Should the club be appealing?

[S36 OWL]

A club can be deducted up to a maximum 12pts for breaching FFP. We breached it and got the maximum punishment. What is there to appeal.? 

[Nero]

I say yes appeal, purely from a 'the whole thing is bent anyway' perspective. I am absolutely convinced we fxxxed up and the verdict at least was fair. 

And business is business - the deduction could cost millions in lost revenue.

[soldierboyblue]

5 minutes ago, NeonLeon said:

But as far as fairness in Derby’s case goes the panel found in our favour and put the deduction into next season. For me, the panel has righted the wrong there already.

That doesn't right the fact that the EFL sought to implement it this season. As I said it's going to get messy. What has been called into question here is the integrity of DC something which Thai people pride themselves on and honour is huge in their culture.

 

The integrity of the EFL is also in question after the written reasons explanation. As I said it will be messy very messy

[Inspector Lestrade]

Not voted as I don't feel I'm qualified to express a view from any level of expertise.

 

Having read posters who do have (or claim) some expertise we seem to have come to the end of the road and we should accept the decision, learn from the experience and move along.

Edited August 17, 2020 by Inspector Lestrade

[axolotl]

I said in one of the other threads - and I stress I could be wrong about this - is that there could be basis for an appeal based on the fact that at the date of the breach the current sliding scale for point deducted vs amount over the limit was not in place, and had we been charged and had our hearing at that point, the outcome in terms of the amount of points (or in lieu of a points deduction, financial penalties) could have been different. The reason this did not happen is, seemingly, because the EFL set their main target of not acting in good faith, a charge of which we were cleared. Ergo, had the P&S breach been heard at the time of the breach, or as close as reasonably practicable, rather than taking a "back seat" in place of the other charge, our penalty could quite easily have been different. In fact, I do believe the reports make mention of the fact that the club officers were unaware/unsure as to what penalty we would be facing at that time.

 

Whether that is grounds enough to get the punishment altered or dropped is another matter.

 

I could be entirely wrong on all of the above, it was just my understanding from reading both reports 

[Sefton owl]

39 minutes ago, jp1981 said:

We've got nothing to lose (hopefully) so why not?

Apart from the fact it puts even more uncertainty around the club, manager and players and will cost more money. 
 

At least if we accept it everyone knows where they stand. Clean slate, a new chapter in the club’s history- except the morons who run this club don’t seem to acknowledge.

 

Oh and apparently the 12 points can be extended to 21 points (correct me if i am wrong).

 

Furthermore, even if the appeal is successful surely it isn’t a simple case of the 12 points being reinstated? The deduction as it stands has impacted on every single the club has made and will make, along with the mentality of the players. Would be very surprised if they just added 12 points to whatever was accumulated (assuming this has been ‘resolved’ after the new season begins- which i will be very surprised considering how long it took to determine the initial case)

 

Any examples of points deductions being overturned out of interest?

[Django]

11 minutes ago, NeonLeon said:

They set out the guidelines for us to work too. We told them we’d completed the sale as per the guidelines they’d set out. They didn’t check our paperwork there and then, letting it go through on the assumption that we’d done as agreed. When they’ve sat down at a later date and reviewed the paperwork they’ve seen we’ve not done as we said we would. Then they brought the charge.

 

It’s understandable, they have to guard against deceit really. We could’ve been trying to pull the wool over their eyes with a ‘fake’ ground sale in the accounts.

Then surely the owner and other staff would have been charged instead of cleared back in March 

 

It really doesn’t add up 

Edited August 17, 2020 by Django

[Nero]

3 minutes ago, axolotl said:

I said in one of the other threads - and I stress I could be wrong about this - is that there could be basis for an appeal based on the fact that at the date of the breach the current sliding scale for point deducted vs amount over the limit was not in place, and had we been charged and had our hearing at that point, the outcome in terms of the amount of points (or in lieu of a points deduction, financial penalties) could have been different. The reason this did not happen is, seemingly, because the EFL set their main target of not acting in good faith, a charge of which we were cleared. Ergo, had the P&S breach been heard at the time of the breach, or as close as reasonably practicable, rather than taking a "back seat" in place of the other charge, our penalty could quite easily have been different. In fact, I do believe the reports make mention of the fact that the club officers were unaware/unsure as to what penalty we would be facing at that time.

 

Whether that is grounds enough to get the punishment altered or dropped is another matter.

 

I could be entirely wrong on all of the above, it was just my understanding from reading both reports 

Good points. I dont believe that we put in much mitigation on the first trial. Not knowing what the punishment for breach would be is a good one.

In addition there is shocking governance from the EFL which holds a crucial meeting without recording formal minutes and distributing them accordingly. Clearly from the August 3rd meeting everyone went off believing different things. That again led to the confusion around SWFC believing they were acting within the laws.

 

I dont know if anyone else has spotted that the panel put in a paragraph about how they hadn't really had sufficient time to go through everything as thoroughly as they wanted. That will be handy for the next panel to change the original verdict without explicitly trashing the original panel.

[NeonLeon]

2 minutes ago, Django said:

Then surely the owner and other staff would have been charged instead of cleared back in March 

They needed to be charged before they could be cleared though.

 

Well they didn’t but that’s a failing of the EFL not to investigate until after the charge. 
 

.

Edited August 17, 2020 by NeonLeon

[Jimbob1867]

7 minutes ago, axolotl said:

I said in one of the other threads - and I stress I could be wrong about this - is that there could be basis for an appeal based on the fact that at the date of the breach the current sliding scale for point deducted vs amount over the limit was not in place, and had we been charged and had our hearing at that point, the outcome in terms of the amount of points (or in lieu of a points deduction, financial penalties) could have been different. The reason this did not happen is, seemingly, because the EFL set their main target of not acting in good faith, a charge of which we were cleared. Ergo, had the P&S breach been heard at the time of the breach, or as close as reasonably practicable, rather than taking a "back seat" in place of the other charge, our penalty could quite easily have been different. In fact, I do believe the reports make mention of the fact that the club officers were unaware/unsure as to what penalty we would be facing at that time.

 

Whether that is grounds enough to get the punishment altered or dropped is another matter.

 

I could be entirely wrong on all of the above, it was just my understanding from reading both reports 

Good point.  I guess if we could show 12 points is inconsistent with other points deductions for similar offences then maybe, but I'm not sure there's anything comparable offence-wise that produced a markedly different points deduction.  Again, another example of the shambolic EFL which introduced a points deduction system of up to 12 points with, as far as I'm aware, zero guidance on the level of points to be deducted for different offences.  It's like the government introducing prison sentences of up to 50 years for "crime" and saying to the courts "have at it".  

[Django]

1 minute ago, NeonLeon said:

They needed to be charged before they could be cleared though.

You know what I mean 

[Django]

Can’t wait until Christmas when we are 8th, then we get our 12 points back and get propelled to the top of the league 

[Manwë]

I'm in the minority and have voted "No".  "We've got nothing to lose", but whatever remains of our integrity I suppose. 

 

Regarding appealing the punishment, the sanctions document  (Para 13) made it clear that the 12 points was the maximum, based on the amount over the P&S.  The only way to get it reduced would be to not have exceeded P&S by as much, but those accounts are filed.  So nothing will change the punishment as long as we are found to be in breach of the rules.     As the loss hasn't changed, the deduction will not change.

 

Regarding appealing the actual charge, then we have to prove that on the 31st of July 2018, we had a valid, legally binding Heads of Terms in place with Sheffield 3 Ltd.  The fact that we sent the EFL two Heads of Terms with different figures (a mere £4.5m difference), but with the same date, and a month and a month and two days after the documents we dated would make the idea that we had a genuine, legal agreement in place on the 31st July to be dubious.    Why oh why did Wednesday do this?

 

I won't re-hash what I've written elsewhere, but we need to move on and accept what has been found of us.

[Notts Owl]

30 minutes ago, Django said:

This is the bit that I can’t get my head around. If they were aware of it and let it go through, then why have they come back months later and charged us?

They came back and charged us purely because they failed to pin anything on DC and crew. Bl00dy petty and worth appealing on that fact alone. Imo

[hangonrose]

32 minutes ago, Django said:

This is the bit that I can’t get my head around. If they were aware of it and let it go through, then why have they come back months later and charged us?

Exactamondo Django.....I hit a brick wall with this one.  A big YES to appeal it, from me

[NeonLeon]

2 minutes ago, Zlin Owl said:

They came back and charged us purely because they failed to pin anything on DC and crew. Bl00dy petty and worth appealing on that fact alone. Imo

They didn’t both charges were brought at the same time.

[Notts Owl]

2 minutes ago, NeonLeon said:

They didn’t both charges were brought at the same time.

According to the panel they brought a charge against DC first thus wasting time and delaying the case over the stadium sale. That's how I read it anyhow

[Manwë]

1 minute ago, hangonrose said:

Exactamondo Django.....I hit a brick wall with this one.  A big YES to appeal it, from me

 

It's not that difficult.  The EFL were absolutely fine with it, as long as Wednesday could get their documentation in order in the right time.  Wednesday produced said document (s) weeks after the deadline had passed, and dated them as if they were produced in the right time frame.  Thus, they couldn't be included in the 17/18 figures.  It's that simple.  And the reason why Wednesday couldn't produce the documentation is because 

a) incompetence, relying on people who didn't know what to do rather than seek professional help.  We used our CEO and Thai solicitors to complete the transaction.

b) no genuine agreement between SWFC/Sheffield 3 Ltd was in place at the time, so we were starting from scratch legally.

c) the figure agreed changed, twice, and still didn't reflect the final sale price.

 

Anyway, it's a poll, not a discussion, I'll sit it out on this topic.

[NeonLeon]

1 minute ago, Zlin Owl said:

According to the panel they brought a charge against DC first thus wasting time and delaying the case over the stadium sale. That's how I read it anyhow

They dealt with it first and created the delay that saved us from a points deduction in 19/20. The actual charges were the same day. 

[sherlyegg]

Absofookinlutley..

The efl lied and conspired to shaft us, they insulted our chairman in a feeble attempt to sway the ip..

Appeal and sue the foookers i say.