Jump to content

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


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Grandad said:

 

Given what was said by the EFL about being desperate to help us - in this attachment - I'd say the suggestion that the EFL have an agenda against us is complete b o llocx

 

image.png.1a0684d1fada6362c9bd4c2af6daa62b.png

I think that is correct and at orginal meeting they agreed to fudge situation and avoid us getting a deduction. 

 

However EFL got a new Chairman and Gibson kicked up a stink. These are the only reasons I can think of them deciding to revisit the case. 

 

At this point attitude to us changed and they went from over helpful to over zealous. The fabricated charges were I think the reason they had to review original decison.

 

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Grandad
1 minute ago, mark1948 said:

 

It is not what the previous regime at the EFL that is in question. It is the new regime under Mr Parry who decide to take action against the club 10 months after all parties had thought the matter closed an dealt with satisfactorily that gives the impression that it is personal.

 

Just now, Quist said:

I think that is correct and at orginal meeting they agreed to fudge situation and avoid us getting a deduction. 

 

However EFL got a new Chairman and Gibson kicked up a stink. These are the only reasons I can think of them deciding to revisit the case. 

 

At this point attitude to us changed and they went from over helpful to over zealous. The fabricated charges were I think the reason they had to review original decison.

 

 

 

Be prepared to get laughed at for these views. (Which I share)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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. 

 

 

 

I've read the whole thing and I disagree with this interpretation - or at least the 'we' part.

 

It seems to me that we had discounted the stadium sale option as of 31st July and were resigned to receiving a punishment (at that time the points sanctions for breaking F&P hadn't been established, so potentially this was just a fine).

 

Then it seems that at the meeting on 3rd August that the EFL (Nick Craig and Shaun Harvey primarily) proposed the backdated stadium sale as a viable option. SWFC, having not thought this was possible, quickly produced some paperwork over the next couple of weeks, although didn't follow through with the actual deal for about a year.

 

Then, at some point in the future, the EFL completely backtracked on their position, and not only that, they added in an accusation of SWFC trying to mislead the EFL by backdating the stadium sale - something they had proposed in the first place! This part is the killer:

 

Quote

[Paragraph 106] Shaun Harvey also said in this witness statement that at the meeting "we were told that the sale of the stadium had been irrevocably agreed". Unfortunately, he had been shown Nick Craig's note before he made that witness statement. It should be noted that he had left his post as Chief Executive of the EFL in May 2019 and so the first time he would have been asked to cast his mind back to the meeting of 3 August 2018 would have been 16 months later in January 2020

 

The arbitrators are being kind to Harvey here, and the surrounding paragraphs, as they don't usually look to straight out accuse someone of lying. But they make clear his evidence is completely contrary to all the email evidence from the time and suggest he might have forgotten what occurred as it was 16 months ago. They also pull him up for colluding with Nick Craig by looking at Craig's handwritten notes from the meeting ahead of giving his witness statement. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Grandad said:

 

Given what was said by the EFL about being desperate to help us - in this attachment - I'd say the suggestion that the EFL have an agenda against us is complete b o llocx

 

image.png.1a0684d1fada6362c9bd4c2af6daa62b.png

 

Having now read through that entire document, it seems that they were actually trying to resolve the situation, in our favour and realised time wasn't on our side. I don't know if this is how they operate with all clubs, but I guess it is. Which raises two things for me:

 

1. If they are that proactive in helping a club circumnavigate the rules, then what is the point of the rules?

2. And if the rules are that easily circumnavigated, are there too many loopholes/ambiguities and/or have the rules become out-dated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ChapSmurf said:

 

Having now read through that entire document, it seems that they were actually trying to resolve the situation, in our favour and realised time wasn't on our side. I don't know if this is how they operate with all clubs, but I guess it is. Which raises two things for me:

 

1. If they are that proactive in helping a club circumnavigate the rules, then what is the point of the rules?

2. And if the rules are that easily circumnavigated, are there too many loopholes/ambiguities and/or have the rules become out-dated?

Maybe they were reluctant to close those loopholes? 

Any closing of those loopholes requires an assessment of the rules. An assessment of the rules might result in the conclusion that there need to be additional changes made beyond those loopholes... including the values permitted for losses etc. 

Could well have been some in footballing circles that wouldn't like that as it potentially disrupts the status quo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Royal_D said:

DC should sue the EFL for defamation of character 

 

I think I'm right in saying that the panel have only come to a verdict for "Charge 1" - i.e. the breaking of F&P (This was brought forward at the EFL's behest to try and have the punishment applied to last season).

 

They haven't given a verdict on "Charge 2" - so there may well be some damages awarded to Redgate, Meire and Chansiri.

 

(Legal eagles - please correct me if I'm wrong and I've missed Charge 2 or the arbitration panel aren't allowed to award damages...?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Nero said:

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.

 

 

I don't think "take the points" was a consideration as the points deduction penalty was only set out as a punishment several months later. I think they expected a fine.

 

If that points framework had been put in place ahead of the end of the 2017/18 season, then it is likely sure would have sold players - at the very least, selling a Lucas Joao/Adam Reach would have brought them within the £15 million excess, and reduced the penalty down from -12 to -9.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Grandad said:

Be prepared to get laughed at for these views. (Which I share)

 

I share them too.

 

It does feel like entrapment; the EFL seemingly set about the whole business in the spirit of helping us to comply with the rules, but then later try to use the same conversations as evidence of our dishonesty.

 

Well, that is at least the case for the second charge against DC, JR, and KM, which I suppose was ultimately dropped anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, cowl said:

 

I share them too.

 

It does feel like entrapment; the EFL seemingly set about the whole business in the spirit of helping us to comply with the rules, but then later try to use the same conversations as evidence of our dishonesty.

 

Well, that is at least the case for the second charge against DC, JR, and KM, which I suppose was ultimately dropped anyway.

If i was feeling kind to the EFL I would say that the original regime was helpful and Parry's new regime is vindictive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well 41 pages and I think I shook my head in disbelief about 3 times a page. What struck me is the contract for the sale of the stadium

 

I have banged on here that if the evidence was there then we could recognise that transaction in the 2018 accounts 

 

This is dismissed within the report, we failed the FFP rules because that contract was basically not adequate to do so. It is 3 paragraphs long.

 

I have seen more robust contracts for the lending of a lawnmower to a neighbour.

 

The report says the accounts were not prepared in accordance with accounting standards. So basically we have failed that requirement.

 

The rest to me is peripheral. The EFL basically kept the door open into August 2018 to get this sorted as well. 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours 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?

can't argue with that 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, StudentOwl said:

Maybe they were reluctant to close those loopholes? 

Any closing of those loopholes requires an assessment of the rules. An assessment of the rules might result in the conclusion that there need to be additional changes made beyond those loopholes... including the values permitted for losses etc. 

Could well have been some in footballing circles that wouldn't like that as it potentially disrupts the status quo?

 

Maybe, they were reluctant. You could well be correct. What you've said as a counter arguement/suggestion, doesn't seem wholly far-fetched. It would mean that certain parts, or indeed all, of the rules need to be placed under the microscope.

 

I don't actually know what part the EFL play in setting the rules, as it's my understanding that the member clubs set the rules, and the EFL simply implement them. If that is strictly true, I guess it would be counter productive for clubs to close the loopholes, as it potentially gives them "get out" clauses.

 

Being absolutely transparent, what I was suggesting about the rules being out-dated is purely regarding the values permitted for losses etc. So I think you have hit the nail on the head when you say there will be some who do not want to disrupt that particular status quo. However, how long can that go on for?

Edited by ChapSmurf
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Nero said:

If i was feeling kind to the EFL I would say that the original regime was helpful and Parry's new regime is vindictive.

 

The adjectives I'd use are pragmatic (under Harvey) and principled (under Parry) - and that's also if I'm feeling kind.

 

I don't actually think they're vindictive now - at least that's not their main drive, even if in effect their resulting behaviour has had the appearance of being vindictive. I just think that in the zeal to stand for some principles (and, more to the point, to be seen to stand for them) they've partially lost sight of what their responsibility as an institution is.

 

If Parry wants to come in and tighten up the ship, then that's fine, but he has to acknowledge that the breaches that took place under the previous management of the EFL are from the past and he has to live by them. The EFL is the EFL. The EFL isn't Rick Parry, and he can't be making this a personal war against right and wrong or however else it is that he perceives his role here.

Edited by cowl
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, ChapSmurf said:

 

I'm also halfway through (page 21, para 87), and stopped to try and make sense of what I've just read. I think you've summed it up pretty well so far. If you've not got this far, the only other points I would add are:

 

1. "Annual Accounts for the Club for the 14 months to 31 July 2018 were not in accordance with the Financial Reporting Standards", and as such "they are not 'Annual Accounts'". As they are not classed as "Annaul Accounts" we haven't actually submitted our accounts and therefore Charge 1 (of breaking P&S upper threshold) is premature.

 

2. The rules "are set out to be capable of meaningful enforcement within a reasonable period"

 

Yep that was pretty damming. We still presumably have not filed accounts in accordance with them either. In other words they are basing our results on previous information supplied which presumably do not show the stadium sale 

 

The ramifications on that are a bit more wide ranging than just SWFC 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, mkowl said:

Well 41 pages and I think I shook my head in disbelief about 3 times a page. What struck me is the contract for the sale of the stadium

 

I have banged on here that if the evidence was there then we could recognise that transaction in the 2018 accounts 

 

This is dismissed within the report, we failed the FFP rules because that contract was basically not adequate to do so. It is 3 paragraphs long.

 

I have seen more robust contracts for the lending of a lawnmower to a neighbour.

 

The report says the accounts were not prepared in accordance with accounting standards. So basically we have failed that requirement.

 

The rest to me is peripheral. The EFL basically kept the door open into August 2018 to get this sorted as well. 

 

 

 

 

I have seen more robust contracts for the lending of a lawnmower to a neighbour.

lol

Edited by Frazzlebeak
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, mkowl said:

Well 41 pages and I think I shook my head in disbelief about 3 times a page. What struck me is the contract for the sale of the stadium

 

I have banged on here that if the evidence was there then we could recognise that transaction in the 2018 accounts 

 

This is dismissed within the report, we failed the FFP rules because that contract was basically not adequate to do so. It is 3 paragraphs long.

 

I have seen more robust contracts for the lending of a lawnmower to a neighbour.

 

The report says the accounts were not prepared in accordance with accounting standards. So basically we have failed that requirement.

 

The rest to me is peripheral. The EFL basically kept the door open into August 2018 to get this sorted as well. 

 

This last line is wrong, and I think this affects your earlier conclusions. I think I'm right in saying the Villa process wasn't well understood at the time, and the existence of this loophole wasn't common knowledge.

 

Given that the EFL only proposed this late in the day, and only confirmed that the loophole was open for SWFC on 3rd August in the meeting, then a degree of stumbling around with the legal paperwork seems inevitable.

 

Apologies for mixing metaphors, but they didn't keep the door open into August 2018. They unlocked a locked door in August 2018, welcomed us half way through it, and 10 months later attempted to slam it shut on us.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Emerson Thome said:

 

This last line is wrong, and I think this affects your earlier conclusions. I think I'm right in saying the Villa process wasn't well understood at the time, and the existence of this loophole wasn't common knowledge.

 

Given that the EFL only proposed this late in the day, and only confirmed that the loophole was open for SWFC on 3rd August in the meeting, then a degree of stumbling around with the legal paperwork seems inevitable.

 

Apologies for mixing metaphors, but they didn't keep the door open into August 2018. They unlocked a locked door in August 2018, welcomed us half way through it, and 10 months later attempted to slam it shut on us.

 

 

Yes I can agree that is right

 

But there had been dialogue in June and July. The door should have shut then as you say but if you read it - to me its saying get this sorted sharpish and we will nod it thru.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...