Breaking news. SWFC v EFL

[HarrowbyOwl]

3 minutes ago, Grandad said:

 

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

Not cut and paste mate. I've been following this shizzle as closely as I can since the charges were first brought.

In the absence of any information about the what has actually gone on within the arbitration and disciplinary cases I've been trying to get my round the regulations and processes.

IF the decision is published tomorrow expect a long, complex read.

[WalthamOwl]

As long as the punishment can’t be increased I would be pretty certain DC will appeal. Actually even if it can be increased I still think DC will appeal. Personally I don’t know what we should do, if it can be increased perhaps an appeal would be to much of a risk? Imo starting on 0 or -12+ will make a big difference to what players we can attract, not all but some players of a certain quality will be put off imo. 

Edited August 16, 2020 by WalthamOwl

[Buddy Repperton]

I'd love to know how derby keep "bending" the rules as and when and this is ok is it?

The whole Rooney thing last season,the suspect inflated value of pride park, and now another "loan" to help things along. Morris would sell his own family to get promoted but SWFC are slaughtered and attacked by everyone.

Sums up what a corrupt,shambles football currently is!

[WalthamOwl]

Nixon (I know) saying be believes we are appealing, so much in the report that a lawyer will fancy a fee for arguing the case for us. He’s not sure it will get us anywhere though. If an appeal is to happen surely it has to been concluded before the season starts. 

Edited August 16, 2020 by WalthamOwl

[owls-swfc]

2 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said:

Nixon (I know) saying be believes we are appealing, so much in the report that a lawyer will fancy a fee for arguing the case for us. He’s not sure it will get us anywhere though. 

Nixon or the Lawyer? 

[TrickyTrev]

11 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said:

As long as the punishment can’t be increased I would be pretty certain DC will appeal. Actually even if it can be increased I still think DC will appeal. Personally I don’t know what we should do, if it can be increased perhaps an appeal would be to much of a risk? Imo starting on 0 or -12+ will make a big difference to what players we can attract, not all but some players of a certain quality will be put off imo. 

With the squad we have at present and a 12 point deduction I honestly think we will go down anyway.

 

Whether the punishment can be increased or not, I think Chansiri needs to appeal this... especially given today’s report in the Sun.

[WalthamOwl]

4 minutes ago, owls-swfc said:

Nixon or the Lawyer? 

Nixon saying he isn’t sure it will get us anywhere. A lawyer will argue anything if it means they get paid! Imo of course. 

[Animis]

24 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

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.

 

I think it's a bit more entrenched than that - on both sides.

 

I think it's correct that we hadn't highlighted the intention to sell the ground in the mid-season financial submission in Dec 18, because I don't think DC knew for sure he was going to do it at this point. I've long suspected the resignations of the two other Directors in Feb 19 was the point DC thought let's do it, and he ended going alone in terms of Director's responsibility/liability. No doubt the valuers, lawyers, accountants, and auditors were put on notice to push this through in three months and we gave notice of a delay in the 17/18 accounts to ensure this could happen.

 

It's all a bit shabby, and the disappointing part is that DC hasn't publicly acknowledged that we been painfully poor in our financial management, which put the club's league position at risk. The £38m cash injection over the next three years is only a price worth paying if we actually take advantage and invest it wisely in the playing staff. It's actually our own little parachute payment but we must use it properly.

[Guest gizowl]

12 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said:

Nixon (I know) saying be believes we are appealing, so much in the report that a lawyer will fancy a fee for arguing the case for us. He’s not sure it will get us anywhere though. If an appeal is to happen surely it has to been concluded before the season starts. 

Minimum half a million quid bill also, that's what it cost Wigan for their appeal. 

[WalthamOwl]

2 minutes ago, gizowl said:

Minimum half a million quid bill also, that's what it cost Wigan for their appeal. 

exactly. Worth it? 

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

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. 

 

Absolutely. We fell foul of the rules in the same period as Birmingham and as such should have received the punishment in the same period. it is the clubs we were competing against at the time who have been punished by the penalty not being applied then.

[Animis]

22 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said:

As long as the punishment can’t be increased I would be pretty certain DC will appeal. Actually even if it can be increased I still think DC will appeal. Personally I don’t know what we should do, if it can be increased perhaps an appeal would be to much of a risk? Imo starting on 0 or -12+ will make a big difference to what players we can attract, not all but some players of a certain quality will be put off imo. 

 

The points deduction scale was outlined by the Independent panel in the Birmingham case:

 

[Triple O]

5 minutes ago, gizowl said:

Minimum half a million quid bill also, that's what it cost Wigan for their appeal. 

No, apparently the appeal bill was only a quarter of that.

[longreach]

30 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

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. 

Did we break the rules? We only broke the rules if we lose the appeal... and only  then under certain mitigating circumstance. 

[mogbad]

31 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said:

As long as the punishment can’t be increased I would be pretty certain DC will appeal. Actually even if it can be increased I still think DC will appeal. Personally I don’t know what we should do, if it can be increased perhaps an appeal would be to much of a risk? Imo starting on 0 or -12+ will make a big difference to what players we can attract, not all but some players of a certain quality will be put off imo. 

I would have thought the only way the punishment would be increased is if the EFL successfully appealed against the panels decision to find the club not guilty of not acting in the utmost good faith towards the EFL.

[airborne_rat_of_s6]

8 hours ago, wellbeaten-the-owl said:

They chased misconduct charge because halfway through season it looked like the FFP penalty alone wouldn't get the job done.

 

If we had been deducted 12points at Xmas it would have just put us mid table and still in reach of play offs then (as we were 3rd.  That's why they chased that because they needed the 21points to get their desired result.

 

They needed the 21points because given our league position at halfway point 21point would either:

Stop us making play offs if we were on 71points or greater or

Likely relegate us if we finished on 70 points or less.

 

Seems they didn't want another Birmingham where the points deduction had no real effect

Nothing like acting with parity and fairness. Love to know how the Derby situation is going to pan out. Surely the spectre of action hanging over them would have an impact on morale and their plans. 

[alanharper]

2 hours 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? 

 

 

My thoughts exactly. The accounts with the stadium sale came out in July I think, so I don't know how they could have then held the investigation and retrospectively deducted points for the previous season. The accounts come out, they tot up the losses over the last 3 year's of accounts and decide whether to penalise. 

 

If they'd done that with Birmingham they'd have been retrospectively relegated, which would obviously have been a bit awkward when they'd already played about 35 games in the Championship the season after they'd broken the FFP limit. 

 

They had half a season to think about it after our accounts were released and then eventually charged us in December. God knows why it then took another 6 months to arrange the hearing,  even allowing for the coronavirus. It could have been wrapped up by the end of January. 

[Ozymandias]

42 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

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. 

I agree with the sentiment about being punished for breaking the rules.
What I don’t agree with is the disparity in sanctions imposed upon those that do. 

[Dick_Turpin]

11 minutes ago, longreach said:

Did we break the rules? We only broke the rules if we lose the appeal... and only  then under certain mitigating circumstance. 

At the moment we’re guilty. That’s how these things work.  There may not even be an appeal. As for mitigating circumstances, I have no idea what they would be. 
 

I thought we’d be fine but it’s always puzzled me why Chansiri said we’d be in the poo  if nothing came up in the fans forum after he’d already sold the stadium and therefore weren’t in the poo . Either he was fibbing to us or something else didn’t stack up. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, alanharper said:

 

 

My thoughts exactly. The accounts with the stadium sale came out in July I think, so I don't know how they could have then held the investigation and retrospectively deducted points for the previous season. The accounts come out, they tot up the losses over the last 3 year's of accounts and decide whether to penalise. 

 

If they'd done that with Birmingham they'd have been retrospectively relegated, which would obviously have been a bit awkward when they'd already played about 35 games in the Championship the season after they'd broken the FFP limit. 

 

They had half a season to think about it after our accounts were released and then eventually charged us in December. God knows why it then took another 6 months to arrange the hearing,  even allowing for the coronavirus. It could have been wrapped up by the end of January. 

 

The article out today suggests the panel thought we should have been punished in the 2018-19 season.

 

As has been said in response to this, due to breaching the 2-year limits we would have been under constant monitoring and although the audited accounts were not with Companies House, we would have had to submit pretty finalised accounts to the EFL by Dec 2018/Jan 2019. It appears as though the panel may believe the charge and deduction should have been raised on this basis therefore during the 2018-19 season, we will hopefully know more tomorrow.