BREAKING NEWS - EFL VERDICT - 12 POINTS

[Dick_Turpin]

1 hour ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Bad faith charge based on us supposedly not providing all the details around the sale when it was agreed.

 

Not surprised your confused as the verdicts don't stack up on face of it.

 

Basically says whilst we provided full information at all stages when agreeing sale with EFL, that sale shouldn't have been included in 2017/2018 p&s submission so we breached FFP.

 

Unanswered questions are:

Are we allowed to include same profit in 2018/2019 submission? 

Why did EFL agree sale & timing and then backtrack if had all this information all along? 

What evedence did we have to include sale in 2018 accounts that auditors vere satisfied met accounts criteria to include but commission / EFL thought they could override this view and deviate from the audited accounts? 

Why were bad faith charges innocent and individual charges dropped? But yet EFL can go back on their sign off? 

 

 

I think you need to look at the full verdict before deciding what stacks up. 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

14 minutes ago, Athelwulf said:

Chansiri went for it.

 

If it goes right then he's a hero, if not he's a villain.

 

And, but for Hooper's injury, there's every chance it would have worked.

 

We'd no youth policy (not his fault), so he had to buy in.

 

And we were the ones wanting exciting, attacking football after Gray's stodge, so he bought accordingly.

 

The big offers we had for our players were at a time when we were in for promotion, and the only clubs who could afford them were our rivals.

 

So we sell FF to a rival and he scores the winning goal in a semi or a final (which he would have done).

 

"Typical Wednesday, we're finally in with a chance of promotion and Chansiri sells to a rival!", would have been the cry.

 

Ditto the stadium business, in that we were in with a shout at that time.

 

Managerially he finally gets it right with fatso, who duly stabs him in the back.

 

Unless you're outrageously lucky enough to get a Wilder, or have the history to get a Bielsa, then you have to gamble.

 

At least Chansiri had a go, and it's not his fault that this club is blighted.

 

There's a difference between 'having a go' and jeopardising the future of the club, though.

 

Chansiri's decisions have made the latter a distinct possibility, as we've avoided relegation to League One by the skin of our teeth (for now) at a time where there's very little certainty about the continued viability of that division, we barely have a squad to talk of, and we no longer own our own stadium.

 

As a club, when Chansiri arrived we were starting from a position in which at least half the Championship had a huge head-start in terms of investment in their squads over the past half-decade or so. The investment in many a Championship club over the past two decades dwarfs ours. Their infrastructures, academies, technical teams, scouting networks etc... were funded by Premier League money and parachute payments. Many may not have spent as heavily in the past few seasons, but we've been playing catch-up in a major way after the best part of two decades being left to wither on the vine.

 

Unfortunately, where cool heads and keen eyes were needed due to P&S rules, we overstretched ourselves in our desperation to redress the balance. In typical Wednesday fashion, we did so at the worst possible time, and opened the door for the EFL to throw the book at us.

[matthefish2002]

25 minutes ago, Athelwulf said:

Chansiri went for it.

 

If it goes right then he's a hero, if not he's a villain.

 

And, but for Hooper's injury, there's every chance it would have worked.

 

We'd no youth policy (not his fault), so he had to buy in.

 

And we were the ones wanting exciting, attacking football after Gray's stodge, so he bought accordingly.

 

The big offers we had for our players were at a time when we were in for promotion, and the only clubs who could afford them were our rivals.

 

So we sell FF to a rival and he scores the winning goal in a semi or a final (which he would have done).

 

"Typical Wednesday, we're finally in with a chance of promotion and Chansiri sells to a rival!", would have been the cry.

 

Ditto the stadium business, in that we were in with a shout at that time.

 

Managerially he finally gets it right with fatso, who duly stabs him in the back.

 

Unless you're outrageously lucky enough to get a Wilder, or have the history to get a Bielsa, then you have to gamble.

 

At least Chansiri had a go, and it's not his fault that this club is blighted.

 

Dont you think he should have at least had a plan b when we didn't get promoted in 2017?

[Dick_Turpin]

40 minutes ago, bolton9owl said:

Sheff 74 - I’ve said that repeatedly, it’s his Dad,Uncles and his close relations that are directly behind TUF and I have seen no evidence that DC was a successful businessman prior to buying SWFC

When he was filmed taking over the reigns from Manderic the backdrop was ‘TUF’

That suggested that The TUF business were supporting DC as a major sponsor or as some have claimed in the past that they have been guarantors to the funding. If that was the case and we will probably never know then at what point does the board of TUF or his family say enough is enough, we can’t continue to loose millions with little prospect of a return.

i know it’s been said that he could put SWFC into administration and that would be the end of the club but thousands of successful businesses have risen out of the ashes left after administration and gone on to be very, very successful.

i don’t believe it would ever get to that but I’m not fully convinced that DC or his direct family will continue to see great chunks of wealth be flittered away in the hope that one day SWFC will be good enough to win promotion to the Premiership which would finally give DC a return on his massive investment.

 

 

This is the issue for me. When does a gambler stop gambling in order to recoup his losses?  We have no idea of how much money is in the pot or the source of it. So we don't know how long the losses can be sustained for or when someone will say enough is enough. 

[teddybeararmy]

6 minutes ago, kobayashi said:

From the TU accounts to December 2019, we know that owned 25.4% of Chansiri Real Estate Co along with his two brothers. The company leased office space to Thai Union for a total GBP equivalent rental of £1.72m in 2019, and it also lists that he owns 15.0% of Thai Union Hi-tech Peral Cultivation Co. which in 2019, sold fish food to TU to the equivalent of £0.63m. 

The Chansiri family has a 19.35% shareholding of TU which at todays prices and exchange rate is valued at just over £300m. Of the total, his father (Co. Chairman) and brother (Co. President) are disclosed as owning 15.5%, which leaves 3.85% or approx. £60m of shares held by other families members. Presumably DC and his other (3rd) brother share part if not all of this. He and his other non TU director brothers have acquired/been given equal shares of the property and fish food company, if so his holding could be worth £30m. Interestingly, the Chansiri family shareholding % has been reducing over recent years but his brother (Co. President) has been buying shares and his fathers holding hasn't changed, which means that one of the other family members has been selling shares. 

 

So all tidy sums but not on the face of it not even close to be sufficient to fund his SWFC caper.

Very good analysis, so the question has to be who else is funding this car crash of a football club? 

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

3 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

 

I think you need to look at the full verdict before deciding what stacks up. 

Why I said on face of it.

 

Personally and professionally I am very uncomfortable with the notion of questioning the audited accounts. 

[Dick_Turpin]

13 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Why I said on face of it.

 

Personally and professionally I am very uncomfortable with the notion of questioning the audited accounts. 

But accounting conventions don't necessarily reflect the real world. I used to be an accountant myself before I got a proper job.

 

[bolton9owl]

8 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

 

This is the issue for me. When does a gambler stop gambling in order to recoup his losses?  We have no idea of how much money is in the pot or the source of it. So we don't know how long the losses can be sustained for or when someone will say enough is enough. 

I absolutely agree - and that’s the point, how long can the loses be sustained.

He came with a pocket full of money, gambled - lost, gambled again and lost again.

How long can we expect our gambler to have all the passion and ambition to win when he just keeps recording losses. That’s not fun surely !!  - and while he continues to find the ‘pot of gold’ at the end of the rainbow the reputation and standing of our historic club is being eroded away.

 

[Big Jack]

Will DC  appeal , I suspect the decision will be made when Nick De Marco has read the transcript and given his view.

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

6 minutes ago, Asio otus said:

Will DC  appeal , I suspect the decision will be made when Nick De Marco has read the transcript and given his view.

 

One of the legal experts interviewed here was saying that if we appeal, there's a chance that our punishment could be worse, or could be instated this season. Basically, it would go back to the drawing board and the original sanction would be disregarded when deciding any new punishment.

 

 

[kobayashi]

40 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Why I said on face of it.

 

Personally and professionally I am very uncomfortable with the notion of questioning the audited accounts. 

Why? Banks, finance providers, potential investors/purchasers, suppliers, credit insurers, HMRC etc. routinely question audited accounts and may decide to not "accept" all or part of the contents if they are unconvinced. 

 

 

Edited August 3, 2020 by kobayashi

[Big Jack]

4 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

One of the legal experts interviewed here was saying that if we appeal, there's a chance that our punishment could be worse, or could be instated this season. Basically, it would go back to the drawing board and the original sanction would be disregarded when deciding any new punishment.

 

 

I would only listen to our own lawyer, no point hiring the best and not  listening to their advice. 

[Athelwulf]

37 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

There's a difference between 'having a go' and jeopardising the future of the club, though.

 

Chansiri's decisions have made the latter a distinct possibility, as we've avoided relegation to League One by the skin of our teeth (for now) at a time where there's very little certainty about the continued viability of that division, we barely have a squad to talk of, and we no longer own our own stadium.

 

As a club, when Chansiri arrived we were starting from a position in which at least half the Championship had a huge head-start in terms of investment in their squads over the past half-decade or so. The investment in many a Championship club over the past two decades dwarfs ours. Their infrastructures, academies, technical teams, scouting networks etc... were funded by Premier League money and parachute payments. Many may not have spent as heavily in the past few seasons, but we've been playing catch-up in a major way after the best part of two decades being left to wither on the vine.

 

Unfortunately, where cool heads and keen eyes were needed due to P&S rules, we overstretched ourselves in our desperation to redress the balance. In typical Wednesday fashion, we did so at the worst possible time, and opened the door for the EFL to throw the book at us.

 

But we're not the only club to do this, and frankly if you're not a United, a Leeds, or a parachute club then it's what you have to do.

 

We've only been in with a shout of promotion for the last 5 years, although we've been down for twenty.

 

You have to have a go, lie fallow for several seasons if you fail, then have another go.

 

When Chansiri came here he knew absolutely nothing about football...and he probably wouldn't have bought us if he had.

 

I'm not saying that where we are isn't to some extent down to Chansiri, but we have to share some of the blame too.

 

Before he even arrived we rejected Warnock, which was probably the biggest clanger of all.

 

How many fans have come on this site and admitted that they were wrong about Colin?

 

How many have admitted that they were wrong about Gray, or at least wrong about chuntering about not playing exciting, attacking football?

 

The naive Dejphon thus went out and bought a cartload of forwards and left the defence to moulder.

 

Then there's the signing of Rhodes.

 

At least some of our financial problems are down to him, and there weren't many who didn't want him signing at the time.

 

Chansiri once again gave the fans what they wanted.

 

I don't believe for an instant that Chansiri hasn't learnt from this, and quite possibly next time he'll get it right.

 

We need to appeal the points deduction, sack Monk, but most of all get the club blessed.

 

Because any luck that's going in this city in recent times has been going over the road.

[Dick_Turpin]

1 hour ago, bolton9owl said:

i know it’s been said that he could put SWFC into administration and that would be the end of the club

The point of an administration is to protect a business from creditors and help it carry on. As you say many businesses have emerged from it. The point is that businesses should be stronger after coming out of it. Football though penalises administration in a way that ordinary businesses aren't punished in there's the automatic 12 point penalty.   But we're in an unusual position in that we are in hock to Chansiri rather than other creditors or the bank - although there'll be VAT/PAYE etc. So creditors aren't chasing him. 

 

There may come a point though when he's had enough. You'd think he'd just sell to the highest bidder then and recoup what he can rather than go down the insolvency route. 

 

 

[Dick_Turpin]

5 minutes ago, Athelwulf said:

Chansiri once again gave the fans what they wanted.

 

 

Always someone else's fault. 

 

 

[wellbeaten-the-owl]

16 minutes ago, kobayashi said:

Why? Banks, finance providers, potential investors/purchasers, suppliers, credit insurers, HMRC etc. routinely question audited accounts and may decide to not "accept" all or part of the contents if they are unconvinced. 

 

 

That's different to saying that the accounts are incorrect.  Again without written reasoning it's all speculation. But the reason these hearings have an appeals procedure in first place is because judgements can be proved incorrect.

 

Also not mentioned but surely EFL can appeal also as still go after us on the bad faith charge!

 

 

[sherlyegg]

8 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

Also not mentioned but surely EFL can appeal also as still go after us on the bad faith charge!

Think that would be very unlikely, more inclined to think, if they appeal..points deduction must be this season.

[kobayashi]

4 minutes ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

That's different to saying that the accounts are incorrect.  Again without written reasoning it's all speculation. But the reason these hearings have an appeals procedure in first place is because judgements can be proved incorrect.

 

Also not mentioned but surely EFL can appeal also as still go after us on the bad faith charge!

 

 

Semantics possibly, but have they said that they are wrong or just that they are not accepted for the purpose of the P&S? Presumably amongst other things the panel heard expert witnesses on the applicable GAAP and finally took a view that the sale should not be recognised in 17/18. As you say judgements can be proved incorrect, but that holds for the auditor as much as the next man.  

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

34 minutes ago, Athelwulf said:

 

But we're not the only club to do this, and frankly if you're not a United, a Leeds, or a parachute club then it's what you have to do.

 

We've only been in with a shout of promotion for the last 5 years, although we've been down for twenty.

 

You have to have a go, lie fallow for several seasons if you fail, then have another go.

 

When Chansiri came here he knew absolutely nothing about football...and he probably wouldn't have bought us if he had.

 

I'm not saying that where we are isn't to some extent down to Chansiri, but we have to share some of the blame too.

 

Before he even arrived we rejected Warnock, which was probably the biggest clanger of all.

 

How many fans have come on this site and admitted that they were wrong about Colin?

 

How many have admitted that they were wrong about Gray, or at least wrong about chuntering about not playing exciting, attacking football?

 

The naive Dejphon thus went out and bought a cartload of forwards and left the defence to moulder.

 

Then there's the signing of Rhodes.

 

At least some of our financial problems are down to him, and there weren't many who didn't want him signing at the time.

 

Chansiri once again gave the fans what they wanted.

 

I don't believe for an instant that Chansiri hasn't learnt from this, and quite possibly next time he'll get it right.

 

We need to appeal the points deduction, sack Monk, but most of all get the club blessed.

 

Because any luck that's going in this city in recent times has been going over the road.

 

The fans of any football club will always want more players, more exciting football, more goals, more, more, more...

 

It's not a chairman's job to appease them at the expense of prudent financial management.

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

39 minutes ago, Asio otus said:

I would only listen to our own lawyer, no point hiring the best and not listening to their advice. 

 

Fair enough, although it's not done us much good so far!

 

 

All I'm saying is that we'll have to weigh up the potential of a harsher sanction being handed down should we appeal.