Breaking news. SWFC v EFL

[bobness]

Weren't our accounts published and the stadium sale announced in the summer of 2019? How then would it have been possible for the EFL to punish us in the 2018/19 season? 

[Swiss Toni]

I don’t feel the EFL have a specific agenda against us specifically or historically. They want to try and make a statement and to flex their muscles and we are the unfortunate club in the firing line. Let’s be honest, it’s not like we’ve been squeaky clean.

[HarrowbyOwl]

Charges brought against SWFC by the EFL on 14 November 2019 related to the P&S assessment round that started in March 2018.
That P&S assessment covered the three year monitoring period 2015/16 (T-2), 2016/17 (T-1) and 2017/18 (T) seasons. 
In March each year clubs have to submit provisional accounts to the EFL for the 'reference period' (i.e. the current season 'T'). 

The assessment period starts in March, before the end of the season, but continues only when final published accounts for T are available.
So any sanctions can only be applied, at the earliest, in the season following the assessment period.

By contrast to SWFC, on 14 August 2018 the EFL referred Birmingham City to a Disciplinary Commission for breaching P&S regulations for the same monitoring period, i.e. seasons 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18. The sanction was imposed on 22 March 2019, before the end of the 2018/19 season.

 

So why the delay in charging Wednesday? Nixon claims it was down to a deliberate attempt to get us relaegated, but does that stand up?
Here's a potted timeline:
1) The SWFC accounts for 2017/18 were extended to the end of July, so the EFL P&S assessment would have been delayed.
2) Shortly after publication of the accounts on 26 July the soft embargo on the club was lifted.
3) On 26 September 2019 all 71 EFL clubs meet in Milton Keynes. Rick Parry was confirmed as EFL Chairman, having moved from position on the Investigatory Chamber of Uefa's Club Financial Control Body (CFCB). The CFCB oversees the application of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.
4) 16 October 2019: EFL appoint leading QC's at Blackstone Chambers as they step up their investigation into the stadium sales at SWFC, DCFC and RFC.
5) In Novemebr 2019 the EFL said that 'earlier this year' they had launched an investigation under (Rule 83.2) into SWFC’s financial submission for the period ending July 2018. The EFL said that the investigation was robust and comprehensive and had reviewed a large number of documents obtained from the Club. They concluded there was sufficient evidence to justify issuing charges of Misconduct.
6) On 4 December 2019 SWFC informed the EFL that the charges were unlawful and that it would be bringing its own claim against the EFL to establish that it is acting unlawfully.
7) On 18 December SWFC issued a statement saying that the EFL had refused to agree to the Club being permitted to make its claim, and refused to agree to a sensible procedure for dealing with the dispute, presumably blocking the club from invoking the right to arbitration under Rule 95.

8) SWFC seems to have won that tussle and said on 27 December that it was proceeding with its arbitration claim against the EFL and the process of appointing the arbitrators was underway. The arbitration fell under 95.2.1  - disputes arising from a decision of The League or the Board (‘Board Disputes’), with SWFC as claimant and EFL as respondent.
9) On 20 March 2020 the club issued a statement saying that the EFL had dropped all of the charges agianst DC, KM and JR, 'a recognition of the strength of the evidence that the Club has filed before league arbitration panels'. Panels in the plural there is a bit confusing. The conclusion to the statement then, rather ambguously, says that the charges against the club will proceed to a hearing and the club will continue to vigorously defend those charges. Was that a final hearing of the ongoing League Arbitration Panel, or separate proceedings and hearing before a Disciplibnary Commission? 
10) Either way the EFL were unable to begin disciplinary proceedings against SWFC before a Disciplinary Commission until the end of March 2020.
11) Disciplinary Commission imposes 12 point deduction, suspended to the 2020/21 season

Edited August 16, 2020 by HarrowbyOwl

[Nero]

3 hours ago, S36 OWL said:

So, every season we have three clubs come down from the Prem with a £45m head start, and that's acceptable according to the EFL. We then have an owner like Chansiri who wants to invest large amounts of money to be able to compete with these clubs. That's unacceptable according to the EFL. 

 

Financial fair play my Arse. 

And Bournemouth as one of the teams coming down with 45m this season broke FFP, got a 7m fine only and can also lose 40m plus no problem.

All on 10,000 fans bless em.

Mind you the owner was Russian and not Thai.

Rules eh? 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, bobness said:

Weren't our accounts published and the stadium sale announced in the summer of 2019? How then would it have been possible for the EFL to punish us in the 2018/19 season? 

 

Does seem impossible in that respect doesn't it.

Birmingham's accounts for the year to June 30 2018 didn't have to be filed until June 2019 but in filing them in January 2019 they had their EFL case done and the decision made and points deducted by March 2019. I don't think they appealed the decision, took it on the chin. Maybe they saw an opportunity with were they were in the table at that time, to get the accounts in and get the judgement wrapped up in time to 'suffer' their deduction that season when it wasn't likely to have a significant impact?

 

Can't say that was the case for sure but it makes a mockery of the rules when clubs are deducted points in different seasons for almost identical breaches of the rules in the same 3-year accounting period.

[TrickyTrev]

17 minutes ago, bobness said:

Weren't our accounts published and the stadium sale announced in the summer of 2019? How then would it have been possible for the EFL to punish us in the 2018/19 season? 

Don’t the EFL have access to the accounts before they are published?

[bobness]

1 minute ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Does seem impossible in that respect doesn't it.

Birmingham's accounts for the year to June 30 2018 didn't have to be filed until June 2019 but in filing them in January 2019 they had their EFL case done and the decision made and points deducted by March 2019. I don't think they appealed the decision, took it on the chin. Maybe they saw an opportunity with were they were in the table at that time, to get the accounts in and get the judgement wrapped up in time to 'suffer' their deduction that season when it wasn't likely to have a significant impact?

 

Can't say that was the case for sure but it makes a mockery of the rules when clubs are deducted points in different seasons for almost identical breaches of the rules in the same 3-year accounting period.

 

Don't see how the EFL is to blame for that though, considering we published our accounts after the 18/19 season was done.

[bobness]

2 minutes ago, TrickyTrev said:

Don’t the EFL have access to the accounts before they are published?

 

Can the EFL legitimately sanction a club before its accounts are published? 

[TrickyTrev]

1 minute ago, bobness said:

 

Can the EFL legitimately sanction a club before its accounts are published? 

I suppose we’ll find out tomorrow when the report is published.

 

The Sun report does go into quite a lot of detail however suggesting they have had sight of it. If the club received this report on 4th August as Dom Howson has stated, it’s not beyond the realms of possibility that this could’ve been leaked to the press.

[Triple O]

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, bobness said:

 

Don't see how the EFL is to blame for that though, considering we published our accounts after the 18/19 season was done.

 

The rules should stipulate which season the deduction will be applied to. Shouldn't be possible different for it to be different seasons for the the same accounting period. Once clubs are at risk of breaching in year 3 the EFL have them on close monitoring and accurate projections need to be submitted which will give evidence of whether clubs will breach. Should also be tighter deadlines for raising the charges, getting the cases heard and any appeals. How long should they need given that the accounts will have been closely monitored due to the results of the previous years? It is the fault of the EFL that there is no clarity on this.   

[Nut]

16 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

Does seem impossible in that respect doesn't it.

Birmingham's accounts for the year to June 30 2018 didn't have to be filed until June 2019 but in filing them in January 2019 they had their EFL case done and the decision made and points deducted by March 2019. I don't think they appealed the decision, took it on the chin. Maybe they saw an opportunity with were they were in the table at that time, to get the accounts in and get the judgement wrapped up in time to 'suffer' their deduction that season when it wasn't likely to have a significant impact?

 

Can't say that was the case for sure but it makes a mockery of the rules when clubs are deducted points in different seasons for almost identical breaches of the rules in the same 3-year accounting period.

Also, any club breaking the rules has the services of the players they shouldn't have bought for the length of their contracts, not just the season in question. The rules are a total farce. 

[helmut_rooster]

41 minutes ago, Nero said:

And Bournemouth as one of the teams coming down with 45m this season broke FFP, got a 7m fine only and can also lose 40m plus no problem.

All on 10,000 fans bless em.

Mind you the owner was Russian and not Thai.

Rules eh? 

 

Answer, EFL are cnts.

[attyjake]

8 hours ago, vulva said:

I’ve got a better idea. Let’s stick to the rules And run the business properly like 80 odd other clubs manage to, and none of this will happen. It’s an old fashioned principle but we should give it a whirl. 
 

 

Ever thought of changing your name to "DEVILS ADVOCATE"

 

Or is somebody already using that!          

[Guest mkowl]

1 hour ago, HarrowbyOwl said:

Charges brought against SWFC by the EFL on 14 November 2019 related to the P&S assessment round that started in March 2018.
That P&S assessment covered the three year monitoring period 2015/16 (T-2), 2016/17 (T-1) and 2017/18 (T) seasons. 
In March each year clubs have to submit provisional accounts to the EFL for the 'reference period' (i.e. the current season 'T'). 

The assessment period starts in March, before the end of the season, but continues only when final published accounts for T are available.
So any sanctions can only be applied, at the earliest, in the season following the assessment period.

By contrast to SWFC, on 14 August 2018 the EFL referred Birmingham City to a Disciplinary Commission for breaching P&S regulations for the same monitoring period, i.e. seasons 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18. The sanction was imposed on 22 March 2019, before the end of the 2018/19 season.

 

So why the delay in charging Wednesday? Nixon claims it was down to a deliberate attempt to get us relaegated, but does that stand up?
Here's a potted timeline:
1) The SWFC accounts for 2017/18 were extended to the end of July, so the EFL P&S assessment would have been delayed.
2) Shortly after publication of the accounts on 26 July the soft embargo on the club was lifted.
3) On 26 September 2019 all 71 EFL clubs meet in Milton Keynes. Rick Parry was confirmed as EFL Chairman, having moved from position on the Investigatory Chamber of Uefa's Club Financial Control Body (CFCB). The CFCB oversees the application of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.
4) 16 October 2019: EFL appoint leading QC's at Blackstone Chambers as they step up their investigation into the stadium sales at SWFC, DCFC and RFC.
5) In Novemebr 2019 the EFL said that 'earlier this year' they had launched an investigation under (Rule 83.2) into SWFC’s financial submission for the period ending July 2018. The EFL said that the investigation was robust and comprehensive and had reviewed a large number of documents obtained from the Club. They concluded there was sufficient evidence to justify issuing charges of Misconduct.
6) On 4 December 2019 SWFC informed the EFL that the charges were unlawful and that it would be bringing its own claim against the EFL to establish that it is acting unlawfully.
7) On 18 December SWFC issued a statement saying that the EFL had refused to agree to the Club being permitted to make its claim, and refused to agree to a sensible procedure for dealing with the dispute, presumably blocking the club from invoking the right to arbitration under Rule 95.

SWFC seems to have won that tussle and said on 27 December that it was proceeding with its arbitration claim against the EFL and the process of appointing the arbitrators was underway. The arbitration fell under 95.2.1  - disputes arising from a decision of The League or the Board (‘Board Disputes’), with SWFC as claimant and EFL as respondent.
9) On 20 March 2020 the club issued a statement saying that the EFL had dropped all of the charges agianst DC, KM and JR, 'a recognition of the strength of the evidence that the Club has filed before league arbitration panels'. Panels in the plural there is a bit confusing. The conclusion to the statement then, rather ambguously, says that the charges against the club will proceed to a hearing and the club will continue to vigorously defend those charges. Was that a final hearing of the ongoing League Arbitration Panel, or separate proceedings and hearing before a Disciplibnary Commission? 
10) Either way the EFL were unable to begin disciplinary proceedings against SWFC before a Disciplinary Commission until the end of March 2020.
11) Disciplinary Commission imposes 12 point deduction, suspended to the 2020/21 season

 

That is the point - the review process is almost a continual assessment particularly if you have been under measures before. 

 

I believe that final figures (but not audited) for the 17/18 season should have been with the EFL by December 18.

 

Then you have the final audited accounts sent to them. Meaning that there should not be much change in them

 

So ordinarily the EFL would have a pretty good idea in December 18 we were in breach. And that presumably meant the stadium sale was not in the December 18 figures supplied.

 

The EFL hold back perhaps partly because they don't have the filed accounts  but perhaps because it wouldn't be any punishment. The bottom 3 are well adrift in 18/19.

 

The accounts get filed and suddenly we have the stadium sale in. Hence the misconduct charge - particularly if this transaction had never been mentioned with reference to 2018/19

 

Just an hypothesis

[Big Jack]

Anyone thinks that the financial regulations are fair , then they must be supporters of Europe's biggest clubs.

 

Since it was set up 9 years ago, all it has done has ensured that clubs who already for decades were dominating the game 

 

have continued to grow bigger and the chasm of fair play now is greater than when it was set up.

 

You cannot blame owners for trying to circumvent the system, which is stacked  in favour of big clubs like PSG, Man City.

 

Are we being picked on ? Of course  we are like all clubs outside the elite, the system was designed to create a level playing field and 

 

has failed miserably . DC should appeal, the system is not fit for purpose and the more clubs like ours stand up to the EFL, the more likely 

 

it will be abolished. 

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, mkowl said:

 

That is the point - the review process is almost a continual assessment particularly if you have been under measures before. 

 

I believe that final figures (but not audited) for the 17/18 season should have been with the EFL by December 18.

 

Then you have the final audited accounts sent to them. Meaning that there should not be much change in them

 

So ordinarily the EFL would have a pretty good idea in December 18 we were in breach. And that presumably meant the stadium sale was not in the December 18 figures supplied.

 

The EFL hold back perhaps partly because they don't have the filed accounts  but perhaps because it wouldn't be any punishment. The bottom 3 are well adrift in 18/19.

 

The accounts get filed and suddenly we have the stadium sale in. Hence the misconduct charge - particularly if this transaction had never been mentioned with reference to 2018/19

 

Just an hypothesis

 

Having read a little on this, though nothing concrete, just based on the fact the article reports that the panel suggests we should have been charged in 2018/19, my hypothesis is similar.

 

As you say, although the accounts weren't with Companies House, we were being monitored by the EFL due to our 2 year losses and would have had to file the basis of the 2017-18 accounts with the EFL by January 2019. 

Maybe we did and the accounts showed that we failed on the 3-year test and so the panel believe the charge should have been raised at that point. Perhaps the EFL agreed to delay it because we were trying to sort out the position of the stadium sale which would have meant we didn't fail if it could be applied to that season. It was said that we were in regular dialogue with the EFL, maybe it was in respect of this but the actual EFL position was that they were never likely to allow it given the info at the time but weren't bothered if the charge was delayed and then raised in 2019-20. The panel may be of the belief that the charge should have been raised when they had information of the breach and the club would then have to contest it at that point with the stadium sale being a mitigating factor?

 

Again, just a hypothesis, hopefully we will know more tomorrow.

[Big Jack]

IF there is any accuracy in the scummy paper, then DC must take the EFL through every possible legal channel open to him 

and squeeze the living daylights out of the EFL.

However given its the scummy paper, best hold fire, its rare to believe the veracity of that scummy rag.

[Guest Grandad]

1 hour ago, HarrowbyOwl said:

Charges brought against SWFC by the EFL on 14 November 2019 related to the P&S assessment round that started in March 2018.
That P&S assessment covered the three year monitoring period 2015/16 (T-2), 2016/17 (T-1) and 2017/18 (T) seasons. 
In March each year clubs have to submit provisional accounts to the EFL for the 'reference period' (i.e. the current season 'T'). 

The assessment period starts in March, before the end of the season, but continues only when final published accounts for T are available.
So any sanctions can only be applied, at the earliest, in the season following the assessment period.

By contrast to SWFC, on 14 August 2018 the EFL referred Birmingham City to a Disciplinary Commission for breaching P&S regulations for the same monitoring period, i.e. seasons 2015/16, 2016/17 and 2017/18. The sanction was imposed on 22 March 2019, before the end of the 2018/19 season.

 

So why the delay in charging Wednesday? Nixon claims it was down to a deliberate attempt to get us relaegated, but does that stand up?
Here's a potted timeline:
1) The SWFC accounts for 2017/18 were extended to the end of July, so the EFL P&S assessment would have been delayed.
2) Shortly after publication of the accounts on 26 July the soft embargo on the club was lifted.
3) On 26 September 2019 all 71 EFL clubs meet in Milton Keynes. Rick Parry was confirmed as EFL Chairman, having moved from position on the Investigatory Chamber of Uefa's Club Financial Control Body (CFCB). The CFCB oversees the application of the UEFA Club Licensing and Financial Fair Play Regulations.
4) 16 October 2019: EFL appoint leading QC's at Blackstone Chambers as they step up their investigation into the stadium sales at SWFC, DCFC and RFC.
5) In Novemebr 2019 the EFL said that 'earlier this year' they had launched an investigation under (Rule 83.2) into SWFC’s financial submission for the period ending July 2018. The EFL said that the investigation was robust and comprehensive and had reviewed a large number of documents obtained from the Club. They concluded there was sufficient evidence to justify issuing charges of Misconduct.
6) On 4 December 2019 SWFC informed the EFL that the charges were unlawful and that it would be bringing its own claim against the EFL to establish that it is acting unlawfully.
7) On 18 December SWFC issued a statement saying that the EFL had refused to agree to the Club being permitted to make its claim, and refused to agree to a sensible procedure for dealing with the dispute, presumably blocking the club from invoking the right to arbitration under Rule 95.

SWFC seems to have won that tussle and said on 27 December that it was proceeding with its arbitration claim against the EFL and the process of appointing the arbitrators was underway. The arbitration fell under 95.2.1  - disputes arising from a decision of The League or the Board (‘Board Disputes’), with SWFC as claimant and EFL as respondent.
9) On 20 March 2020 the club issued a statement saying that the EFL had dropped all of the charges agianst DC, KM and JR, 'a recognition of the strength of the evidence that the Club has filed before league arbitration panels'. Panels in the plural there is a bit confusing. The conclusion to the statement then, rather ambguously, says that the charges against the club will proceed to a hearing and the club will continue to vigorously defend those charges. Was that a final hearing of the ongoing League Arbitration Panel, or separate proceedings and hearing before a Disciplibnary Commission? 
10) Either way the EFL were unable to begin disciplinary proceedings against SWFC before a Disciplinary Commission until the end of March 2020.
11) Disciplinary Commission imposes 12 point deduction, suspended to the 2020/21 season

 

If that's not a cut and paste can I just say - that's a really good post

[Dick_Turpin]

Whatever you think of the rules we broke them and most other clubs didn’t. You’d effectively be punishing those other clubs for sticking to the rules if we’ve  broken them and didn’t get penalised.

 

That’s regardless of what you think about the rules in the first place.  
 

Logic then says we should have been punished as quickly as possible given the usual delays that affect court cases and tribunals etc.