Breaking news. SWFC v EFL

[WalthamOwl]

14 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 

 

for a simpleton like myself what is the article implying in regards to us? Blaming the EFL for the 2nd charges that shouldn’t have been added or more blaming us for backdating documents or blaming us both? 

[Animis]

4 minutes ago, Nero said:

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.

 

ok - this seems more of a plausible explanation. However, the article says:

 

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.

 

As I have mentioned, you can't change dates on a valuation report - not sure about audited accounts, but if those accounts reference a valuation in the appendix, it's fixed. 

[Animis]

5 minutes ago, billyblack said:

It doesnt matter, the chairman is responsible, period.

 

Yes, as sole Director. However, the charges against his were dropped earlier in the year, unless something has subsequently come to light.

[billyblack]

Just now, Animis said:

 

Yes, as sole Director. However, the charges against his were dropped earlier in the year, unless something has subsequently come to light.

Charges may have beem dropped, but the actions within the club, whatever they are lay on his doorstep. Also, i dont see how anyone but him would have the authority at the club to change stuff like that. Hes not that kind of guy.

[Triple O]

6 minutes ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

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.

I don't argue but do discuss and debate/

The reasoning behind the decision that have been partially leaked today could now change the opinion of the said experts. 

[Dick_Turpin]

12 minutes ago, Nero said:

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

 

I think your mania detecting equipment is pointing in the wrong direction and ignoring the situation the club is in. 

[areNOTwhatTHEYseem]

1 minute ago, Triple O said:

I don't argue but do discuss and debate/

The reasoning behind the decision that have been partially leaked today could now change the opinion of the said experts. 

 

This isn't a matter of opinion, though.

 

What he was saying is that an appeal would go in front of a different independent panel who would decide the sanction, and that opens up the possibility of a worse sanction.

 

The expert's opinion as to how likely that outcome is might change, but the fact that the possibility exists can't change.

[Triple O]

Genuine question : How can a panel determine that dates have been changed when, as detailed by our resident accountants on here, the date of an agreement is at the discretion of the buyer and seller to agree. 

[WalthamOwl]

1 minute ago, areNOTwhatTHEYseem said:

 

This isn't a matter of opinion, though.

 

What he was saying is that an appeal would go in front of a different independent panel who would decide the sanction, and that opens up the possibility of a worse sanction.

 

The expert's opinion as to how likely that outcome is might change, but the fact that the possibility exists can't change.

i don’t think I could take the stress of going  before another panel with a possible punishment of more than 12 points deducted! 

[Nero]

6 minutes ago, Animis said:

 

ok - this seems more of a plausible explanation. However, the article says:

 

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.

 

As I have mentioned, you can't change dates on a valuation report - not sure about audited accounts, but if those accounts reference a valuation in the appendix, it's fixed. 

Need to see it dont we.

Im guessing that the only thing that 'happened' in 17 18 was that Chansiri decided in his head to sell the ground. That intention was reflected much later in the audited accounts which is apparently ok.

I dont understand why therefore valuation documents were changed. We must have put forward a defence as to why they were which were dismissed by tribunal. 

Sounds like an own goal. 

[BrucieBonus]

28 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.

If thats accurate it’s called fraud and I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s legal challenges to follow, I can see HMRC getting involved at some point too, I’ve never been ashamed to support my club, thanks DC you’ve made us an absolute laughing stock, and a dark cloud will always hang over us as cheats... 

 

He needs to sell up and quickly 

 

[Nero]

1 minute ago, BrucieBonus said:

If thats accurate it’s called fraud and I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s legal challenges to follow, I can see HMRC getting involved at some point too, I’ve never been ashamed to support my club, thanks DC you’ve made us an absolute laughing stock, and a dark cloud will always hang over us as cheats... 

 

He needs to sell up and quickly 

 

See above. Sorry but you dont know what you are talking about.

[BrucieBonus]

15 minutes ago, Triple O said:

Genuine question : How can a panel determine that dates have been changed when, as detailed by our resident accountants on here, the date of an agreement is at the discretion of the buyer and seller to agree. 

im no legal eagle eagle but there will be tax implications for such a large transaction so dates and paperwork must tie up or it looks very suspicious if one is saying x year and another y. 

[Nero]

3 minutes ago, BrucieBonus said:

If thats accurate it’s called fraud and I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s legal challenges to follow, I can see HMRC getting involved at some point too, I’ve never been ashamed to support my club, thanks DC you’ve made us an absolute laughing stock, and a dark cloud will always hang over us as cheats... 

 

He needs to sell up and quickly 

 

 

22 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

 

I think your mania detecting equipment is pointing in the wrong direction and ignoring the situation the club is in. 

See above.

[BrucieBonus]

1 minute ago, Nero said:

See above. Sorry but you dont know what you are talking about.

And your qualified to say that because? 

 

Like I said until we see the docs then it’s hard to say, I know one thing though we’ve been done for cheating, that’s not gonna change and it hurts. 

[Dick_Turpin]

Just now, Nero said:

 

See above.

The club  doesn't own its own ground, has a threadbare squad and is starting the new season on -12 points. That's pretty poor and enough to say we're in a pickle despite the best efforts of the Chansiri fans to try and tell us how great he is. 

[No Uniform]

People talking about fraud. Why would HMRC get involved for some one fiddling their books so that they actually have to pay tax? 

[Dick_Turpin]

Fraud is a word that shouldn't be bandied about without very good evidence. It's a very serious offence. I'd delete all mention of it. 

[No Uniform]

Just now, rickygoo said:

Fraud is a word that shouldn't be bandied about without very good evidence. It's a very serious offence. I'd delete all mention of it. 

Especially as nothing criminal has happened. No deceitful gains and Chansiri et al were cleared in arbitration, so clearly the EFL knew what the club were doing. 

[sherlyegg]

Originally, the efl said we have 'good evidence' and had documents from the club outlining ....err dodgy practice. Then charged 3 club officials with misconduct.

Months later they mysteriously dropped charges against the 3.

So the obvious want to know answer is, why did they drop charges, if as the guardian article insinuates something very dodgy was going on.