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

[Owls-Fan]

Hopefully as all the facts are now in, the appeal will be handled and the outcome released quickly.  

[daveyboy66]

7 hours ago, 33 said:

F**k the EFL

Should be on flags at every Championship clubs 

[Dick_Turpin]

13 minutes ago, whowantstoberich said:

It is DC's call on if he feels it's racist, not people on here, as we aren't the one's it is aimed at..

 

 

Say that in the politics section and see what response you get!

[Jimbob1867]

55 minutes ago, sheriwozgod said:

 

WTF ??????

What’s WTF about it? 

[daleblue]

2 minutes ago, rickygoo said:

 

Say that in the politics section and see what response you get!

 

I went in there once.

[Jimbob1867]

Ah right sorry didn’t see the bold bit

[heppers]

8 hours ago, S36 OWL said:

Nailed on the EFL will also appeal for a bigger punishment. 

Seriously. What could go wrong?

[heppers]

DC needs to stop kidding himself. 
 

The club is a mess.

 

One decent thing he has done is upgrading the coaching staff.

 

He needs a hands on football person to run the club.

 

Let’s move on, work to avoid relegation and move forwards from there.

[NeonLeon]

42 minutes ago, dr. benway said:

Really? I would have assumed that it could be reduced on appeal (e.g. by the appeal panel applying “mitigating factors”—I forget the actual terminology, sorry—to the original decision)?

There’s something in the report today about there being no mitigating circumstances. Not sure if that’s because we haven’t advanced any. But the ‘reduced points deduction’ is a complete non starter according to all the experts the local journos have consulted from what I’ve read today. 

[dr. benway]

Just now, NeonLeon said:

There’s something in the report today about there being no mitigating circumstances. Not sure if that’s because we haven’t advanced any. But the ‘reduced points deduction’ is a complete non starter according to all the experts the local journos have consulted from what I’ve read today. 

That’s what the panel came to the conclusion of, but I believe we could appeal on the grounds that there are some (namely that we were acting in good faith to sell the stadium to cover the losses). I’ve no idea though. 

[bazapeps]

Ultimately the report shows that both the EFL and DC’s incompetence is beyond comprehension. I’m at a loss as to how people are still claiming we’ve done nothing and continue to support the chairman. The report is there in black and white.

 

The punishment seems correct. However, it’s clear that it should have been dealt with and enforced back in the 18/19 season. Or at least early on in the 19/20 season.

 

i think we’ve been fortunate that the commission found that that it shouldn’t apply to the season just gone because we had no opportunity to rectify it on the position and had lost players. Other clubs had also lost players. I’m surprised at the commissions stance there and would be fuming if I was charlton.

 

i assume our only grounds for appeal would be based on the argument the punishment should have been in 18/19.

 

re charge 2 the EFL’s conduct is appalling. A total lack of a proper and timely investigation from them. However, has that potentially done us a favour as there are parts and quotes in the report that don’t look overly favourable 

[sheriwozgod]

37 minutes ago, Jimbob1867 said:

What’s WTF about it? 

 

The part I highlighted in bold.

[sheriwozgod]

Ah right sorry........didnt see your second post

[MrsHall]

Autos. UTO.

[helmut_rooster]

9 hours ago, @owlstalk said:

 

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.

 

Up ya shoot EFL gimps.

[Jimbob1867]

4 hours 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.

These posts are pretty long but for those wanting to fully understand the judgment hopefully it’s worth the time.
 

So I’ve had chance to read the judgment fully and reflect on what I said above where I had just flicked through it.  

Anyway, conclusion is: exactly what I said above. Absolute poo show.
 

A few points to clarify/raise:

 

- it wasn’t the case as I said in the previous post that the auditors signed off the accounts on the basis of the Instructed Assumption ie that there was a binding contract (the heads of terms) in place on 15 July. They signed it off based on their understanding that there was a binding contract but without enquiring as to whether actually such a thing existed. This reflects badly on them. It’s not the case they said - “Wednesday, here’s your accounts which are fine as long as you have that contract”. They just made vague enquiries about the contract without checking it existed and signed off the accounts which it appears made no reference to them being subject to the contract being in place. 
 

The Instructed Assumption appears to be something given to John Pryor, the audit expert. Basically, it seems he was told for the purpose of giving his expert evidence: “if you assume the Instructed Assumption is correct [ie there was a binding heads of terms dated 15 July in place] what would your view be on whether Wednesday breached the rules? He concluded no they wouldn’t - but the evidence then went on to show we didn’t have such a contract (it was probably not binding due to uncertainty about the price and it was signed on 15 August and backdated to 15 July which you can’t do). 
 

- I’m struggling to understand and accepting the total fizzing apathy and tardiness demonstrated by the club in sorting this out. As early as 25 April we told the EFL we were planning a sale by financial year end (which was 31 May at the time and which we extended twice by a month each time, presumably to buy us time to sort out the sale) yet we failed to deal with it. For instance, at the time when our financial year end was 30 June (by when the sale had to be agreed) and hadn’t yet being extended to 31 July, para 31 notes: “not much happened as between the Club and the EFL during June”.

 

- also the fact we appeared to take NO legal advice on such a crucial issue is mind boggling. From para 66: “neither the Club nor the auditors took any informed legal advice about how an agreement for sale of the stadium to DC that was legally binding and effective before 31 July 2018 could be fashioned (if it were legally possible) after 31 July 2018”. [Free legal tip of the day - it can’t.]. The QCs we employed came up with some arguments to the contrary of which the panel said in para 67: “While the Commission cannot say...that the arguments are completely untenable...they are sufficiently remote from main-stream property law thinking as to not have reflected the advice the Club...would probably have received...at the time...”. 
 

- there is some legal chicanery from our high flying QCs about how, if the auditors shouldn’t have signed off on the accounts because there was no binding contract re the ground sale, meaning they were not in accordance with financial reporting standards, then those accounts should not be classed as Annual Accounts and therefore the EFL can’t bring disciplinary action until we have Annual Accounts . Nice try. Not having a go at counsel - they were just playing the hand they were dealt but it just shows the cards were covered in something icky and smelly. 
 

- I have to say I think the panel comes out with a great deal of credit from this. Their judgment is very balanced, detailed and they seem unswayed by some of the more dramatic actions on both sides. I actually think they gave us a bit of a pass on charge 2. It’s clear we backdated a contract which you simply cannot do, but then I guess we didn’t conceal it so looking at the charge the EFL brought technically we are not guilty. It hardly hides how poor our conduct was though. 
 

- a controversial point to end on - setting aside the reason why the EFL decided to revisit this 10 months after the event, at the time we were considering the sale they appear to have been helpful. They basically told us what was required and never made any noises along the lines of the sale of the ground itself being problematic. They merely specified perfectly reasonable requirements to put in place to show the sale occurred in 17/18 financial year. Quite simply we failed to do that. 
 

- the only ground for appeal I can see is that we argue 12 points is too many and seek a reduction. I can’t see any basis on which the deduction would be completely overturned. To seek a reduction we would have to argue that the fact the guidance was not in force at the time of the offence, ie which set out how many points are deducted depending on how far over the FFP limit you are (£15m or more for 12 points; we were at £18m) means we should get less. Unless there are other similar cases with materially lower deductions I can’t see how we have a chance. I’m not aware there are any.
 

As mentioned before, all of this smacks of there being no control or management of the club. It’s the clearest indication yet of the underlying problems many on here have suspected for some time. 

Right I’m all EFL’d out. We signed any strikers yet? 

 

[Triple O]

2 hours ago, Swifty75 said:

 

We did not win charge 2, they dropped all charges, when it became apparent there was no case to answer. 

 

It appears that it is correct that we made a mess of the date of the transaction of the ground sale. 

 

What does get to me though is that it appears that they have waited a long time to begin proceedings. It would appear that they were waiting for a season when a 12 point deduction would relegate us, and have made mess of it because the independent panel objected to this approach.

They did decide on charge 2 and found in our favour. It's in the report.

[sherlyegg]

22 minutes ago, Jimbob1867 said:

It’s clear we backdated a contract which you simply cannot do, but then I guess we didn’t conceal it so looking at the charge the EFL brought technically we are not guilty. I

So why do you think the only grounds for appeal would be a reduction of points deducted.?

Didn't we threaten to sue the efl, for unlawful charges...not sure if anything came of that or is ongoing...

 

[Guest Grandad]

37 minutes ago, Jimbob1867 said:

These posts are pretty long but for those wanting to fully understand the judgment hopefully it’s worth the time.
 

So I’ve had chance to read the judgment fully and reflect on what I said above where I had just flicked through it.  

Anyway, conclusion is: exactly what I said above. Absolute poo show.
 

A few points to clarify/raise:

 

- it wasn’t the case as I said in the previous post that the auditors signed off the accounts on the basis of the Instructed Assumption ie that there was a binding contract (the heads of terms) in place on 15 July. They signed it off based on their understanding that there was a binding contract but without enquiring as to whether actually such a thing existed. This reflects badly on them. It’s not the case they said - “Wednesday, here’s your accounts which are fine as long as you have that contract”. They just made vague enquiries about the contract without checking it existed and signed off the accounts which it appears made no reference to them being subject to the contract being in place. 
 

The Instructed Assumption appears to be something given to John Pryor, the audit expert. Basically, it seems he was told for the purpose of giving his expert evidence: “if you assume the Instructed Assumption is correct [ie there was a binding heads of terms dated 15 July in place] what would your view be on whether Wednesday breached the rules? He concluded no they wouldn’t - but the evidence then went on to show we didn’t have such a contract (it was probably not binding due to uncertainty about the price and it was signed on 15 August and backdated to 15 July which you can’t do). 
 

- I’m struggling to understand and accepting the total fizzing apathy and tardiness demonstrated by the club in sorting this out. As early as 25 April we told the EFL we were planning a sale by financial year end (which was 31 May at the time and which we extended twice by a month each time, presumably to buy us time to sort out the sale) yet we failed to deal with it. For instance, at the time when our financial year end was 30 June (by when the sale had to be agreed) and hadn’t yet being extended to 31 July, para 31 notes: “not much happened as between the Club and the EFL during June”.

 

- also the fact we appeared to take NO legal advice on such a crucial issue is mind boggling. From para 66: “neither the Club nor the auditors took any informed legal advice about how an agreement for sale of the stadium to DC that was legally binding and effective before 31 July 2018 could be fashioned (if it were legally possible) after 31 July 2018”. [Free legal tip of the day - it can’t.]. The QCs we employed came up with some arguments to the contrary of which the panel said in para 67: “While the Commission cannot say...that the arguments are completely untenable...they are sufficiently remote from main-stream property law thinking as to not have reflected the advice the Club...would probably have received...at the time...”. 
 

- there is some legal chicanery from our high flying QCs about how, if the auditors shouldn’t have signed off on the accounts because there was no binding contract re the ground sale, meaning they were not in accordance with financial reporting standards, then those accounts should not be classed as Annual Accounts and therefore the EFL can’t bring disciplinary action until we have Annual Accounts . Nice try. Not having a go at counsel - they were just playing the hand they were dealt but it just shows the cards were covered in something icky and smelly. 
 

- I have to say I think the panel comes out with a great deal of credit from this. Their judgment is very balanced, detailed and they seem unswayed by some of the more dramatic actions on both sides. I actually think they gave us a bit of a pass on charge 2. It’s clear we backdated a contract which you simply cannot do, but then I guess we didn’t conceal it so looking at the charge the EFL brought technically we are not guilty. It hardly hides how poor our conduct was though. 
 

- a controversial point to end on - setting aside the reason why the EFL decided to revisit this 10 months after the event, at the time we were considering the sale they appear to have been helpful. They basically told us what was required and never made any noises along the lines of the sale of the ground itself being problematic. They merely specified perfectly reasonable requirements to put in place to show the sale occurred in 17/18 financial year. Quite simply we failed to do that. 
 

- the only ground for appeal I can see is that we argue 12 points is too many and seek a reduction. I can’t see any basis on which the deduction would be completely overturned. To seek a reduction we would have to argue that the fact the guidance was not in force at the time of the offence, ie which set out how many points are deducted depending on how far over the FFP limit you are (£15m or more for 12 points; we were at £18m) means we should get less. Unless there are other similar cases with materially lower deductions I can’t see how we have a chance. I’m not aware there are any.
 

As mentioned before, all of this smacks of there being no control or management of the club. It’s the clearest indication yet of the underlying problems many on here have suspected for some time. 

Right I’m all EFL’d out. We signed any strikers yet? 

 

Bravo

 

Post of the whole sorry mess

[Jimbob1867]

4 minutes ago, sherlyegg said:

So why do you think the only grounds for appeal would be a reduction of points deducted.?

Didn't we threaten to sue the efl, for unlawful charges...not sure if anything came of that or is ongoing...

 

Because on the deliberately concealing charge the panel found in our favour. It’s the breaching the FFP bit we lost, by not reaching agreement before 31 July 2018 to sell the ground, all the facts demonstrate we didn’t do this (properly at least).