BREAKING NEWS!! EFL -12 Points - Full Written Explanation Thread

[toooldforthis]

10 minutes ago, September65 said:

in a way, but it was never established that there was a "plan" to backdate the Heads of Terms into July. She certainly counselled the Chairman against doing this - "Chairman I only will say that I don't feel comfortable signing a document of a transaction that is backdated".  That was good advice in my view.

 

And the fact KM was seen as a good and reliable witness will I think have helped our case's credibility and reassured the Panel that she was a check and balance on the Chairman who (as ever) needed strong advice from those around him.

 

It's double edged. To the reasonable it appears that she acted expediently and prudently. To those looking for a smoking gun, she was suggesting a conspiracy.

[Guest Mcguigan]

Why do I shudder when I see Shaun Harvey's involvement with anything?

[Ozymandias]

Winning any appeal and getting the -12 rescinded does nothing to alter the fact we are a shambles stumbling into the next off-field drama and on-field season of mediocracy at best.

[Nero]

24 minutes ago, StudentOwl said:

We were basically a year late in actually getting the necessary paperwork completed from my interpretation of what I've read.

 

Again, to reiterate, it seems we tried to propose and arrange the stadium sale in the space of about six working days... despite having months to clock we were going to break P&S without an artificial cash injection like that. 

 

 

Says that on 25th of April we were to sell the ground by 31st of May.

Why it took so long to sort out is I guess that they thought they might sell players. Or take the points.

 

[dr. benway]

Just now, Bluesteel said:

On the EFL I don’t think they just have an agenda against SWFC they are just overly aggressive as an organisation. They love dishing out punishments and going for the maximum damage as it gets other clubs like Barnsley, Middlesbrough, Stevenage and co off their back.

 

This is my reading too. They tried to hit us with everything they could—their suggesting of deceit on DC's part was just another part of their attempt to inflict maximum damage. They are desperate to make an example of someone, so in a sense their "agenda" is against whichever club was first in the firing line, rather than SWFC per se.

[axolotl]

Having read that, one saving grace (I am no legal expert, though) is at the time we should have been punished for breacing P&S Rules, there was no 'scale' or guidance yet in place to determine what point deduction we would have received at that time, with the only basis being the case vs BCFC. So because the EFL acted poorly on levying the accusations against Chansiri, Redgate and Meire, without first investigating (as they have power to do), the Charge 1 was delayed, and the verdict reached at a time when -12 was clearly laid out. Hence, due to actions of the EFL, the club fell foul of a sliding scale that wasn't present at the time of the original charge?

 

Whether that is enough, or indeed I am reading this right, is for the lawyers, I guess

[daleblue]

1 hour ago, StudentOwl said:

Anyone else read paragraph 105 and reference to a rent of £3m per season for Hillsborough stadium? 

 

No, what does it say.

[dr. benway]

3 minutes ago, daleblue said:

No, what does it say.

 

Quote

The notes are fairly brief for a meeting that lasted two hours, but although the Club’s witnesses have suggested that those parts of the note that appear after the words “to discuss on Monday” (see below) must have been composed subsequently because that is how the meeting ended, we think it more likely, and in accordance with NC’s evidence, that the notes were made contemporaneously. It is possible that the final page containing two lines might relate to something else, but those two lines are immaterial for present purposes. The notes indicate amongst other things that there were discussions about the embargo on player sales, the inability of the Club to get “a business valuation of the stadium”, there was reference to a stadium value of £40 million and to an annual rent of £3 million and to the EFL “to discuss Monday”. The significant entry for the purposes of Charge 2 (which, it is to be noted, appears after the entry relating to the EFL’s proposed discussion on “Monday”) is as follows. The quotation marks are as they appear in the original.

 

“irrevocable term sheet signed between the parties, longform to follow completion on x date” 2/3 month window.

 

Then not worried.

 

(Emphasis mine)

Edited August 17, 2020 by dr. benway

[agentwalker]

18 minutes ago, September65 said:

There was an interpreter.

Only mentions the interpreter for this appeal hearing NOT the Original EFL questioning where they claim he deliberately gave dodgy answers due to his lack of english. 

[striker]

6 minutes ago, axolotl said:

Having read that, one saving grace (I am no legal expert, though) is at the time we should have been punished for breacing P&S Rules, there was no 'scale' or guidance yet in place to determine what point deduction we would have received at that time, with the only basis being the case vs BCFC. So because the EFL acted poorly on levying the accusations against Chansiri, Redgate and Meire, without first investigating (as they have power to do), the Charge 1 was delayed, and the verdict reached at a time when -12 was clearly laid out. Hence, due to actions of the EFL, the club fell foul of a sliding scale that wasn't present at the time of the original charge?

 

Whether that is enough, or indeed I am reading this right, is for the lawyers, I guess

You make a good point, especially where the EFL deliberately sought to delay, how can the current sliding scale punishment be applied fairly for an infraction which occured prior to this being agreed by member clubs. Also, considering the precedent set by the Birmingham case. 

Edited August 17, 2020 by striker

[EcclesallOwl]

 

[Guest Grandad]

I'm halfway through. Had to stop for a break cos my head is spinning

 

So far - it seems to suggest

 

1. That at our old year end we would have exceeded P&S and therefore been subjected to a points deduction

2. That we asked the EFL if we could sell our stadium to include it in our accounts to avoid P&S deduction - and the EFL suggested that if it was done in time to be included in the accounts - Yes we could
3. We indicated we would extend our Y/E to June to ensure it would be
4. The EFL said that Heads of Terms making the sale irreversible must be written and signed before the Y/E, and a valuation included

5. We then extended the Y/E to end July 2018 and still on the 30/31 July we were trying to raise funds by selling players

6. At close of business on the 31/July we still hadn't sold the stadium and were therefore in breach

7. Mid August we created heads of terms and backdated signatures to mid July

8. We created 2 more lots of Heads Of Termsand backdated them - presumably superceding previous versions

8.5. None of the Heads of terms were valid as they weren't signed before 31st July

9. We took no legal advice from suitably qualified lawyers expereinced in this kind of sale

10. Sale of the stadium wasn't completed until 11 months later - when it was sold to a company that was set up just a week before.

11. The auditors have stated that had they known the Heads of terms were backdated they wouldn't have signed the accounts off?

 

 

 

^^ Is that correct?

Edited August 17, 2020 by Grandad

[CalmJimmers]

Sorry if this has already been covered - does that mean all the bedwetting about the Guardian article, was it justified? 

[striker]

3 minutes ago, EcclesallOwl said:

 

Classic EFL! Sounds like the chuckle brothers running the place....to me, to you....ok, lets just say it's ok because I'm off of on my jollies.

[Standidno]

We fully deserve -12.

 

The End.

[Plonk]

Having read it fully I’m glad we are appealing and confident we will win.

several key points for. EFL agreed to the ground sale. EFL. agreed it could go in that’s years accounts if the accountant agreed( he did and signed off the accounts). EFL agreed that as long as there was a written agreement in place for unconditional sale, the contracts could be drawn up later.

 

Now the crucial bit for me is the meeting at Preston’s ground after the end of July.

A two hour crucial meeting, BUT NO FORMAL NOTES WERE TAKEN!!!, which I find unbelievable.

 

But the insinuation is that the EFL knew at that point no written agreement had been completed, but from what subsequently happened, and KMs email it seems obvious that backdating the document by a couple of days, on the grounds it was already verbally agreed, must have been discussed. Is that why no minutes were taken.

 

Then miraculously a few days later a written document is delivered to the EFL predating the August meeting, that everyone, including the EFL are happy with.

 

Ten months later someone else at the EFL then becomes unhappy with it, and this shambolic investigation gets under way.

 

The other interesting thing ALL parties to this agreement are not legal experts in this particular field, and the panel says extensive legal advise should have been sought by both sides if there had been time. So basically the EFL were advising the club do things which had no legal merit and then going after us for doing it.

 

unbelievable Jeff!

[Plonk]

9 minutes ago, Grandad said:

I'm halfway through. Had to stop for a break cos my head is spinning

 

So far - it seems to suggest

 

1. That at our old year end we would have exceeded P&S and therefore been subjected to a points deduction

2. That we asked the EFL if we could sell our stadium to include it in our accounts to avoid P&S deduction - and the EFL suggested that if it was done in time to be included in the accounts - Yes we could
3. We indicated we would extend our Y/E to June to ensure it would be
4. The EFL said that Heads of Terms making the sale irreversible must be written and signed before the Y/E, and a valuation included

5. We then extended the Y/E to end July 2018 and still on the 30/31 July we were trying to raise funds by selling players

6. At close of business on the 31/July we still hadn't sold the stadium and were therefore in breach

7. Mid August we created heads of terms and backdated signatures to mid July

8. We created 2 more lots of Heads Of Termsand backdated them - presumably superceding previous versions

8.5. None of the Heads of terms were valid as they weren't signed before 31st July

9. We took no legal advice from suitably qualified lawyers expereinced in this kind of sale

10. Sale of the stadium wasn't completed until 11 months later - when it was sold to a company that was set up just a week before.

11. The auditors have stated that had they known the Heads of terms were backdated they wouldn't have signed the accounts off?

 

 

 

^^ Is that correct?

No, keep reading.

[Animis]

Not sure why DC dithered on the ground sale in 2018/early 2019. There were other examples in Reading and Aston Villa so it was always an option which the then 3 Directors including KM knew existed.If he had the money and plan at this point why didn't he just do the deal - it would have avoided all this mess.

 

• We knew we were going to breach FFP/P&S for the three seasons up to 2017/18 by the Summer of 2018 as KM testimony states. 
• We didn't sell players - FF, Reach and probably Joao would have got us say £12m or so, but still not enough to avoid the £39m breach target. DC probably thought there's no point then so kept them.
• CC is sacked in Dec 18 and we get in Bruce who turns the ship around and we end up finishes 20 odd points off relegation. We could have potentially made it into the play-offs but fell short.

 

Seems to me DC only knew or had the money made available to spend on the ground 'sale' at a late date in the Summer of 2019 after KM and gone and JR had resigned, or Bruce's turnaround in the team's form made him wait as not to jeopardise a potential play-off place. If the club had submitted our accounts as normal in March 2019, we would have got an automatic 12 points deduction, based on the Birmingham City case. He didn't and delayed until July 2019  and maybe once we knew the play-offs wasn't on, looked at including the ground sale deal to insulate the club from a FFP breach and points deduction the following season in 2019/20, to give Bruce the best chance at promotion. Bruce then fec'd this plan up by leaving, and the rest is history.

 

[Plonk]

6 minutes ago, Standidno said:

We fully deserve -12.

 

The End.

Sorry but I totally disagree. What we we did was crap, but it looks the the EFL were fully involved and advising throughout the process, and in particular at the August meeting in Preston. Which they seem to be unable to recall now!

[Quist]

This is an eye opener on so many levels.

 

EFL come out as vindicative and an agenda to inflict worst possible punishment.

 

Wednesday come out as incompetent at undertaking what is a fairly simple transaction. Think the word naive sums us up and this explains our activity in football matters too.

 

Wednesday made an assertion that the action taken against us was in respect of threat of action against EFL by Middlesboro Chairman. The commission dismissed this but in view of evidence I am certain this was the situation.

 

At the August meeting there was clearly an agreement between all parties for Wednesday to sell stadium and money be included in accounts. The EFL had a policy of trying to help clubs to guide clubs into a situation of profitably or manageable debt. It indicates good relations existed and we were actively trying to do this and have significantly reduced expenditure and the sale of stadium was a mjor way of complying. That is why no sanction was made against us when it should have been an agreement was struck between two parties.

 

When Gbson kicked up a fuss they started to go over things again and to hide their complicity in deal the EFL decided to alledge Wednesday misled them and concealed information. Fortunately for Wednesday and individuals involved there was written evidence that we had shared information with EFL and the commission clearly could see this.

 

As penalty being imposed late the commission should look at our attempts to reduce wage bill and also we have not spent serious money in transfer market for some consierable time. Also in view of offence being quite a while ago would a fine be far more appropriate especially if sanction had been imposed properly we would not have beeen relegated.