BREAKING NEWS - EFL VERDICT - 12 POINTS

[striker]

6 minutes ago, full fathom five said:

The most incompetent chairman we have had in my lifetime.

Really, surely you remember Dave Allen?!

[full fathom five]

Just now, TrickyTrev said:

I wouldn’t hold your breath for an apology either to a fan base who are currently paying the most expensive ticket prices in the division to watch this guy run us into the ground.

Exactly, a complete lack of responsibility shown from our chairman. Totally disgusting.

[HarrowbyOwl]

2 minutes ago, Nero said:

I think both parties will appeal. First to get a stay on any legal ramifications from other parties. But also to get a second chop at the verdict. Other tribunals have been regular turned over.

Can’t see the EFL appealing this. They might have preferred the deduction to have been applied this season but given the timing launching an appeal at this time is likely to cause them more problems. With the Wigan appeal pending and the final league positions still in doubt I think they’ll be glad to see our case put to bed.  Can’t really see what Charlton’s case against the EFL would be. The disciplinary procedures under which we’ve been found guilty are part of the EFL regulations to which Charlton are a signatory. 

[full fathom five]

Just now, striker said:

Really, surely you remember Dave Allen?!

Yes i do and although he was a nasty piece of work. He didn't however charge over the odds and leave us looking so unprofessional by breaking rules and leaving us starting a season on -12 points  a proud first in our history.

[striker]

1 minute ago, full fathom five said:

Yes i do and although he was a nasty piece of work. He didn't however charge over the odds and leave us looking so unprofessional by breaking rules and leaving us starting a season on -12 points  a proud first in our history.

No, he nearly put us out of business completely, minutes away from ceasing to exist as a football club. 

 

I get the anger and frustration, but we've had far worse than DC. I'd even include Dave Richard's in that who sold the club down the river to get himself a cushy job with the FA.

 

 

 

 

[Bramhall Owl]

This might have been covered by previous posters and if so, I apologise for going over old ground.

 

The charge does not appear to be related to the value of the sale. In which case the sale and value is legitimate.
The fact that auditors have signed off the sale in the 2017/18 accounts must mean that there was sufficient evidence for the auditors to accept (and probably insist) that the sale needed to be reflected sooner rather than later; this would (I imagine) mean that there would have been a letter of agreement/understanding in place before the accounting date in question. The actual sale could take place later, but if a document was signed pre the accounting date it would be correct to include in the 2018 accounts. My understanding is that if there is no such document, the auditors would not have been able to sign off the accounts with the sale included, as there would be no substance to the transaction. For the EFL to effectively not accept that the accounts are correct is a heck of an accusation to throw at the club and, more pertinently, it’s auditors as it’s unlikely the auditors would get it wrong (it can't be difficult to see whether there's a document or not). So for the auditors, I would suggest there is a credibility issue here, so I wonder if they will throw charges at the efl.

[parajack]

11 hours ago, WatfordOwl said:

I'll take that bet with you now that we don't make the playoffs.

Thats what i like about Owlstalk,never miss a chance to allegedly Neg....many play off teams have a bad run,of losing match's on the way,thats how we made the Play offs first time around under Carlos wasnt it? Our 'winning run' coincided with others dropping points...it is possible..    Over a season...

 

Course realistically Championship survival is our 'Cup Final' financially i know that,but at the other end of the scale if Monk,and the team,overachieve,a late run for the play offs is achievable.

[Bramhall Owl]

It's interesting that you can go into administration and screw over local businesses suppliers, staff and/or the government by not paying them and end up with a 12 point deduction. If you have an owner who pumps in money to grow a club by employing more staff, and so pay the government even more money and grow the local economy you also end up with a 12 point deduction. 

[@owlstalk]

1 minute ago, parajack said:

if Monk,and the team,overachieve,a late run for the play offs is achievable.

 

It's this kind of hope that kills you as a Wednesday fan

[@owlstalk]

Just now, Bramhall Owl said:

It's interesting that you can go into administration and screw over local businesses suppliers, staff and/or the government by not paying them and end up with a 12 point deduction. If you have an owner who pumps in money to grow a club by employing more staff, and so pay the government even more money and grow the local economy you also end up with a 12 point deduction. 

I think the moral of the story here is DON'T BREAK THE RULES and you'll be perfectly fine

[BIG D]

14 minutes ago, full fathom five said:

Yes i do and although he was a nasty piece of work. He didn't however charge over the odds and leave us looking so unprofessional by breaking rules and leaving us starting a season on -12 points  a proud first in our history.

 If Chansiri ever starts suing fans then you may have a point

[Guest Kagoshimaowl]

11 hours ago, nethertonowl said:

So you think there will actually be a league one next year? Ive played for pub sides with bigger budgets than the money in league one next year without fans .

 

 

That could happen I guess. The the league would be smaller and more chance of promotion 

[Guest Kagoshimaowl]

5 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

I think the moral of the story here is DON'T BREAK THE RULES and you'll be perfectly fine

If we’d had a decent manager, we would have been more than 12 points above the drop zone and could have asked for it to be applied this season!

[dykwim]

30 minutes ago, full fathom five said:

The most incompetent chairman we have had in my lifetime.

And let’s face it, we’ve had some top candidates for that accolade. 

[@owlstalk]

3 minutes ago, Kagoshimaowl said:

If we’d had a decent manager, we would have been more than 12 points above the drop zone and could have asked for it to be applied this season!

 

If we'd not broke the rules in the first place we wouldn't even have to worry about anything like that

[keepitsteel89]

10 hours ago, mogbad said:

 

If he hadn't caused the hemorrhaging in the first place he wouldn't have had to stem the flow by selling the stadium to himself & we wouldn't be starting next season on -12 points.

Let me make it clear I think DC has clearly made awful mistakes, we all do.. but he tried to get us up and failed and I respect that, now we will see if he is willing to try again with better counsel...nothing we can do to change history if there and protesting against his ownership is shortsighted to say the least..

[SallyCinnamon]

All we would have needed this season and the EFL would have given us the punishment this year and we go in to next season with a clean slate.

 

So all those lapses of concentration in the last minute of games, spineless performances, clueless tactics and terrible management of games really did make a difference.

 

The blame lies at one mans door but if these players showed a bit more fight throughout the season we wouldn’t be in this situation.

 

Everyone at SWFC hang your heads in shame. You don’t deserve this fanbase. 

[Bramhall Owl]

12 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

I think the moral of the story here is DON'T BREAK THE RULES and you'll be perfectly fine

But have we broken any?

[HarrowbyOwl]

11 minutes ago, @owlstalk said:

I think the moral of the story here is DON'T BREAK THE RULES and you'll be perfectly fine

What exactly is the ‘rule’ that we’ve broken though?

[mogbad]

10 minutes ago, Bramhall Owl said:

This might have been covered by previous posters and if so, I apologise for going over old ground.

 

The charge does not appear to be related to the value of the sale. In which case the sale and value is legitimate.
The fact that auditors have signed off the sale in the 2017/18 accounts must mean that there was sufficient evidence for the auditors to accept (and probably insist) that the sale needed to be reflected sooner rather than later; this would (I imagine) mean that there would have been a letter of agreement/understanding in place before the accounting date in question. The actual sale could take place later, but if a document was signed pre the accounting date it would be correct to include in the 2018 accounts. My understanding is that if there is no such document, the auditors would not have been able to sign off the accounts with the sale included, as there would be no substance to the transaction. For the EFL to effectively not accept that the accounts are correct is a heck of an accusation to throw at the club and, more pertinently, it’s auditors as it’s unlikely the auditors would get it wrong (it can't be difficult to see whether there's a document or not). So for the auditors, I would suggest there is a credibility issue here, so I wonder if they will throw charges at the efl.

Correct the charge didn't question the value of the stadium but I'm wondering if the EFL's logic was that they couldn't question the value of the stadium sale as they didn't believe it should have been included in the 2017/18 accounts in the first place.

 

Now the EFL's stance has been vindicated I presume they will now make an adjustment to include the stadium same in the 2018/19 accounts & it could be at that point that they question the valuation.