TheEnchanter Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 1 minute ago, shez owl said: No, the statement says we’ve breached profit and sustainability for 2017/18. That’s what we’ve been done for. They've disallowed the sale of the ground in those accounts. So we’ve not been done for concealing the sale or that the sale was illegal, they’ve simply said that sale should not have been included. They breached rules by including the sale of their Hillsborough Stadium home in their 2017-18 accounts despite the ground being sold a year later. Mate, we've actually been done for including the stadium in those accounts to hide the fact we were going to breach FFP anyway. So we WOULD have got -9 if we just owned up to it but instead we tried to conceal it with this and thats why we've been done. You've honestly misunderstood. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S40owl Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Why appeal we've dodged a bullet . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeverleyOwl74 Posted July 31, 2020 Author Share Posted July 31, 2020 The EFL have proved they're about as effective as us 6 yards out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeonLeon Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 (edited) If you want to know why Birmingham got 9 and not 12 read the last few pages of this... https://www.efl.com/contentassets/c79763f8e2174f4fb87200a371abf5fa/190322---efl-v-bcfc---decision---final.pdf It’s not as straightforward as people are making out. It could also be the case that our deduction follows the same additions and subtractions there’s did before it was settled at 9. . Edited July 31, 2020 by NeonLeon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shez owl Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 1 minute ago, TheEnchanter said: They breached rules by including the sale of their Hillsborough Stadium home in their 2017-18 accounts despite the ground being sold a year later. Mate, we've actually been done for including the stadium in those accounts to hide the fact we were going to breach FFP anyway. So we WOULD have got -9 if we just owned up to it but instead we tried to conceal it with this and thats why we've been done. You've honestly misunderstood. We were found NOT guilty of concealing and bad faith. So I’m not misunderstanding, we have failed the 3year rolling P&S, that’s what we have been found guilty of and the sporting deduction has been applied. That’s what the statement says, yes the reason is because they’ve disallowed the sale of the ground. But my argument stands Birmingham failed P&S and had 9 points. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wakefield owl Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 (edited) The crux of this is that the auditors were satisfied to include the sale in our 2018 accounts but the commission have decided otherwise. We need to understand why the commission have effectively overruled the auditors. Edited July 31, 2020 by Wakefield owl 7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple O Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 8 minutes ago, TheEnchanter said: the They breached rules by including the sale of their Hillsborough Stadium home in their 2017-18 accounts despite the ground being sold a year later. Mate, we've actually been done for including the stadium in those accounts to hide the fact we were going to breach FFP anyway. So we WOULD have got -9 if we just owned up to it but instead we tried to conceal it with this and thats why we've been done. You've honestly misunderstood. Think you're making your own statement up here mate. Read the EFL statement on their site it clearly says that the sanction is solely for exceeding the P & S limits and the further charge has been dismissed. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Lestrade Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 35 minutes ago, 4evaowl said: I was caned (Rightly) by the Headmaster at school. He said take the punishment and learn from it. He was right. That's fair enough if you did it, but if you genuinely believe that you are innocent then you have duty to challenge the decision. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANDY Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 The EFL can also appeal that the punishment is too lenient. Wasn’t -21 points muted around at some stage ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEnchanter Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, shez owl said: We were found NOT guilty of concealing and bad faith. So I’m not misunderstanding, we have failed the 3year rolling P&S, that’s what we have been found guilty of and the sporting deduction has been applied. That’s what the statement says, yes the reason is because they’ve disallowed the sale of the ground. But my argument stands Birmingham failed P&S and had 9 points. Like it says in the EFL statement, we were found guilty based on the fact that the club should not have included profits from the sale of Hillsborough in the specific period. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEnchanter Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 2 minutes ago, Triple O said: Think you're making your own statement up here mate. Read the EFL statement on their site it clearly says that the sanction is solely for exceeding the P & S limits and the further charge has been dismissed. This is the statement. We've been found guilty based on including the stadium sale in that specific years accounts. It says it in the statement. So what am I missing? Yes, we were already breaking FFP for which we would have been punished anyway to the tune of minus 9 like Brum perhaps. But the backdated sale of the stadium to cover this up is why we've been punished. It says exactly that in the EFL statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple O Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 1 minute ago, TheEnchanter said: Like it says in the EFL statement, we were found guilty based on the fact that the club should not have included profits from the sale of Hillsborough in the specific period. Yes guilty of breaching P & S not any false accounting 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigblueowl Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 22 minutes ago, Owls2k said: This is not over with Chansiri in charge, he is the black knight from Monty Python don't forget. Just a flesh wound! 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEnchanter Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Just now, Triple O said: Yes guilty of breaching P & S not any false accounting No, i never said false accounting. It says including profits from the stadium sale in the efl statement. Which you clearly haven't read. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Claw Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Bothered Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Django Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 I don’t get it tbh DC and other staff were cleared in March The club have been cleared of acting dishonestly What have we actually been done for? If we’ve cheated then why haven’t they completely gone to town on us Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEnchanter Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 So what does this mean then. Am I going mad " which conducted a full hearing at the end of June 2020, before finding the Club guilty based on the fact that the Club should not have included profits from the sale of Hillsborough Stadium in the Club’s financial statements for the period ending July 2018. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple O Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Just now, TheEnchanter said: No, i never said false accounting. It says including profits from the stadium sale in the efl statement. Which you clearly haven't read. I have read it fully and the sanction is purely for breaching P & S. We were not guilty ( according the the panel ) of deliberately misleading or concealing information. The panel has simply decided that the year the sale of the ground was included was not to be allowed therefore this revenue loss pushed us over the limit of P & S as a consequence. Perhaps you should read it without your usual black cap on. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shez owl Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 (edited) 9 minutes ago, TheEnchanter said: This is the statement. We've been found guilty based on including the stadium sale in that specific years accounts. It says it in the statement. So what am I missing? Yes, we were already breaking FFP for which we would have been punished anyway to the tune of minus 9 like Brum perhaps. But the backdated sale of the stadium to cover this up is why we've been punished. It says exactly that in the EFL statement. Look at the para above the one you’ve copied. Yes we should not have included it in 17/18 so the consequence is that we’ve failed 3 year p&s And guilty. That’s what the deduction is for, not the sale of the ground, they’ve said nothing about that being fraudulent or wrong just not allowed in 17/18 and we’ve been cleared of trying to fiddle or hide it. Edited July 31, 2020 by shez owl 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEnchanter Posted July 31, 2020 Share Posted July 31, 2020 Just now, Triple O said: I have read it fully and the sanction is purely for breaching P & S. We were not guilty ( according the the panel ) of deliberately misleading or concealing information. The panel has simply decided that the year the sale of the ground was included was not to be allowed therefore this revenue loss pushed us over the limit of P & S as a consequence. Perhaps you should read it without your usual black cap on. The wording from the statement says 'found guilty based on the fact the club should not have included profits from the sale of Hillsborough stadium'. Which explains a bigger deduction in comparison to Brum last year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now