Breaking news. SWFC v EFL

[mogbad]

22 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 

 

 

If there was any evidence of fraud the Disciplinary Commission would have found the club guilty of not acting in utmost good faith towards the EFL.

[bobness]

24 minutes ago, No Uniform said:

Especially as nothing criminal has happened

 

I take it you didn't watch the second half of last season

 

[BARMYARMY2010]

48 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 

 

Thats quite a brave statement,based on,well very little actually.

[BARMYARMY2010]

1 hour ago, Sheff74 said:

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

Having not read all the thread,but enough of it,it doesn't take a genius to work out why it was removed.

[Sheff74]

23 minutes ago, sherlyegg said:

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.

 

I presume that when the EFL said that new documentation had come to light, or something like that, then this referred to the backdated documents and signatures. They then raise a misconduct charge, but DC and club effectively hold their hands up further down the line and admit they did it, but not out of an attempt to be deceitful, just a misinterpretation based on what they thought the EFL had previously sanctioned. Presumably also, DC provided all other evidence asked for and co-operated fully.

 

So basically, we were in the wrong and breached P&S, but no attempt to deceive could be proven.

[Guest]

1 hour 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 

 

 

Be careful throwing accusations of fraud about based on a couple of sensationalist newspaper sentences, especially when the club were found not guilty of acting in anything but good faith. 

[Dick_Turpin]

47 minutes ago, sherlyegg said:

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.

There are all sorts of reasons why charges are dropped. It looks like the full background to the verdict will be available tomorrow. People should wait for that really.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, rickygoo said:

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. 

 

You'll have to list the 'Chansiri fans' who are telling people how great he is on here because I am not seeing any evidence of that, just another sentence taking a polar view on an issue. 

[Dick_Turpin]

13 minutes ago, hirstyboywonder said:

 

You'll have to list the 'Chansiri fans' who are telling people how great he is on here because I am not seeing any evidence of that, just another sentence taking a polar view on an issue. 

I forgot I'd unblocked you. I don't have to do anything.

 

People have been telling us for years how great he is and how wonderful it was that he "had a go" and they've even excused the recent points deduction, the state of the squad and the fact we had to sell our own ground and laid the blame on the big bad EFL. Someone described him as the best chairman we've ever had. To me the overspending, the players we have, the ground sale, the points deduction don't result in a "polar view". They result in a realistic view on the state the club is in. 

[Dick_Turpin]

1 hour ago, A12owl said:

Is that why Fernando was found not guilty in a criminal court but the EFL decided he was guilty?

It wasn't anything to do with the EFL was it?

 

[S36 OWL]

1 hour ago, BARMYARMY2010 said:

Having not read all the thread,but enough of it,it doesn't take a genius to work out why it was removed.

 

Please enlighten us . I saw nothing in that thread to suggest it should be removed , just simple , straight forward views on what people think has happened. 

[BrucieBonus]

1 hour ago, BARMYARMY2010 said:

Thats quite a brave statement,based on,well very little actually.

Hence my comment “if that’s accurate”, without knowing what the doc says it’s all speculation, we’ll see if anyone has knowingly backdating documents - why would you need to do that if it wasn’t for some sort of gain whether done innocently or not? 

[Athelwulf]

1 hour ago, rickygoo said:

I forgot I'd unblocked you. I don't have to do anything.

 

People have been telling us for years how great he is and how wonderful it was that he "had a go" and they've even excused the recent points deduction, the state of the squad and the fact we had to sell our own ground and laid the blame on the big bad EFL. Someone described him as the best chairman we've ever had. To me the overspending, the players we have, the ground sale, the points deduction don't result in a "polar view". They result in a realistic view on the state the club is in. 

 

But that's more about the state football is in.

 

We're a club who played by the rules for years, and much good it brought us.

 

Those chairmen put nowt in, so were more likely to play things with a straight bat.

 

When a bloke puts £100 mil + into the club he's far more likely to stray from the path of righteousness.

 

In football, rules have always been there to be broken, yet we didn't...when some of the (now) top clubs in the land were very naughty.

 

There's no honour in football

 

I have no problem with Chansiri trying to circumvent a system in which a third of the clubs in the league are in receipt of parachute payments.

 

It's utterly unfair, it stifles ambition, and I understand why Chansiri hates it.

 

For the 15 years before Chansiri's arrival we were hopeless.

 

No chance of promotion, and 2 visits to the Third along the way.

 

For the first time we had a chairman who was prepared to put rhino in - sorry, I tell a lie, Dave Allen put a couple of million in - and duly delivered two promotion attempts in two years.

 

But for Hooper's injury, it probably would have worked.

 

In our position, we will always have to gamble - that's what these crazy rules have brought about.

 

Unless, of course, you're an SUFC and are lucky enough to land a Wilder; the type of manager who comes around once in a lifetime for clubs like ours.

 

My criticism of Chansiri isn't about the financial skullduggery, good Lord no, but rather about his reluctance to sack managers.

 

Had Carlos gone after the penalty shoot-out defeat then we could have had a third shot at promotion the following season, and his retention of Monk has put us in peril.

[bobness]

23 minutes ago, Athelwulf said:

My criticism of Chansiri isn't about the financial skullduggery, good Lord no, but rather about his reluctance to sack managers

 

Had Carlos gone after the penalty shoot-out defeat then we could have had a third shot at promotion the following season, and his retention of Monk has put us in peril.

 

Not sure I'd label it as "financial skulduggery" as much as ineptitude, and it's precisely the ineptitude that's put us in peril. Our record of hiring and sacking managers is just one problem of many. But in the context of our current predicament, you can't ignore our transfer policy which not only saw us signing random players, but also saw us fail to offload players in order to balance the books.

 

And to be fair to DC, hanging onto Monk at this time makes sense. Monk fared well under a similar circumstance at Birmingham, and now has three of his own coaching staff at his side. Monk's record with us wasn't all that bad either, as he started off brightly until we fell off a cliff. I've always believed Monk was responsible for too much on the coaching side, as It appeared to be virtually just him doing everything. Consider how some of the best managers in the country would also struggle to operate under such conditions.

[Dick_Turpin]

56 minutes ago, Athelwulf said:

I have no problem with Chansiri trying to circumvent a system in which a third of the clubs in the league are in receipt of parachute payments.

 

And when that circumventing ends up with the club not owning the ground, having a poor squad, a twelve point penalty, the highest admission prices in the Division, sponsored by a Taxi firm that has been "coming soon" for years, trying to raise money with schemes that 99% of fans knew were non-starters and having pissed off businesses that should be friends etc etc - I'd say that's grounds for criticism.

 

Hating the rules isn't an excuse. The state football is in isn't really an excuse - because we're in a worse state than football. You have to have a viable Plan B  - those friends he talked about sadly didn't save us from FFP problems. Nice big telly though. 

[Manwë]

I'm guessing we're not allowed to discuss the Guardian article, which if true, shows the EFL and Wednesday were made for each other.

 

I'll wait for the full public release to discuss.

[Athelwulf]

3 hours ago, bobness said:

 

Not sure I'd label it as "financial skulduggery" as much as ineptitude, and it's precisely the ineptitude that's put us in peril. Our record of hiring and sacking managers is just one problem of many. But in the context of our current predicament, you can't ignore our transfer policy which not only saw us signing random players, but also saw us fail to offload players in order to balance the books.

 

And to be fair to DC, hanging onto Monk at this time makes sense. Monk fared well under a similar circumstance at Birmingham, and now has three of his own coaching staff at his side. Monk's record with us wasn't all that bad either, as he started off brightly until we fell off a cliff. I've always believed Monk was responsible for too much on the coaching side, as It appeared to be virtually just him doing everything. Consider how some of the best managers in the country would also struggle to operate under such conditions.

 

That's fair comment; I should have said "attempted skullduggery".

 

Nevertheless he did attempt to flout the rules in what he saw as our interest, which is a refreshing change.

 

Better that than, say, a Dave Richards who keeps his nose clean because he has a greater prize in mind...

 

On the subject of Monk we'll have to agree to differ.

 

I believed he was the right man for the job, and that he'd been unfairly dismissed at Leeds; a victim of his own success.

 

Leeds started to fail when Wood was marked by two players - an eerie parallel to our loss of Fletcher.

 

Four wins from twenty-three is a shocking record, and bar the arrival of his coaching staff I don't see what's changed.

 

It goes without saying that I hope you're right and I'm totally wrong, because at the moment I can see nothing beyond relegation for us.

[Athelwulf]

2 hours ago, rickygoo said:

And when that circumventing ends up with the club not owning the ground, having a poor squad, a twelve point penalty, the highest admission prices in the Division, sponsored by a Taxi firm that has been "coming soon" for years, trying to raise money with schemes that 99% of fans knew were non-starters and having pissed off businesses that should be friends etc etc - I'd say that's grounds for criticism.

 

Hating the rules isn't an excuse. The state football is in isn't really an excuse - because we're in a worse state than football. You have to have a viable Plan B  - those friends he talked about sadly didn't save us from FFP problems. Nice big telly though. 

 

Fair points, but it's worthwhile pointing out that many of these schemes/prices were to increase the size of our turnover, thus allowing us to spend more.

 

We've always had the money, and still have, but we can't spend it...unlike the parachute clubs.

 

We've never had a decent youth policy here, so we couldn't draw on that for sales or playing staff.

 

Bobness spoke of our not selling players, but at the time they were wanted they were desired by our rivals for promotion.

 

My point is that there isn't a Plan B.

 

Either you need the history to land a Bielsa, or the sheer luck to land a Wilder.

 

Otherwise you buy your way out, and that means gambling.

 

It's the rules which have created this situation.

[Manwë]

7 hours ago, No Uniform said:

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

Fraud isn't just about paying less tax. It's about a material gain or someone suffering a material loss based upon a false position or representation.

 

 

[Owls-Fan]

Said it before but if the penalty should have been applied to the 2018/19 season I don’t see why it doesn’t get entered in the record books for that season and we pay back any prize money for finishing 12 points lower.  We still have to comply to FFP as everyone else does following the rules etc. That doesn’t change 

 

What seems wrong is applying the penalty when the EFL chooses to.  Seems like they wanted to wait to the following season when we would be struggling and impose the penalty, but when they saw we were actually doing alright under Monk and in the playoff race they thought, oh b****r we better impose the penalty now to either a) get them whilst they are still in this league or b) stop them getting promoted.  Either way it’s wrong and I don’t see why we deserve to be punished now for their unlawful behaviour 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Owls-Fan