BREAKING NEWS - EFL VERDICT - 12 POINTS

[RedDragonOwl]

Does the club still own the training ground?

 

If the club does still own it, then could it end up being bought by the company who purchased the ground? No doubt a 'fair valuation' would need to be established, but if the training ground was put up for sale, and it ended up in a bidding war between the company which purchased the ground, and a company unconnected to the chairman, say...Harry Rednapp's Dog, then would not a fair valuation be whatever either party was willing to pay?

 

Say - Rosie £59,000,000.00

 

Party who owns the ground - £60,000,000.00

 

So long as it is placed in the correct accounting year, hypothetically we'd be fine, right?

[room0035]

46 minutes ago, Hookowl said:

 

TBF we have no idea whether the accounts were filed or not, they may not appear in companies house for some time yet.

If they were filed online they appear pretty much straight away or within 24 hours. Wait and see Monday Tuesday.

[S36 OWL]

Att Chansiri. He bought it from his dad for £40m in 2017.

[Bluesteel]

30 minutes ago, shez owl said:

What is wrong is that in this FFP case is that the punishment is arbitrary and at the whim of a 3 person panel... what if they woke up in a bad mood? 

 

It should be a fixed penalty like going in admin that then is clear.

I guess so. But I still think it’s perverse that teams with cash to spend in a loss making industry are treated as if they are in admin. One should be viewed much worse than the other which is why the Wigan thing isn’t comparable in my view, even if they were set up 

[sherlyegg]

11 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Different argument could be whether this may have met criteria to include in the accounts themselves but not meet criteria for including in the P&S submission for that year.

 

I don't get it, we have done nothing wrong accounting wise.

The efl dropped charges against the 3 amigos.

We have no points penalty for 'cooking the books'.

Yet we have 12 deducted for ffp issues.

 

If we had -12 for ffp and a further 9 for accounting issues that I could understand.

 

Don't see how they can have one without the other.

 

 

 

[Guest mkowl]

21 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Would still reserve judgement myself also.  I find it really really hard to believe that the auditors would of signed those accounts off as a true and fair view without good evedence regards the timing.

 

The effect of the transaction would have blown their materiality level out of the water.

 

If there is a valid argument for this treatment I can't see how we won't fight this and appeal.

 

Different argument could be whether this may have met criteria to include in the accounts themselves but not meet criteria for including in the P&S submission for that year.

The EFL rules state the audited accounts are the starting point. You will adjust for allowable expenditure eg the academy, you will then adjust for any fair value on sponsorship or other transactions. But to adjust for a  transaction that was fundamental in the original accounts is not within their remit I would have thought. To make their own judgement and for it to take precedent over the auditors opinion.

 

Unless it is obvious the auditors opinion and that of the club is deeply flawed

[Guest]

What did Bournemouth get for busting FFP ?   A £5m fine ?    I bet that really broke the bank and taught them a lesson 

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

2 minutes ago, mkowl said:

The EFL rules state the audited accounts are the starting point. You will adjust for allowable expenditure eg the academy, you will then adjust for any fair value on sponsorship or other transactions. But to adjust for a  transaction that was fundamental in the original accounts is not within their remit I would have thought. To make their own judgement and for it to take precedent over the auditors opinion.

 

Unless it is obvious the auditors opinion and that of the club is deeply flawed

Agree and based on this there should be a heavy burden of proof on EFL to prove this 

[Dizzys Dad]

I can’t think that any football punishment has been backdated to a previous season. With our punishment being given out, after the season is done and dusted, I don’t think they would be able to get away with retrospective action against us.

You can’t change the result after the game has finished surely?

[daveyboy66]

1 hour ago, @owlstalk said:

Well not really

 

If you don't break the rules you WILL be perfectly fine

 

 

Normally I'd agree with that but...we are not playing on a level playfield. When the spending limit is the same as the amount that has been given as a failure payment to the relegated sides, which, in the case of Norwich, Watford and Bournemouth will be £45M then, each club decides if they want to go for it or be prudent. Until that happens the rules are there to be broken.

[@owlstalk]

Just now, daveyboy66 said:

Normally I'd agree with that but...we are not playing on a level playfield. When the spending limit is the same as the amount that has been given as a failure payment to the relegated sides, which, in the case of Norwich, Watford and Bournemouth will be £45M then, each club decides if they want to go for it or be prudent. Until that happens the rules are there to be broken.

 

That still doesn't change the absolute total fact that If you don't break the rules you WILL be perfectly fine

 

[daveyboy66]

1 minute ago, @owlstalk said:

 

That still doesn't change the absolute total fact that If you don't break the rules you WILL be perfectly fine but will never be able to compete with the PL failures.

 

That any better

 

[FinnishOwl]

1 hour ago, Spondon Owl said:

Were these accounts filed during her tenure? If so could this be the reason for her rather sharp exit from the club? 

 

if no.. well.. soz. @mkowl any ideas?

 

I'd rather think Katrien left because DC started making these unprofessional/unappropriate proposals to fix the accounts. She would have done a good job at the club if she had had the chance to actually do things.

[TheEnchanter]

3 minutes ago, daveyboy66 said:

That any better

 

 

Only Newcastle have gone straight back up in the last few years if memory serves me rightly. 

[Bluesteel]

59 minutes ago, Apple said:

I'm in half a mind that I'd rather it be over 100% and have been relegated. Taking it on the chin and moving on, clean slate.

 

But, the other side of me thinks that we "could" overcome this 12 points or even appeal.

 

Meh

I don’t think there’s a worse time to go into league one. So much uncertainty down there on format and that benefit of a big crowd for a promotion push wouldn’t be there. Sunderland and Ipswich haven’t got out so at least we have a chance this way.

[Costello 77]

1 hour ago, mkowl said:

Would love to see the evidence that was presented to the panel and the rationale for the divergence in opinion between the auditor and the panel (or the expert appointed by it).

 

I am still struggling to see how if the auditor signed it off the EFL can argue against it IF the evidence was sufficient to make that call in the first place 

Hello MK.. the EFL are a body appointed by a collective.

They and the press use misleading language to describe their activities.

 

The fog here is when actual bodies and functionaries that are governed by the law interface with a business employing people who are normally accountable to their employer's.

[Sumi Shimamoto]

1 hour ago, mkowl said:

Would love to see the evidence that was presented to the panel and the rationale for the divergence in opinion between the auditor and the panel (or the expert appointed by it).

 

I am still struggling to see how if the auditor signed it off the EFL can argue against it IF the evidence was sufficient to make that call in the first place 

& me

if the auditors deem it consistent with accounting standards to account for in the y/e 31/7/18 accounts and Chansiri has been transparent with the EFL - it seems harsh to punish.

 

i can't see how it can be consistent with accounting standards to account for in y/e 31/7/18 accounts?

It must be that some sort of binding irrevocable agreement to do the deal existed at the 31/7/18 year end?

[teddybeararmy]

1 hour ago, mkowl said:

The EFL rules state the audited accounts are the starting point. You will adjust for allowable expenditure eg the academy, you will then adjust for any fair value on sponsorship or other transactions. But to adjust for a  transaction that was fundamental in the original accounts is not within their remit I would have thought. To make their own judgement and for it to take precedent over the auditors opinion.

 

Unless it is obvious the auditors opinion and that of the club is deeply flawed

Really respect your expert analysis on accounting matters, none of us know what information all the people involved are privy to,but whatever it is 

1 The efl deemed it sufficient to charge us in the first place 

 

2. The  arbitration panel again aggreed it was sufficient to send us to the independent hearing. 

 

3. The independent hearing found it sufficient to find us guilty of one of the charges 

[Lunny1968]

We now know what we are up against next season.  Its time for everybody at the club to pull together and beat the 12 point deduction.  Sniping and crying over spilt milk has to stop.  Let's pull together and show the rest of the country what a great club we can be.

[Spondon Owl]

1 hour ago, FinnishOwl said:

 

I'd rather think Katrien left because DC started making these unprofessional/unappropriate proposals to fix the accounts. She would have done a good job at the club if she had had the chance to actually do things.

Your evidence is where to support that assertion? Did she do a good job at Charlton?