Should the club be appealing?

[slinger208b]

3 hours 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?

 

Which I believe is the reason for the appeal...

[Lime Tree Heros]

I voted No - to me we clearly breached the rules, by not getting the sale of Hillsborough through in time to meet the EFL's requirements.

Nothing in the EFL's 'attitude' to DC, delaying tactics or different treatment to Derby alter that, so we 'deserve' our punishment.

Whilst the -12 points for P&S breach wasn't in place when we breached it was soon after and before the IDP would have met before it became delayed.

To me it's time to swallow our medicine and move on with integrity intact, I'd rather money spent on an appeal spent on the club (CEO, academy and training facilities please).

 

What is clear to me for the benefit of all the P&S rules need rejigging to a) eliminate the benefit of parachute payments b) have a clear date for submission to the EFL of financial information, enabling c) a clear timetable for examination of info provided and any IDP's necessary so any punishment can always be applied to the season after the offence (like Birmingham)

[BowOwl]

No, we should chuck all our resources into suing the EFl for racism and corruption instead.

 

Without being a bit up ourselves, we are one of the big clubs in the Efl and have any real weight (with the exception of the yo-yo premiership clubs)

 

Its clear the EFL are destroying clubs and livelihoods and it’s time they went under the microscope.

 

Would be nice to be seen as a groundbreaking club but it’s a thankless expensive task.

First through the wall always gets bloodied. 

[crookesowl]

I voted yes because I read some headlines and tweets that suggest we should. 
 

[Spondon Owl]

5 hours ago, TrickyTrev said:

Going from the report in the Sun yesterday I thought the club had grounds for appeal.

 

Reading the written reasons today however I’m not so sure. We have clearly exceeded FFP and have been deducted the number of points the rules say need to be deducted for such a breach.

 

I honestly don’t think the club has a leg to stand on here.

The rules were made up after the event. I wonder if they intend appealing around that. 

[Spondon Owl]

5 hours 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?

Because they believed us to have a legally binding document asserting the sale in the correct financial year. Turned out, upon closer inspection, that we didn't and therefore our accounts were incorrect - hence the accusation that we misled.

[Blue and white]

I'm not Mr Chansiri's biggest fan as most will know, the fact that we are even in this mess rests with him, having said that it is becoming increasingly clear that the EFL have a bit of an agenda with us for whatever reason and the more of the reports I read the more unjust things seem to be.

[Sham67]

1 hour ago, Spondon Owl said:

Because they believed us to have a legally binding document asserting the sale in the correct financial year. Turned out, upon closer inspection, that we didn't and therefore our accounts were incorrect - hence the accusation that we misled.

 

Love how sometwat wants us to be guilty of something the panel decided we aren't 

 

[Manwë]

32 minutes ago, Blue and white said:

I'm not Mr Chansiri's biggest fan as most will know, the fact that we are even in this mess rests with him, having said that it is becoming increasingly clear that the EFL have a bit of an agenda with us for whatever reason and the more of the reports I read the more unjust things seem to be.

The EFL at a senior level tried to help us.  It's literally the second paragraph of the ruling.

[Swifty75]

Not sure why Katrien Miere left but as CEO you would have expected her to be all over this. 
 

We know the EFL only want to apply a points deduction when it relegates a team. Some say we are lucky that it has not been applied in 19/20. For me the bigger question is why did it take from August 2018 to November 2019 to get round to looking at our accounts and finding the problem? Is it just that they were being a bit slow? Or was it that they realised that a points deduction in the correct year (18/19) would have no effect? 

[sherlyegg]

12 minutes ago, Swifty75 said:

Or was it that they realised that a points deduction in the correct year (18/19) would have no effect? 

They could have done us in December last year, instead they decided a trumped up charge against club officials was the way to go. It was completely the wrong way round, not to mention lack of investigation...as the panel stated.

 

So you have to wonder why they did that, surely they are not stupid....then again, at the time we were sitting pretty, perhaps they thought -12 will not hurt them enough..go for -21...if it fails..see where we are after.

 

It took them 3 months to drop charges

[Emerson Thome]

10 hours ago, Sefton owl said:

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?

 

Not a points deduction, but Man City obviously very recently overturned a complete ban, so worse than a deduction really.

 

There's not much precedent to go on here, as there has only been, as far as I'm aware, one points deduction for F&P breach in the EFL. Also, the penalty is based on a set of sanctions only introduced after the incident in question.

 

I think the club could quite legitimately argue if they knew the sliding scale of punishments they could have sold one player (e.g. Joao), that would at least reduce the punishment to -9.

[Athelwulf]

5 hours ago, Blue and white said:

I'm not Mr Chansiri's biggest fan as most will know, the fact that we are even in this mess rests with him, having said that it is becoming increasingly clear that the EFL have a bit of an agenda with us for whatever reason and the more of the reports I read the more unjust things seem to be.

 

Yes, and for that reason we appeal'

 

You cannot wait to apply a punishment; it's akin to sentencing a healthy man to 5 years' hard labour and then deferring the sentence until he is seriously ill, thus killing him.

 

There are those on this site who will doubtless say that had the punishment been applied at the correct juncture, then there would have been no effect.

 

I care little, and Channers will care even less.

 

Both Wednesday and Derby are well capable of buying their way out of this division, but are forbidden to do so.

 

Concurrently others are gifted tens of millions a season and told not to come back until they've spent it.

 

Both clubs entered the playoffs and faced Hull with a distinct disadvantage; both lost.

 

Chansiri hates the advantage enjoyed by the ex-PL clubs, as do I, so never miss an opportunity to stick the boot into the EFL.

[robswfc]

Why are the heads of terms not legally binding?

 

https://www.turnbullhill.com.au/articles/what-is-a-heads-of-agreement-and-are-they-legally-binding/

 

[No Uniform]

4 minutes ago, robswfc said:

Why are the heads of terms not legally binding?

 

https://www.turnbullhill.com.au/articles/what-is-a-heads-of-agreement-and-are-they-legally-binding/

 

The letter was backdated. However it would appear this was the EFL's idea. 

[Guest mrbluesky]

DC for whatever reason faffed about with the buying the ground, so it wasn`t allowed into the relevant accounts, we over spent, so -12, lets move on.

 

Close fred!

[GMOwl72]

16 hours ago, Beauchief Owl said:

If the outcome could possibly be a 21 point deduction, then no.

If it's a free shot, though costly, then fair enough.

Not that I am certain but our points deduction can’t be increased through our appeal but could possibly be increased if the EFL appeal also.

[Swifty75]

I have read through the entire document now. That was an hour I wont get back!

 

A few points for me:

 

1. Charge 2 that was dismissed is regarding that the management of Sheffield Wednesday did try to mislead the management of the EFL that the heads of terms had already been signed. This charge was thrown out given that there is written correspondence that demonstrates that the management of the EFL must have known it was not in place, and therefore also must have known that the heads of terms were pre-dated when signed.

 

2. The EFL say that our non submission of details with regard to P&S in early 2019 made them re-look at our 17/18 accounts. They then found that the heads of terms had not been signed on 15th July, and our auditors should not have accepted them.

 

Charge 1 is then related to charge 2 is it not? In that the EFL knew that our ground sale was not concluded in July 2018. If they knew this at the time they could have told us firstly that we could not do this. They might have told us in the meeting on 3rd August. Or subsequently when emails between the 2 parties disclosed in writing the heads of terms not to have been concluded. They could have charged us as soon as the accounts came through as they had knowledge that the heads of terms were not concluded until after at least 6th August.

 

It appears that both parties were in the know that the heads of terms had not been agreed in a timely manner. Nobody from the EFL said that we could not include the ground sale. So why was it not brought up at the time? There are number of arguments:

 

1. The EFL did not know that the heads of terms had been pre-dated (thrown out in charge 1)

 

2. Both sets of management knew it was incorrect but had gone so far down the road they were letting it pass (this then changed with new leadership at the EFL)

 

3. The EFL knew all along and were preparing to charge us in late 2018 but were waiting to see how the season unfolded as they would not like to charge us if a 12 point deduction would result in no relegation.

 

For me it is a complete mess and both sides have acted poorly. The people that are losing out again is the paying spectator!

 

Were P&S rules brought in to stop people spending their own money, or to stop clubs taking on massive debt and spending money they do not have?

 

 

[TommyCraig]

Aside from the incompetence on both sides regarding the stadium sale, the thing that stands out for me in this whole sorry affair is this - 

 

*The EFL didn't want to hand down a point deduction in 18/19 because it wouldn't have relegated us. 

 

*The EFL wanted to hand down a point deduction in 19/20 because it would have relegated us. 

 

I may be wrong in this, its hard to follow as a layman with only a percentage of the relevant information. 

 

If these facts are true, and add the fact of Ill judged, or indeed racist accusation against Mr Chansiri, then I do think we have grounds to appeal. From outside it looks like a vendetta and from a body like the EFL, that's unacceptable. 

 

A monetary fine for the messing up the stadium sale and/or a retrospective points deduction for the 18/19 season. 

We should not get off scot free because we broke ffp obviously. However, we should not be made an example of and we should not be hamstrung for next season. 

 

Going forward, if a club is found guilty of breaching ffp, they should be deducted the points immediately no matter the consequences of that current seasons standings surely. Then this kind of thing can't happen again. A level playing field for everyone. 

[N0rtherner]

Yes, doubt we'll be found more guilty so there's everything to win. Besides, with how clumsily this has been handled by the EFL, we just have to appeal so that things come to light and procedures at the EFL are brought to daylight and reviewed. Because these gray areas and court cases are hurting football, and we all want football to be handled by players on the pitch, not settled in court rooms.

 

So, if nothing else, EFL will have to review its own procedures and regulations as a result of this, or at least, I hope they do.