Breaking news. SWFC v EFL

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

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. 

 

I guess he didn't specify exactly when we'd be in the pooh. Had the stadium sale been allowed in 2017-18 it would only have given us a short reprieve as we would surely then breach the next year based on £20M losses in 2017, £3M profit with the stadium sale in 2018 and what is likely to be significant losses again this year. 

[WalthamOwl]

31 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

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

 

so the maximum we can get is 12? As we where cleared of aggravating factors? Could an appeal result in us getting charged for aggravating factors? 

[HarrowbyOwl]

5 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

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. 

Not really sure why the IDC "thought" that we should have been punished in the 2018-19 season.

 

In the written decision of the the BCFC IDC presided over by Charles Flint QC does say: "The points deduction is to be applied in the season following the conclusion of the relevant 3 year monitoring period. It is only at the end of that period that any loss in excess of the aggregated threshold can be finally determined, so that the following season is the earliest point at which a points deduction can be applied."

 

Bute Rule 92.3 of the EFL Regulations just says that "These sanctions may be imposed immediately or may be deferred or suspended for such period and on such terms as the Disciplinary Commission shall decide."

 

Remember there is little precedent for all this stuff. The new Championship P&S rules were adopted in 2014 and only came into effect from Season 2016/17. The the first assessment period under the new regulations was 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18.

[mogbad]

1 minute ago, HarrowbyOwl said:

Not really sure why the IDC "thought" that we should have been punished in the 2018-19 season.

 

In the written decision of the the BCFC IDC presided over by Charles Flint QC does say: "The points deduction is to be applied in the season following the conclusion of the relevant 3 year monitoring period. It is only at the end of that period that any loss in excess of the aggregated threshold can be finally determined, so that the following season is the earliest point at which a points deduction can be applied."

 

Bute Rule 92.3 of the EFL Regulations just says that "These sanctions may be imposed immediately or may be deferred or suspended for such period and on such terms as the Disciplinary Commission shall decide."

 

Remember there is little precedent for all this stuff. The new Championship P&S rules were adopted in 2014 and only came into effect from Season 2016/17. The the first assessment period under the new regulations was 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18.

 

Does that mean that the EFL have no recourse to appeal the timing of the points deduction.

[Nero]

5 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said:

so the maximum we can get is 12? As we where cleared of aggravating factors? Could an appeal result in us getting charged for aggravating factors? 

Think those charges were dropped.

So no.

Next season we are either on -12 or 0.

[prowl]

3 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said:

so the maximum we can get is 12? As we where cleared of aggravating factors? Could an appeal result in us getting charged for aggravating factors? 

I can't see it. We are allowed to appeal. EFL could probably appeal on the basis that we should have been deducted points this year but I can't see them being able to increase the points deduction.

[HarrowbyOwl]

3 minutes ago, mogbad said:

 

Does that mean that the EFL have no recourse to appeal the timing of the points deduction.

No, I don't think so. The whole decision can be appealed - acting in good faith (in which case futher additional aggravating factor deductions could apply) and the decision to suspend the 12 points deduction.

The timing for getting the suspension reversed looks ridiculously tight if not impossible but there is provision for expediting appeal proceedings if there are compelling reasons.  

[Nero]

10 minutes ago, HarrowbyOwl said:

Not really sure why the IDC "thought" that we should have been punished in the 2018-19 season.

 

In the written decision of the the BCFC IDC presided over by Charles Flint QC does say: "The points deduction is to be applied in the season following the conclusion of the relevant 3 year monitoring period. It is only at the end of that period that any loss in excess of the aggregated threshold can be finally determined, so that the following season is the earliest point at which a points deduction can be applied."

 

Bute Rule 92.3 of the EFL Regulations just says that "These sanctions may be imposed immediately or may be deferred or suspended for such period and on such terms as the Disciplinary Commission shall decide."

 

Remember there is little precedent for all this stuff. The new Championship P&S rules were adopted in 2014 and only came into effect from Season 2016/17. The the first assessment period under the new regulations was 2015/16, 2016/17, 2017/18.

interesting and there is little case law as such.

I think its probable though that tribunal thought that the delay obviously has had a detrimental impact on the integrity of the EFL competition out of proportion to the points tariff deduction.

Especially damming if the EFL are judged to have delayed the hearing.

Lets not forget the EFL didnt bring the charge till November and aimed for 21 points which presumably would have landed in April.

What was the delay? Except to make the punishment definite relegation.

 

[HarrowbyOwl]

13 minutes ago, mogbad said:

 

Does that mean that the EFL have no recourse to appeal the timing of the points deduction.

The EFL won their appeal against the decision to suspend Macclesfield points deduction.

[Animis]

18 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said:

so the maximum we can get is 12? As we where cleared of aggravating factors? Could an appeal result in us getting charged for aggravating factors? 

 

Not sure - Birmingham also had the Kristian Pedersen issue when they 'ignored' the EFL's soft embargo.

 

I think the three year loses aren't dissimilar to us - they lost £38m in 17/18, we lost £32m.

[alanharper]

4 minutes ago, HarrowbyOwl said:

The EFL won their appeal against the decision to suspend Macclesfield points deduction.

 

And they also won their appeal a few months ago against Birmingham winning the case with their second breach which could have seen them being relegated (are Charlton outraged by that as well or just us?) - yet didn't impose any further punishment so what was the point? 

[HarrowbyOwl]

3 minutes ago, Nero said:

 

Especially damming if the EFL are judged to have delayed the hearing.

Lets not forget the EFL didnt bring the charge till November and aimed for 21 points which presumably would have landed in April.

 

 

But don't forget that SWFC didn't publish the 2017/18 accounts until August 2019. EFL brought charges three and a half months later, following a 'thorough' investigation of documentation provided by the club.

In October the EFL appointed leading QC's at Blackstone Chambers to work on the investigation into the stadium sales. After November it was SWFC's counter arbitration claim against the EFL that delayed the start of the disciplinary proceedings. The latter couldn't start until the former was resolved.

 

[Owls-Fan]

Never dull being a Wednesday fan is it, there’s always someone around the corner wearing a steel toed boot waiting to kick you in the knackers

[alanharper]

Just now, Owls-Fan said:

Never dull being a Wednesday fan is it, there’s always someone around the corner wearing a steel toed boot waiting to kick you in the knackers

 

It is when you go to the games

[striker]

22 minutes ago, HarrowbyOwl said:

No, I don't think so. The whole decision can be appealed - acting in good faith (in which case futher additional aggravating factor deductions could apply) and the decision to suspend the 12 points deduction.

The timing for getting the suspension reversed looks ridiculously tight if not impossible but there is provision for expediting appeal proceedings if there are compelling reasons.  

I'm sure lawyers have enough tricks up their sleeve to delay until after Friday when fixtures are released, if not after the season has started. 

[jonnyowl]

36 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said:

so the maximum we can get is 12? As we where cleared of aggravating factors? Could an appeal result in us getting charged for aggravating factors? 

12 points is the maximum we can be deducted for the charge we were found guilty of.

 

The punishment is on a sliding scale based on how much you go over the £39 million. We would have been about £18 million over without the sale of the stadium so that's why we got 12 points.

 

If there was an appeal, the club might argue that the points deduction should have been in 18-19 and the EFL have acted in bad faith to try and relegate us. I would think that the EFL aren't allowed to take a biased position over one club. They should have brought the charge at the correct time, and the points deduction deducted at the appropriate time.

 

The EFL shouldn't try and fudge it to relegate us!   

[Big Jack]

13 minutes ago, HarrowbyOwl said:

The EFL won their appeal against the decision to suspend Macclesfield points deduction.

However they were different charges. I think that because they tried to charge initially individuals and then the club on misconduct charges and failed means what would the EFL appeal on. The club have a very good case for appeal given the EFL do not appear to have followed their regulations correctly, probably because they are too complex even if their own organisation to understand. Really shows what a mess the whole policy is and needs a complete overhaul. One thing for sure the legal world are big winners in all of this. Rather ironic when it is all about financial fair play.

[Animis]

18 minutes ago, HarrowbyOwl said:

But don't forget that SWFC didn't publish the 2017/18 accounts until August 2019. EFL brought charges three and a half months later, following a 'thorough' investigation of documentation provided by the club.

In October the EFL appointed leading QC's at Blackstone Chambers to work on the investigation into the stadium sales. After November it was SWFC's counter arbitration claim against the EFL that delayed the start of the disciplinary proceedings. The latter couldn't start until the former was resolved.

 

 

Obviously until the full findings have been released tomorrow we don't know what the IDC will say on these matters.

 

However, seems to me the 'misconduct' charges have been dismissed - we didn't mislead anyone, simply ran out of time on the filling of the accounts to the EFL.

 

In the end, we abided by UK accountancy regulations and the stadium valuation hasn't been disputed. So, we did nothing wrong as a business. The profit from the stadium will be rolled forward, presumably to 18/19. The EFL don't like this, but like others we abused the 'loophole'. 

[sherlyegg]

Seems to me the EFL's trumped up charges against DC, Meire and Redgate...were a red herring.

"We do em for 21pts + if we win"...

Even auto demoted according to some.

 

 (Because at the time, -12 the max available, didn't look to be enough to relegate us)

 

Or we can withdraw charges 4 months later....delaying tactics until such a time we can get em proper.

 

Hence, the efl chose to go for the more serious charges first, rather than the other way round, which would have been the usual route.

 

Wonder if Gibbo is still stamping his feet.

 

 

[striker]

23 minutes ago, jonnyowl said:

12 points is the maximum we can be deducted for the charge we were found guilty of.

 

The punishment is on a sliding scale based on how much you go over the £39 million. We would have been about £18 million over without the sale of the stadium so that's why we got 12 points.

 

If there was an appeal, the club might argue that the points deduction should have been in 18-19 and the EFL have acted in bad faith to try and relegate us. I would think that the EFL aren't allowed to take a biased position over one club. They should have brought the charge at the correct time, and the points deduction deducted at the appropriate time.

 

The EFL shouldn't try and fudge it to relegate us!   

I think there is also a reasonable argument to suggest that if the EFL hadn't made such a balls up of signing off the accounts, delaying things, we could have taken steps to reduce the losses  by other means, therefore not incurring such a harsh penalty. 

 

We were led to believe that the stadium sale was agreed and therefore compliant, thus depriving us of opportunity to reduce costs in other areas to compensate, for example, accepting a player sale offer, not signing certain players or other cost cutting measures. 

 

For this reason, if we do appeal, think we have a strong case.