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

[bigthinrob]

4 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

If we successfully appeal then that opens the floodgates for all sorts of stuff in football

Not sure it does.

 

The specifics of our case are just that, 'specific'.

 

The issues regarding our case and the parallel one involving Derby & the furore surrounding the timings of both, with the apparent deliberate attempt to try and relegate us seems fairly unprecedented to me.

 

I agree, some of the parasites trying to use our case to offset their own shortcomings may try it on, but I don't see it creating a huge raft of litigation cases other than that.

 

I do however, & I said this at the outset, see it irrevocably weakening the EFL to a point it loses massive credibility to which it may not recover.

 

It is unfit for purpose, does not support the members it is supposed to represent (how can one body represent such diverse clubs such as Fleetwood & the likes of us, Derby, Forest & previously Newcastle, Villa & Leeds). It is purely a device at the behest of the Premier League to maintain the Premier Leagues power base. Hence the Premier Leagues stubborn refusal regarding the failure payments.

 

Get rid, replace with Prem 2 or whatever anyone wants to call it. Let the club's that have it spend it, and let the clubs that don't, work in their own way and if they can't compete, they go to a league where they can.

 

It's run like a socialist friendly society instead of a 21st century business.

 

Time for a change.

 

 

 

 

[steelcityowlsfan]

9 minutes ago, Jimbob1867 said:

My two penneth.  I am a lawyer for what it's worth.  

 

Some good points made on this thread about the EFL eg failing to investigate Charge 2 properly, accusing Chansiri of faking how bad his English is, trying to pick when to deduct points so as to relegate us etc.  I won't comment on these further.  

 

HOWEVER - what seems clear to me is what an utter poo show things are in terms of how the club is run.  I also don't think they have a leg to stand on with respect to an appeal.  We brought this on ourselves and it seems to have been totally avoidable if we'd had competent people dealing with this.

 

The club keeps saying they proceeded because they had EFL and auditor sign off.  However: (i) the EFL basically said they would sign off if there was a binding contract before 31 July with sufficiently certain terms (particularly as to price) - and it turns out there wasn't; and (ii) the auditors included an Instructed Assumption that the heads of terms was a binding contract dated 15 July - which, it turns out it wasn't.  In fact it seems the heads of terms, while binding, had insufficient certainty as to price, and was not entered into before 31 July, but was entered into on 15 August and backdated to 15 July.  On that basis I don't think the EFL has done an about turn in relation to what they initially said would be acceptable, which seems to be the crux of our defence (although you can certainly question their motivation for only looking at this months and months later).

 

It's beyond all comprehension why the club thought a backdated contract would be acceptable from a legal point of view.  Apparently the club didn't take any decent legal advice on how to deal with this.  

 

We should have been on top of this well before the deadline and not be relying in August on an email exchange with the EFL to say this was all ok.  We seem to have got away with charge 2 partly because the EFL didn't investigate properly at the time and partly because of our own incompetence ie it seems the heads of terms was backdated but because in emails and meetings after 15 July we made clear there wasn't a binding agreement (why would you do that if you were trying to demonstrate everything had been signed off before 31 July?!) then we can't be guilty of having deliberately misled the EFL.  If we'd just backdated the heads of terms and stuck to the script throughout that it had been signed on 15 July, and not on 15 August as seems to be the case, I think we might have fallen foul of charge 2 as well.

 

There don't appear to be any realistic grounds for a reduction in the points deducted, only that we be found not guilty, which doesn't seem at all likely.  

 

We should just accept this and move on and PLEASE, DC, appoint some competent people to run the club.

I was feeling positive about an appeal but after reading your conclusions it seems like folly. 
 

-12 it is then. What a mess!

[Frazzlebeak]

Take it and move on.

Chansiri has hardly  covered himself in glory.

Him and the EFL can discuss the merits of it all in a "Home for the Bewildered"  while we carry on 

supporting the team on the pitch.

[Mister Soul]

4 hours ago, WalthamOwl said:

Just can’t see us winning said appeal. As has been said if we did it would open the floodgates for other clubs. As much as I would love it I just don’t think we will. Hope to God we don’t get docked more points. 

It’s not our problem if it does  open the floodgates and as such it should affect the outcome of the appeal. It’s SWFC v EFL not the footballing world

[matthefish2002]

You feel when we get the written reasons for the appeal decision (which ever way it goes) in about April 2021 we will be sat here discussing how crap the EFL and Sheffield Wednesday have been in the appeal process.

[Jimbob1867]

27 minutes ago, steelcityowlsfan said:

I was feeling positive about an appeal but after reading your conclusions it seems like folly. 
 

-12 it is then. What a mess!

Sorry dude.  Then again, given how shambolic the whole process is, you might be right. 

[Guest Grandad]

Can people stop wasting reading time by suggesting the points deduction should be backdated to the previous season?

 

 

[@owlstalk]

47 minutes ago, Jimbob1867 said:

My two penneth.  I am a lawyer for what it's worth.  

 

Some good points made on this thread about the EFL eg failing to investigate Charge 2 properly, accusing Chansiri of faking how bad his English is, trying to pick when to deduct points so as to relegate us etc.  I won't comment on these further.  

 

HOWEVER - what seems clear to me is what an utter poo show things are in terms of how the club is run.  I also don't think they have a leg to stand on with respect to an appeal.  We brought this on ourselves and it seems to have been totally avoidable if we'd had competent people dealing with this.

 

The club keeps saying they proceeded because they had EFL and auditor sign off.  However: (i) the EFL basically said they would sign off if there was a binding contract before 31 July with sufficiently certain terms (particularly as to price) - and it turns out there wasn't; and (ii) the auditors included an Instructed Assumption that the heads of terms was a binding contract dated 15 July - which, it turns out it wasn't.  In fact it seems the heads of terms, while binding, had insufficient certainty as to price, and was not entered into before 31 July, but was entered into on 15 August and backdated to 15 July.  On that basis I don't think the EFL has done an about turn in relation to what they initially said would be acceptable, which seems to be the crux of our defence (although you can certainly question their motivation for only looking at this months and months later).

 

It's beyond all comprehension why the club thought a backdated contract would be acceptable from a legal point of view.  Apparently the club didn't take any decent legal advice on how to deal with this.  

 

We should have been on top of this well before the deadline and not be relying in August on an email exchange with the EFL to say this was all ok.  We seem to have got away with charge 2 partly because the EFL didn't investigate properly at the time and partly because of our own incompetence ie it seems the heads of terms was backdated but because in emails and meetings after 15 July we made clear there wasn't a binding agreement (why would you do that if you were trying to demonstrate everything had been signed off before 31 July?!) then we can't be guilty of having deliberately misled the EFL.  If we'd just backdated the heads of terms and stuck to the script throughout that it had been signed on 15 July, and not on 15 August as seems to be the case, I think we might have fallen foul of charge 2 as well.

 

There don't appear to be any realistic grounds for a reduction in the points deducted, only that we be found not guilty, which doesn't seem at all likely.  

 

We should just accept this and move on and PLEASE, DC, appoint some competent people to run the club.

Good post thank you

[@owlstalk]

38 minutes ago, bigthinrob said:

Not sure it does.

 

The specifics of our case are just that, 'specific'.

 

The issues regarding our case and the parallel one involving Derby & the furore surrounding the timings of both, with the apparent deliberate attempt to try and relegate us seems fairly unprecedented to me.

 

I agree, some of the parasites trying to use our case to offset their own shortcomings may try it on, but I don't see it creating a huge raft of litigation cases other than that.

 

I do however, & I said this at the outset, see it irrevocably weakening the EFL to a point it loses massive credibility to which it may not recover.

 

It is unfit for purpose, does not support the members it is supposed to represent (how can one body represent such diverse clubs such as Fleetwood & the likes of us, Derby, Forest & previously Newcastle, Villa & Leeds). It is purely a device at the behest of the Premier League to maintain the Premier Leagues power base. Hence the Premier Leagues stubborn refusal regarding the failure payments.

 

Get rid, replace with Prem 2 or whatever anyone wants to call it. Let the club's that have it spend it, and let the clubs that don't, work in their own way and if they can't compete, they go to a league where they can.

 

It's run like a socialist friendly society instead of a 21st century business.

 

Time for a change.

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah totally

I guess what I meant was that if we appeal and get our points deduction reduced then I can't see any clubs accepting ANY EFL decisions from now on without challenge

 

[Triple O]

3 hours ago, WalthamOwl said:

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

There could be an argument that we didn't exceed it if the sale of the ground is included. Also if a point they (efl and panel) were making related to the date the sale should be included then the club could equally make a point regarding when the points deduction should have been included.

[Inspector Lestrade]

13 minutes ago, Grandad said:

Can people stop wasting reading time by suggesting the points deduction should be backdated to the previous season?

 

 

 

I don't want to waste your time but should points be backdated to previous season? 

[Triple O]

3 hours ago, WalthamOwl said:

So am I correct in thinking KM told DC not to do it but he still did it? 

Rumour!!

[Guest Grandad]

1 hour ago, Jimbob1867 said:

My two penneth.  I am a lawyer for what it's worth.  

 

Some good points made on this thread about the EFL eg failing to investigate Charge 2 properly, accusing Chansiri of faking how bad his English is, trying to pick when to deduct points so as to relegate us etc.  I won't comment on these further.  

 

HOWEVER - what seems clear to me is what an utter poo show things are in terms of how the club is run.  I also don't think they have a leg to stand on with respect to an appeal.  We brought this on ourselves and it seems to have been totally avoidable if we'd had competent people dealing with this.

 

The club keeps saying they proceeded because they had EFL and auditor sign off.  However: (i) the EFL basically said they would sign off if there was a binding contract before 31 July with sufficiently certain terms (particularly as to price) - and it turns out there wasn't; and (ii) the auditors included an Instructed Assumption that the heads of terms was a binding contract dated 15 July - which, it turns out it wasn't.  In fact it seems the heads of terms, while binding, had insufficient certainty as to price, and was not entered into before 31 July, but was entered into on 15 August and backdated to 15 July.  On that basis I don't think the EFL has done an about turn in relation to what they initially said would be acceptable, which seems to be the crux of our defence (although you can certainly question their motivation for only looking at this months and months later).

 

It's beyond all comprehension why the club thought a backdated contract would be acceptable from a legal point of view.  Apparently the club didn't take any decent legal advice on how to deal with this.  

 

We should have been on top of this well before the deadline and not be relying in August on an email exchange with the EFL to say this was all ok.  We seem to have got away with charge 2 partly because the EFL didn't investigate properly at the time and partly because of our own incompetence ie it seems the heads of terms was backdated but because in emails and meetings after 15 July we made clear there wasn't a binding agreement (why would you do that if you were trying to demonstrate everything had been signed off before 31 July?!) then we can't be guilty of having deliberately misled the EFL.  If we'd just backdated the heads of terms and stuck to the script throughout that it had been signed on 15 July, and not on 15 August as seems to be the case, I think we might have fallen foul of charge 2 as well.

 

There don't appear to be any realistic grounds for a reduction in the points deducted, only that we be found not guilty, which doesn't seem at all likely.  

 

We should just accept this and move on and PLEASE, DC, appoint some competent people to run the club.

 

 

Great post

[DJMortimer]

3 hours ago, Owlsend said:

I understand nothing

 

 

Given some of  the EFL's remarkable claims about our chairman, I was thinking more in terms of this (for those old enough to remember it)...

 

[WalthamOwl]

1 hour ago, Jimbob1867 said:

My two penneth.  I am a lawyer for what it's worth.  

 

Some good points made on this thread about the EFL eg failing to investigate Charge 2 properly, accusing Chansiri of faking how bad his English is, trying to pick when to deduct points so as to relegate us etc.  I won't comment on these further.  

 

HOWEVER - what seems clear to me is what an utter poo show things are in terms of how the club is run.  I also don't think they have a leg to stand on with respect to an appeal.  We brought this on ourselves and it seems to have been totally avoidable if we'd had competent people dealing with this.

 

The club keeps saying they proceeded because they had EFL and auditor sign off.  However: (i) the EFL basically said they would sign off if there was a binding contract before 31 July with sufficiently certain terms (particularly as to price) - and it turns out there wasn't; and (ii) the auditors included an Instructed Assumption that the heads of terms was a binding contract dated 15 July - which, it turns out it wasn't.  In fact it seems the heads of terms, while binding, had insufficient certainty as to price, and was not entered into before 31 July, but was entered into on 15 August and backdated to 15 July.  On that basis I don't think the EFL has done an about turn in relation to what they initially said would be acceptable, which seems to be the crux of our defence (although you can certainly question their motivation for only looking at this months and months later).

 

It's beyond all comprehension why the club thought a backdated contract would be acceptable from a legal point of view.  Apparently the club didn't take any decent legal advice on how to deal with this.  

 

We should have been on top of this well before the deadline and not be relying in August on an email exchange with the EFL to say this was all ok.  We seem to have got away with charge 2 partly because the EFL didn't investigate properly at the time and partly because of our own incompetence ie it seems the heads of terms was backdated but because in emails and meetings after 15 July we made clear there wasn't a binding agreement (why would you do that if you were trying to demonstrate everything had been signed off before 31 July?!) then we can't be guilty of having deliberately misled the EFL.  If we'd just backdated the heads of terms and stuck to the script throughout that it had been signed on 15 July, and not on 15 August as seems to be the case, I think we might have fallen foul of charge 2 as well.

 

There don't appear to be any realistic grounds for a reduction in the points deducted, only that we be found not guilty, which doesn't seem at all likely.  

 

We should just accept this and move on and PLEASE, DC, appoint some competent people to run the club.

brilliant post. Thank you. I’ve been thinking similar, can’t see us having a case to have the points reduced. We have massively overspent in regards FFP and I don’t think an appeal will change that. All we are doing is just dragging on this absolute mess of a situation when we need to have all our efforts focused on the football side of things. 

[McRightSide]

So basically the EFL said 'get it done, get an auditor to approve it and so will we'

 

The club then said 'ok, we'll do it like this. Everyone agree?'

 

Auditor 'yes'

 

EFL 'yes'

 

Club doesn't actually do what was agreed

 

Auditor 'well, if I'd known you were doing it like that I probably wouldn't have signed it off'

 

EFL 'a ha. we're charging you'

 

Chansiri 'hold up, you said you approved it'

 

EFL 'say that again?'

[Dick_Turpin]

So it turns out those friends who would help us get round FFP were the EFL but we weren't savvy enough to do what they asked us to do. 

[quinnssweetshop]

Clubs run like a crap show
 

Should never have even been in this position.

Move on.


Re the language barrier.......   do em !!   DC.

[NeonLeon]

Should we be concerned that it took Chansiri so long to commit to buying the stadium? You can see why the EFL would get edgy in the months after when it does look like we chanced our arm at claiming a sale that hasn’t actually taken place. It comes across like DC didn’t action the sale until the EFL had caught him out, so to speak.

 

.

Edited August 17, 2020 by NeonLeon

[1/10/1983]

About the only grounds I can see for a reduction (not removal) of a points deduction is that we appear to have been punished on a scale that was not in place at the time of the offence.

 

There might be some mileage in the fact that the IDP refused to remove the points on the season just gone because of the precedent set with BIrmingham that a club should have the chance to win enough points to avoid relegation, subsequent to the points removal.

 

Birmingham had 9 points deducted. If that was considered a precedent for the given offence then we might be able to argue that 12 points is a punishment more severe than was applied at the time of our offence. For example, if you are found guilty of a crime now that was committed 50 years ago you can only be punished according to the sentencing rules that applied 50 years ago.

 

Ergo, we might be able to argue that a 9 point deduction is in line for the offence when it was committed.

 

Three points better off could make all the difference.

 

Don’t see how we can reasonably beat the rap, though.

 

It rankles that we could and should have had no case to answer - we just didn’t get our homework in on time. Even when the teacher gave us a pretty generous extension to the deadline.