Guest mkowl Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 1 hour ago, Animis said: 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. Good points - though what I would say is that the 60m for the sale of the stadium will not be new money, it will be the same money he would ordinarily put in as shareholder loan just allocated differently Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
No Uniform Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 3 minutes ago, mkowl said: Good points - though what I would say is that the 60m for the sale of the stadium will not be new money, it will be the same money he would ordinarily put in as shareholder loan just allocated differently Nothing new about that. Exactly what McCabe did at the Blades, to get a buyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animis Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 12 minutes ago, mkowl said: Good points - though what I would say is that the 60m for the sale of the stadium will not be new money, it will be the same money he would ordinarily put in as shareholder loan just allocated differently True - but in the eyes of the EFL and the FFP rules, we can only lose £39m over 3-yrs irrespective of how much DC pumps in - even he has expressed frustration at this. The £38m cash injection puts us in a + position before the accounts are calculated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kevtheowl Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 41 minutes ago, striker said: 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. I think We have more than a strong case mate !! UTO 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nero Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 From.Guardian tonight: 'In its findings, however, the panel found that Wednesday officials had backdated signatures on key documents regarding the sale of Hillsborough from the club to its owner, Dejphon Chansiri, including documents regarding the valuation of the deal itself. The changing of the dates meant that Wednesday passed P&S tests they would otherwise have failed.' If so its understandable why we could have been found guilty. Although i guess our argument would be that intentions take precedent in accounting terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 1 hour ago, alanharper said: 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? The case they won an appeal against Birmingham wasn't for a second breach, it was for failing to adhere to an agreed business plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nero Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 From Guardian tonight 'In its findings, however, the panel found that Wednesday officials had backdated signatures on key documents regarding the sale of Hillsborough from the club to its owner, Dejphon Chansiri, including documents regarding the valuation of the deal itself. The changing of the dates meant that Wednesday passed P&S tests they would otherwise have failed.' I guess our excuse would be that we intended to buy the ground and thd docs were adjusted to suit. Ok in accounting terms but seems flimsy. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Animis Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 3 minutes ago, Nero said: From.Guardian tonight: 'In its findings, however, the panel found that Wednesday officials had backdated signatures on key documents regarding the sale of Hillsborough from the club to its owner, Dejphon Chansiri, including documents regarding the valuation of the deal itself. The changing of the dates meant that Wednesday passed P&S tests they would otherwise have failed.' If so its understandable why we could have been found guilty. Although i guess our argument would be that intentions take precedent in accounting terms. Altering dates on consultants documents is potential fraud. A valuation has a specific valuation date that can't be change. Unless DC made the decision to sell the ground to himself at the 11th hour; say in June, I just can't see professional consultants - both valuers and accounts would have gone along with date changes. Even then they wouldn't have gone along with this. Story doesn't add up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vulva Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 Jesus Christ. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherlyegg Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 1 minute ago, Nero said: 'In its findings, however, the panel found that Wednesday officials had backdated signatures on key documents Mm, how come the efl dropped charges, can't have been 'headline' dodgy. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prowl Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 If that was the case wouldn't they have proceeded with the individual cases against company officials. It should be an interesting day tomorrow. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Therealrealist Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 Chansiri please leave our club Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wilyfox Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 Were they counter-signed by the monk who blessed Hillsborough? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nero Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 7 minutes ago, prowl said: If that was the case wouldn't they have proceeded with the individual cases against company officials. It should be an interesting day tomorrow. The opposite it seems. From same article ..... the panel, arbitrating on the 12-point sanction levied on Sheffield Wednesday for breaching profit and sustainability rules(P&S), is critical of the EFL’s investigation into overspending at the Hillsborough club and the league’s decision to add a secondary charge of a breach of good faith, which was ultimately dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vulva Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 Thing is, Rick Parry is a scouser and there’s an agenda. Summat like that anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billyblack Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 10 minutes ago, Nero said: From Guardian tonight 'In its findings, however, the panel found that Wednesday officials had backdated signatures on key documents regarding the sale of Hillsborough from the club to its owner, Dejphon Chansiri, including documents regarding the valuation of the deal itself. The changing of the dates meant that Wednesday passed P&S tests they would otherwise have failed.' I guess our excuse would be that we intended to buy the ground and thd docs were adjusted to suit. Ok in accounting terms but seems flimsy. Amazing how we didnt get away with that one eh....... 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nero Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 Just now, vulva said: Thing is, Rick Parry is a scouser and there’s an agenda. Summat like that anyway. See above. Seems like there was.... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shandypants Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 7 minutes ago, vulva said: Jesus Christ. Fvvck me! It must have been really backdated if he was stated as a signatory. 1 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vulva Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 1 minute ago, Nero said: See above. Seems like there was.... Sorry, what was the agenda? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nero Posted August 16, 2020 Share Posted August 16, 2020 Just now, vulva said: Sorry, what was the agenda? That they aimed to extend the timing of the charge and the extent of the sanction to ensure relegation in 2019 20 season. I'd say thats an agenda. If true.... 4 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