Jump to content

BREAKING - Sheffield Wednesday WILL appeal the EFL -12 point deduction!


Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, kingsidney said:

We did in a way. The elf had to change the charge half way through the proceedings. 
 

we weren’t charged for the stadium only exceeding p&s. 


how can we win an appeal for exceeding p&s? Is there any argument that we haven’t exceeded it? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Lyndon said:

This is a snippet from the BBC page. Surely incompetence on the part of Craig and Harvey cannot be used in defence?

 

However the worrying part is that it seems no such agreement was actually achieved either verbally or in writing, although if Harvey and Craig minds were focused elsewhere who's to say it wasn't agreed verbally?

 

-----------------

 

In its outline of the case, the commission says EFL director of legal affairs Nick Craig and former chief executive Shaun Harvey "assumed" documents over the sale of Hillsborough had been signed by 31 July 2018, which was required in order for it to be used against the club's 2017-18 profit and sustainability submissions.

However, the commission adds: "Had [Craig and Harvey] applied their minds fully to the situation at the time, it was obvious that this was not so."

It was pointed out both men were going on holiday "after a busy period" so it was possible to see how the matter was not given "the kind of scrutiny it has subsequently received".

The commission said the evidence made it clear there had been no agreement over the sale of the stadium prior to 31 July, either verbal or in writing.

Bang on, which is why the commission have found us guilty. It is quite apparent though the meeting in Preston in August the discussions took place regarding back dating it. The EFL must have said do it, in fact what they said was do it but do it quickly. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Lyndon said:

This is a snippet from the BBC page. Surely incompetence on the part of Craig and Harvey cannot be used in defence?

 

However the worrying part is that it seems no such agreement was actually achieved either verbally or in writing, although if Harvey and Craig minds were focused elsewhere who's to say it wasn't agreed verbally?

 

-----------------

 

In its outline of the case, the commission says EFL director of legal affairs Nick Craig and former chief executive Shaun Harvey "assumed" documents over the sale of Hillsborough had been signed by 31 July 2018, which was required in order for it to be used against the club's 2017-18 profit and sustainability submissions.

However, the commission adds: "Had [Craig and Harvey] applied their minds fully to the situation at the time, it was obvious that this was not so."

It was pointed out both men were going on holiday "after a busy period" so it was possible to see how the matter was not given "the kind of scrutiny it has subsequently received".

The commission said the evidence made it clear there had been no agreement over the sale of the stadium prior to 31 July, either verbal or in writing.

 

We clearly didn't have any sale documents in July 2018, as it wasn't even a consideration. However, it didn't have to be, as the 'sale' only needed Heads of Terms completing by the following year as a intention for sale for UK accountancy purposes - maybe MKOwl would verify this. If so, it seems we are working to two different processes - one normal business accountancy practices and the other EFL 'rules'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, WalthamOwl said:


how can we win an appeal for exceeding p&s? Is there any argument that we haven’t exceeded it? 

I would say yes. A very good chance. The EFL said we could apply the sale to the previous years accounts, then after a change of personnel, changed their minds. In fact I would go further it looks like they were telling us either sell someone or give us a fag packet saying you’re going to sell the ground on the back and we are happy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest The Horse

Glad this is going to drag on until 'autumn'.
Wouldn't feel right starting the new season and playing games without legal proceedings hanging over our heads and not knowing where we stand.
This feels much more like the norm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, @owlstalk said:

Screenshot 2020-08-17 at 10.26.34.jpg

 

The Club was disappointed with some of the decisions of the Disciplinary Commission and respectfully disagrees with both the finding that it was in breach of the P&S rules for the 2017/18 season and the sanction of a 12-point deduction to be applied in the 2020/21 season.

It is important to highlight that the Commission did not find that the sale of the stadium was itself prohibited by the P&S rules, nor that the Club acted anything other than in the utmost good faith with respect to that transaction. The Club had been assured by the EFL that the stadium sale could be included in its 2017/18 P&S returns and relied on those assurances. Having discussed the transaction with the EFL, the EFL having approved it and the Club’s auditors having signed off on it, the Club believed, and continues to believe, it was acting properly and in accordance with the rules. It is disappointing, in those circumstances, that the Commission went on to find the Club was nevertheless in breach of Charge 1.

The Club is pleased that Charge 2, which alleged that the Club had deliberately concealed certain matters from the EFL, was dismissed and that it was accepted that the Club acted openly and honestly in its dealings with the EFL. The Club further notes the Disciplinary Commission’s findings that this was a serious allegation that is not to be made lightly and an opportunity should have been afforded to the individuals involved to explain their position before the charge was brought. The Club welcomes the Disciplinary Commission’s suggestion that the EFL should have exercised its power to investigate under Regulations 82.2/3/4 as being a fairer approach rather than to bring the allegations without further investigation.

Despite the EFL’s “sanctioning guidelines” (which it is not accepted apply in this case) providing for any points deduction sanction to take effect in the year following the breach (which in the Club’s case would have been the 2018/19 season when it finished 24 points clear of the relegation zone) and other mitigating factors, the Commission imposed the maximum 12-point deduction for next season. The EFL sought to have the sanction imposed in the 2019/20 season that has just concluded, which would have seen the Club relegated, in stark contrast to the position it adopted in the Derby County disciplinary proceedings where it was content for any sanction to be imposed next season because Derby would not be relegated. The Club is pleased the Commission rejected such an inconsistent approach to sanctioning by the EFL.

Given the findings in respect of Charge 1 and the sanction imposed, the Club shall be appealing the Decision to an EFL League Arbitration Panel, both against the finding with respect to Charge 1 and the sanction. The Club believes its grounds of appeal to be strong. The Club will continue to take all appropriate steps to protect its interests, for the benefit of the Club and its supporters, and looks forward to the appeal being heard by the League Arbitration Panel at the earliest opportunity. While the Club does not set the timetable for the hearing of the appeal it considers it likely that it will take place in autumn 2020.

The Club will make no further comment until the outcome of the appeal is known.

OK I always look at things through blue tinted glasses, but in this case i would back any club that was in this situation, we need to fight this all the way, to stop the EFL making the rules up as they go along, the EFL at best are being inconsistent, and incompetent.

 

those that read my threads will know that I use owlstalk purely as a platform to support the club I love, I tend to avoid the one side or another arguments along with commenting on controversial issues

 

but on this one I am 100% Chansiri, go get them

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, SiJ said:

I dont think this in someway alleviates Chansiri from how he has run the club, but there appears to be little denying the fact that the EFL are not governing the game properly.

 

The whole thing reeks of agendas and inner politics. Not good.

DC acted on what he believe the EFL said he could do - yes others like KM saying well I don't think you can do that ...  - but he acted on good faith of what the EFL said he could do - and then change their mind after change of management - EFL would have been best saying it's ok - we will deduct 12 points in 2018/19 and you are still safe and you can keep your £40m don't need to sell the stadium .... sorry but EFL are a disgrace and makes you wonder what other clubs have done things on their advice?

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have just read through the documents on the EFL website, and for me their is a startling admittance of a desire for them to relegate us contained within it. It says:

image.png.c3ce40e0eee9f0b18f5a3a89b76f8cc2.png

 

 

Clearly they are not charging Derby this season because the maximum 12 point deduction would not relegate them. Does this then read they did not charge us in the 1819 season as it would not relegate us. I think it clearly does. It would seem that the EFL do not want to adhere to their own rules when it does not relegate the club charged. It says the club should be charged and penalties imposed in the subsequent season and that a 12 point deduction is the maximum. It does not say the EFL can choose when to impose that sanction so as it ends in relegation for that team.

 

It is a complete mess. What is the point in a body writing rules and then not sticking to 'their' rules as it does not give the outcome they would like. They should have written the rule to say 'a breach of the profit and sustainability rule will result in automatic relegation in the subsequent season'.

  • Like 4
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...