Jump to content

BREAKING NEWS - EFL VERDICT - 12 POINTS


Recommended Posts

Just now, mkowl said:

Not that difficult really.

 

Like I say this panel has zero jurisdiction in the real world - club might say we disagree with their judgement and keep the accounts as they are

What are the legalities surrounding all this. If this is an accounting error presumably someone gets a rap on the knuckles whoever signed them off?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, mkowl said:

 

Yes - the current year figures will include it and the comparatives restated.

 

Irony is the 31st July 2019 figures might have been filed today - on the presumption of business as usual.

 

Might be interesting - will the Club ignore the Independent panel and say we still consider these are valid. They have no jurisdiction to say accounts are wrong outside this judgement call.

 

 

 

Are you sure?


The reason we got the EFL charge was because we HAD backdated it. Once its been backdated and included in accounts that have been signed off, surely thats it? The deed has been done so to speak.

 

The reason it was backdated was to get around FFP.  If the stadium sale gets moved back to the current financial year as a result.... surely we then breach FFP for the previous season and are back in a world of pain. Surely the backdated sale must stand where it is.

 

Im not expert / accountant so happy to be corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mkowl
1 minute ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

you could have a 100 separate commissions looking at same evedence and come up with different "opinions" on when risks and rewards transfer.

 

Which ever was initial decision went it was never going to be over at that, could be here in two years time with legal arguments going on around this.

True - give me the same evidence I might have a totally different view. 

 

I have a real professional intrigue here 

 

And I don't think the auditors will meekly accept it given the potential ramifications to them

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mkowl
2 minutes ago, Spondon Owl said:

What are the legalities surrounding all this. If this is an accounting error presumably someone gets a rap on the knuckles whoever signed them off?

That is why it will go further.

 

We don't know what the evidence is, what has made the panel decide this conclusion.

 

It has no jurisdiction for any other purpose regulatory wise 

 

Given the ramifications then a balance of probabilities decision ain't good enough 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, mkowl said:

That is why it will go further.

 

We don't know what the evidence is, what has made the panel decide this conclusion.

 

It has no jurisdiction for any other purpose regulatory wise 

 

Given the ramifications then a balance of probabilities decision ain't good enough 

I mean, I have no feel for this, but you'd imagine they have something pretty solid against us, which makes me wonder what the ramifications are for those involved in the accounting. 

 

Imagining not good. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mkowl said:

True - give me the same evidence I might have a totally different view. 

 

I have a real professional intrigue here 

 

And I don't think the auditors will meekly accept it given the potential ramifications to them

Agree which is why I'd be shocked if comparative amounts restated in 2019 accounts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mkowl said:

True - give me the same evidence I might have a totally different view. 

 

I have a real professional intrigue here 

 

And I don't think the auditors will meekly accept it given the potential ramifications to them

I'm not sure Chansiri needs auditors. SWFC is not a plc. He's the only shareholder. He's the only major creditor. He's robbing himself largely. (Forgetting the over priced tickets us fans pay)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, WalthamOwl said:

I hope to God DC doesn’t have his name plastered across the new shirts for next season. Reckon that would really put people off buying them. 

 

Be careful what you hope for.... or summat like that 🤪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest mkowl
5 minutes ago, Miffed said:

 

Are you sure?


The reason we got the EFL charge was because we HAD backdated it. Once its been backdated and included in accounts that have been signed off, surely thats it? The deed has been done so to speak.

 

The reason it was backdated was to get around FFP.  If the stadium sale gets moved back to the current financial year as a result.... surely we then breach FFP for the previous season and are back in a world of pain. Surely the backdated sale must stand where it is.

 

Im not expert / accountant so happy to be corrected.

 

The reason it was included might have been that it was in accordance with accounting standards to do so. 

 

I don't think people can or should make sweeping assumptions on guilt or fraud or wrongdoing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, mkowl said:

That is why it will go further.

 

We don't know what the evidence is, what has made the panel decide this conclusion.

 

It has no jurisdiction for any other purpose regulatory wise 

 

Given the ramifications then a balance of probabilities decision ain't good enough 


If we appeal and lose could we then be docked more points than -12? Do we have anything to lose by appealing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, IWEDFM said:

As if it's not enough punishment having Monk in charge

 

If he's still here next season we won't recover from that

Yeah too true,i mean its not as though he kept Birmingham in the Championship when suffering similar..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, mkowl said:

True - give me the same evidence I might have a totally different view. 

 

I have a real professional intrigue here 

 

And I don't think the auditors will meekly accept it given the potential ramifications to them

What are those ramifications ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, mkowl said:

 

The reason it was included might have been that it was in accordance with accounting standards to do so. 

 

I don't think people can or should make sweeping assumptions on guilt or fraud or wrongdoing.

 

 

 

But people are claiming that now we have been charged with a points deduction for it, the stadium sale can magically now be included in this years accounts instead of being backdated. Meaning we cant fall foul when this years accounts are presented.


How does that work?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...