Breaking news. SWFC v EFL

[wakefieldinleed1]

 

I’m still not buying it..what’s the point in goin into admin if you still have to pay the players every penny of there contracts?? So you go into admin to save on the wages of the minimum wage mob
————————-

 

they are 100% protected

 

and if you don’t pay them, you will not be relegated but kicked out of the whole league 

[Animis]

A bit of over reaction on here.

 

Worst case scenario based on the IDC outcome is -12 points. Best case is we appeal based on the only precedent which is the Birmingham City case. 

 

We could end up being deducted -9 points.

 

This suggested accusation of fraud, which seems to be the reported, although I can't see any Guardian article on line? Be good if the poster who raised it could paste it on here.

[Sheff74]

31 minutes ago, vulva said:

Nothing to do with it. Story I heard is even more bonkers than this. 

 

Oh go on then, spill the beans you little tinker.

[WalthamOwl]

56 minutes ago, S36 OWL said:

I'd say we were damn lucky to get away with a 12 pt deduction. What the hell was Chansiri playing at. 

agree with this. Have a feeling he will appeal it though and knowing our luck we will get punished further. 

[83owl]

34 minutes ago, Ever the pessimist said:

I think they are. At the very least they are prioritised above St John’s Ambulance, Betty the tea lady....

Players are protected by the pfa and first in line for payment upon administration. As you say at johns etc are low priority.

[Lump On]

Sounds like someone had a bet on Wednesday getting relegated. How is this not match fixing and ruining the integrity of a competition. The lot are not fit for purpose. EFL needs disbanding. 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

45 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said:

Dom saying any appeal by us could decrease or increase our sentence. So perhaps -12 isn’t the worse it can be as we thought. 

 

We didn't think that.

 

The lawyer who was on Radio Sheffield two weeks ago made it clear that an appeal could see us hit with a worse sanction, and it was discussed on here.

[Ever the pessimist]

19 minutes ago, wakefieldinleed1 said:

 

I’m still not buying it..what’s the point in goin into admin if you still have to pay the players every penny of there contracts?? So you go into admin to save on the wages of the minimum wage mob
————————-

 

they are 100% protected

 

and if you don’t pay them, you will not be relegated but kicked out of the whole league 

Just thanked a Leeds fan.

Off the have a thorough wash.

[WalthamOwl]

4 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

We didn't think that.

 

The lawyer who was on Radio Sheffield two weeks ago made it clear that an appeal could see us hit with a worse sanction, and it was discussed on here.

there have been quite a few people saying it today on here and on various other social media platforms 

Edited August 16, 2020 by WalthamOwl

[Triple O]

3 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

We didn't think that.

 

The lawyer who was on Radio Sheffield two weeks ago made it clear that an appeal could see us hit with a worse sanction, and it was discussed on here.

Yes but that was before the details were known.

[Nero]

17 minutes ago, Animis said:

A bit of over reaction on here.

 

Worst case scenario based on the IDC outcome is -12 points. Best case is we appeal based on the only precedent which is the Birmingham City case. 

 

We could end up being deducted -9 points.

 

This suggested accusation of fraud, which seems to be the reported, although I can't see any Guardian article on line? Be good if the poster who raised it could paste it on here.

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2020/aug/16/wigans-former-owner-kay-asked-about-administration-before-his-takeover?__twitter_impression=true

 

There you go 

 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

4 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said:

there have been quite a few people saying it today on here and on various other social media

platforms 

 

Well they shouldn't have, because according to a football law expert, they're wrong.

 

It's been out there in the public domain for them to listen to for a fortnight.

Edited August 16, 2020 by areNOTwhatTHEYseem

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

4 minutes ago, Triple O said:

Yes but that was before the details were known.

 

The details don't change the fact that an appeal could result in worse sanction, though.

[Triple O]

2 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

The details don't change the fact that an appeal could result in worse sanction, though.

Think it does. Can't imagine EFL digging a bigger hole for themselves if shown to have acted unreasonably.

[Nero]

19 minutes ago, Animis said:

A bit of over reaction on here.

 

Worst case scenario based on the IDC outcome is -12 points. Best case is we appeal based on the only precedent which is the Birmingham City case. 

 

We could end up being deducted -9 points.

 

This suggested accusation of fraud, which seems to be the reported, although I can't see any Guardian article on line? Be good if the poster who raised it could paste it on here.

I dont think its an accusation of fraud. The club were found not guilty of acting in good faith although some on here are just ignoring that to push their manic anti Chansiri agenda (beyond the reasobanle criticism of the actual incompetent practice).

The backdating was probably to bring documents in to line with the accounts. 

There would be no implication in this tribunal of an intention to defraud.

That would be a big claim and would probably require legal proof rather than just a suspicion:  balance of probability.

[Sheff74]

So what's happened to the Guardian thead about backdating documents then?

[Animis]

5 minutes ago, Nero said:

https://amp.theguardian.com/football/2020/aug/16/wigans-former-owner-kay-asked-about-administration-before-his-takeover?__twitter_impression=true

 

There you go 

 

Thanks - on that basis the Guardian journo seems to have seen or had sources who have seen the findings of the hearing outcome.

 

I just can't see that a SWFC official would alter dates on what are presumably legal documents for accounts purposes - this is potentially a criminal act? 

 

When it says 'SWFC official', it essential either means DC as sole Director or potentially JR as now finance director. This accusation has legs if true.

[billyblack]

1 minute ago, Animis said:

Thanks - on that basis the Guardian journo seems to have seen or had sources who have seen the findings of the hearing outcome.

 

I just can't see that a SWFC official would alter dates on what are presumably legal documents for accounts purposes - this is potentially a criminal act? 

 

When it says 'SWFC official', it essential either means DC as sole Director or potentially JR as now finance director. This accusation has legs if true.

It doesnt matter, the chairman is responsible, period.

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

5 minutes ago, Triple O said:

Think it does. Can't imagine EFL digging a bigger hole for themselves if shown to have acted unreasonably.

 

I have no idea what you're arguing about here.

 

A football law expert said two weeks ago that if we appeal, we open up the possibility of being hit with a different sanction, which could end up being worse than the current -12 points.

 

Nothing has changed to alter that fact in the meantime, and nothing will. It's still the case that if we appeal, we open up the possibility of being hit with a different sanction, which could end up being worse than the current -12 points.

Edited August 16, 2020 by areNOTwhatTHEYseem

[Nero]

2 minutes ago, Animis said:

Thanks - on that basis the Guardian journo seems to have seen or had sources who have seen the findings of the hearing outcome.

 

I just can't see that a SWFC official would alter dates on what are presumably legal documents for accounts purposes - this is potentially a criminal act? 

 

When it says 'SWFC official', it essential either means DC as sole Director or potentially JR as now finance director. This accusation has legs if true.

Press probably have copies embargoed till tomorrow morning. 

As said previous post : tribunal is balance of probability : legal process would be beyond reasonable doubt. They are VERY different burdens of proof.