and

(c) a ‘suitably qualified’ side member (if not a solicitor or barrister of at least five years post-qualification experience, shall be a person who is independent of the party appointing them, capable of rendering an impartial decision and not otherwise subject to a Disqualifying Condition (as defined in Appendix 3).

90.4 Where there is more than one Respondent, the Respondents collectively shall only be entitled to appoint one side member and in the absence of agreement between them within 3 days of a written request to do so, the Chairman shall be at liberty to do so on their behalf so as to avoid any possible delay in the conduct of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Commission.

90.5 Members of a Disciplinary Commission shall be entitled to receive from The League a reasonable sum by way of fees and expenses, as determined by the Board from time to time.  Where a party seeks to appoint an individual whose costs exceed those determined by the Board, that party will be responsible for any additional fees and expenses in any event, and such excess amounts cannot be the subject of an order for costs under any circumstances.

90.6 Proceedings before the Disciplinary Commission shall be arbitral proceedings for the purposes of the Arbitration Act, but Sections 44, 45 and 69 of the Arbitration Act shall not apply.

 

Basically, we pick one, the EFL picks one and the chairman is genuinely selected independently. 

 

Thanks for that m8, feeling more confident now, let's hope our case and evidence is strong.

[Jim]

1 minute ago, WalthamOwl said:

bet if the charged where dropped against the 3 individuals why would the EFL still proceed with charging the club. Surely they must be very confident with what they have against us. 

 

They’re trying to see the thing through to please the whingers whether their case is strong or not?

[Taximark]

1 minute ago, Sergeant Tibbs said:

Best part of 50 years I’ve followed this club, thick and thin. This guys running of the club over the last 3 years have been as embarrassing as it gets.

To be run by a multi millionaire family who has allowed us to be questioned about our finances is incomprehensible. 

Totally agree.

Its bizarre times because Ive never felt so detached from the club too and Im including the awful Allen years where at least we knew were we stood.

 

Chansiri is like a blind megalomaniac.

[@owlstalk]

Just now, Jim said:

 

They’re trying to see the thing through to please the whingers whether their case is strong or not?

Come on now....

 

[WalthamOwl]

3 minutes ago, paulvcooke said:

90.3 A Disciplinary Commission shall consist of:

90.3.1 a chairperson who shall be either:

(a) a qualified solicitor or barrister; or

(b) a ‘member’ or ‘fellow’ of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators,

in either case with at least 5 years post-qualification experience who shall be appointed independently by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (or such other body as the Board may from time to time determine); and

90.3.2 two suitably qualified side members one of whom shall be selected by the Claimant and the other (subject to Regulation 90.4), by the Respondent,

PROVIDED ALWAYS that:

(a) the side members must be independent of the parties and able to render an impartial decision;

(b) the parties may agree that the Disciplinary Commission be constituted by the Chairman sitting alone; and

(c) a ‘suitably qualified’ side member (if not a solicitor or barrister of at least five years post-qualification experience, shall be a person who is independent of the party appointing them, capable of rendering an impartial decision and not otherwise subject to a Disqualifying Condition (as defined in Appendix 3).

90.4 Where there is more than one Respondent, the Respondents collectively shall only be entitled to appoint one side member and in the absence of agreement between them within 3 days of a written request to do so, the Chairman shall be at liberty to do so on their behalf so as to avoid any possible delay in the conduct of the proceedings before the Disciplinary Commission.

90.5 Members of a Disciplinary Commission shall be entitled to receive from The League a reasonable sum by way of fees and expenses, as determined by the Board from time to time.  Where a party seeks to appoint an individual whose costs exceed those determined by the Board, that party will be responsible for any additional fees and expenses in any event, and such excess amounts cannot be the subject of an order for costs under any circumstances.

90.6 Proceedings before the Disciplinary Commission shall be arbitral proceedings for the purposes of the Arbitration Act, but Sections 44, 45 and 69 of the Arbitration Act shall not apply.

 

Basically, we pick one, the EFL picks one and the chairman is genuinely selected independently, who selects 2 more.

so not really an independent panel. 

[Guest paulvcooke]

Just now, struckanerve said:

 

Thanks for that m8, feeling more confident now, let's hope our case and evidence is strong.

Check my post again, I missed off a bit of my comment due to a copy and paste ******** up (I type up my posts in a text editor before copying and posting for reasons) Sorry. Basically the chairman appoints 2 other independent members of the committee. 

[Jim]

3 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

Come on now....

 

 

Anyway whatever happens, it’s nailed on that Rhodes and Reach will score the goals in a 2-0 home win in the last game of the season to keep us up and send Boro down

Edited June 22, 2020 by Jim

[BIG D]

1 hour ago, @owlstalk said:

I wonder what the format is going to be, how long it's going to take, how many days/weeks it will go on for?

 

[Guest paulvcooke]

3 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said:

so not really an independent panel. 

3 of the 5 members are independent, so I suppose the majority vote will not be beholden to the wishes of the EFL rep. I think it's only fair to have a representative of boths sides on the panel.

Edited June 22, 2020 by paulvcooke
typo arghhhhh

[Guest struckanerve]

2 minutes ago, paulvcooke said:

Check my post again, I missed off a bit of my comment due to a copy and paste ******** up (I type up my posts in a text editor before copying and posting for reasons) Sorry. Basically the chairman appoints 2 other independent members of the committee. 

Good to see the full procedure, I guess those of us not clued up on how these things work were panicking on a kangaroo court.

[Sheff74]

4 minutes ago, Jim said:

 

They’re trying to see the thing through to please the whingers whether their case is strong or not?

 

I don't wish to sound unkind, but come on mate. It would have been much easier (and less costly) to drop the lot months ago, with some egg on face, compared to a full blown fecking omlette face slap, if they lose this hearing.

[Guest paulvcooke]

1 minute ago, struckanerve said:

Good to see the full procedure, I guess those of us not clued up on how these things work were panicking on a kangaroo court.

The full text is here.

 

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-8---offences-inquiries-commissions-disputes-and-appeals/

[WalthamOwl]

Just now, paulvcooke said:

The full text is here.

 

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-8---offences-inquiries-commissions-disputes-and-appeals/

as far as you’re aware have any clubs ever won a case against the EFL? 

[DJMortimer]

8 minutes ago, the monk said:

Read this angle on things a few times but if we are found guilty of filing the sale in the wrong year then surely it means the sale of the ground millions will be put into later accounts 

Meaning we have a lot of scope to spend on players 

 

Consider that the current spending restrictions are for a three year rolling period, and the accounts prior to the ones in question saw us posting a loss in excess of £20m. Can't imagine this year's will be very healthy either.  

[Road Runner]

33 minutes ago, Jim said:

Did the sale get originally sanctioned by the EFL hence the transfer embargo being lifted then they flagged something up further down the line hence the charge?

 

 

 

How I read it is, the sale of the ground happened. The club asked for verification to add it to the accounts they requested, the EFL granted it in the emails so the club did it. 

 

The person who granted it is no longer on the EFL and the EFL picked it up later on. 

 

The EFL charged Wednesday, Birmingham and Derby - then advertised for an accountant to look over clubs accounts and FFP - saw the advertisement a week after the charges just advertised. 

 

Chansiri is entitled to defend his business but as we know if he enters the country tomorrow he has to self isolate. 

 

Imo this is down to pressure from Conway of Barnsley and Gibson of Middlesborough who both let's be right look certain for relegation. 

 

Won't stop me doing a windmill outside both their house. 

 

Wednesday will win this on evidence. 

 

 

[Jim]

1 minute ago, Sheff74 said:

 

I don't wish to sound unkind, but come on mate. It would have been much easier (and less costly) to drop the lot months ago, with some egg on face, compared to a full blown fecking omlette face slap, if they lose this hearing.

 

Only time will tell? I don’t know if there’s any truth in the rumour going around that this man will chair the hearing?

 

 

[WalthamOwl]

Will hate being in league one next season if it comes to that. Horrible league with sh1tty teams. Will we still be charged top dollar to watch that type of football. Dread to think of the standard of signings we will make. Pelupessy would probably be a first team regular. I bet I have bloody nightmares tonight! 

[Guest struckanerve]

2 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said:

Will hate being in league one next season if it comes to that. Horrible league with sh1tty teams. Will we still be charged top dollar to watch that type of football. Dread to think of the standard of signings we will make. Pelupessy would probably be a first team regular. I bet I have bloody nightmares tonight! 

Pelupessy will be captain, sweet dreams.