Quist Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 47 minutes ago, HirstWhoScoredIt said: I can’t understand how people expected any other outcome. we were charged simply due to the sheer incompetence of not getting the paperwork in order before July 31st. They never said there was anything wrong with selling the ground or the price. Derby did it right. As usual, Chansiri did it wrong. simple. I also can’t understand why people think this helps our appeal?!?!? We made more than the permitted £39m loss, Derby didn’t. I agree when you saw Wednesday judgement thought Derby would win appeal. Wednesday failed to sell stadium when we should. if EFL had done job we should have had points deduction in18/19. Think there is no dispute about this. The victory we had in other charges and Derby's victory have made clear EFL incompetence in doing what they were supposed to do. The question which is posed as Wednesday were not penalised in season they should have been is it right to penalise us in another year. Further they let us off in 18/19 and then revisited case. Their argument that more information came available and we concealed stuff was thrown out. In normal legal affairs if you get something wrong you do not get a second go. How IDC imposed penalty is difficult to understand because al lof reasons for bringing the charge of overspending were dismissed. The victory of Derby gives more credence to argument they were revisiting past cases and were scraping barrel totry and find issues which could result in charges. i am certain Gibson stirred EFLup and they knew they had turned blind eye to things and went looking for issues to revisit decision. I think it was an attempt for EFLto restore credibility. The issue that EFL Wednesday and Derby differently is a real problem for them. EFL shold treat allteams equally the fact they wanted different strategies for two different clubs carged under same rules, makes them not fit for purpose. Any credible lawyer will tell you Wednesday have extremely good case. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wall Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Sheff74 said: No we, just simply didn't get the relevant paperwork completed in time for the stadium to be included in 17/18 accounts. We then breached the P&S limit over the 3 year period, as we couldn't include the profit from the sale within it (charge 1) The EFL did try to bring a second charge (charge 2) whereby we were accused of being underhand, but that was dropped. I thought the whole basis of our case was that our accounts don't show us breaching the P&S limits over 3 years, but the EFL dispute our accounts because of the timing of the sale? Is that broadly right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
latemodelchild Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 (edited) When did the points deduction punishment scale come into effect? From what I remember, when we were dithering about we were unsure what the punishment would be. If a 'crime' gmhas its punishment changed for some reason you get punished according to what it was when you committed it don't you? Be a bit rough if you got caught speeding on the 9th July, then the punishment for speeding increased to 10 grand fine and banned for a year on 12th July. You get your little picture from the Dibble saying what you've done and you're given the increased punishment. That's the only way I see us getting a reduction in the minus points. Edited August 25, 2020 by latemodelchild Put your not you're Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djorkaeff Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 Obviously we back dated the stadium sale a year and that was a silly error. however the principle is the same, the benefit from selling your stadium to your owner. 12points footballing deduction for an accountancy error .... that won’t stick. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wizzard1867 Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 Shambolic EFL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frazzlebeak Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 1 hour ago, HirstWhoScoredIt said: I can’t understand how people expected any other outcome. we were charged simply due to the sheer incompetence of not getting the paperwork in order before July 31st. They never said there was anything wrong with selling the ground or the price. Derby did it right. As usual, Chansiri did it wrong. simple. I also can’t understand why people think this helps our appeal?!?!? We made more than the permitted £39m loss, Derby didn’t. Great effort but I fear the horse you are flogging has expired. Having read some of the comments on here I’m unsure how some of them are able to self toilet. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Tibbs Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 22 minutes ago, djorkaeff said: Obviously we back dated the stadium sale a year and that was a silly error. however the principle is the same, the benefit from selling your stadium to your owner. 12points footballing deduction for an accountancy error .... that won’t stick. An accountancy error. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SwellOwl Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 53 minutes ago, Quist said: I agree when you saw Wednesday judgement thought Derby would win appeal. Wednesday failed to sell stadium when we should. if EFL had done job we should have had points deduction in18/19. Think there is no dispute about this. The victory we had in other charges and Derby's victory have made clear EFL incompetence in doing what they were supposed to do. The question which is posed as Wednesday were not penalised in season they should have been is it right to penalise us in another year. Further they let us off in 18/19 and then revisited case. Their argument that more information came available and we concealed stuff was thrown out. In normal legal affairs if you get something wrong you do not get a second go. How IDC imposed penalty is difficult to understand because al lof reasons for bringing the charge of overspending were dismissed. The victory of Derby gives more credence to argument they were revisiting past cases and were scraping barrel totry and find issues which could result in charges. i am certain Gibson stirred EFLup and they knew they had turned blind eye to things and went looking for issues to revisit decision. I think it was an attempt for EFLto restore credibility. The issue that EFL Wednesday and Derby differently is a real problem for them. EFL shold treat allteams equally the fact they wanted different strategies for two different clubs carged under same rules, makes them not fit for purpose. Any credible lawyer will tell you Wednesday have extremely good case. Agreed, to implement a deduction for when it suits EFL to make a point rather than it should be applied is are main argument surely? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEnchanter Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 39 minutes ago, djorkaeff said: Obviously we back dated the stadium sale a year and that was a silly error. however the principle is the same, the benefit from selling your stadium to your owner. 12points footballing deduction for an accountancy error .... that won’t stick. It was all just a big misunderstanding. Please can we have our points back. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OwlBiSeeinThi Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 1 hour ago, Mcguigan said: The EFL not telling us what the implications would be!! Do you seriously believe no one at our club had the knowledge or grey matter to know the punishments for breaking P&S limits and that our owners ineptitude is somehow acceptable because the EFL withheld information about the amounts of points to be deducted? Exactly what I'm saying. Go on then. At the time of our infringement, what were the implications/punishment? Fine? Deduction? If deduction, how many points, 3,5,7,9,12,15,50? You can't because the sliding scale of infringement and punishment applied to us was not implemented until after the period in question. It is clear from the report that the club was trying to determine this before committing to selling the stadium. Hardly transparent was it? That said the, the detail of the proposed stadium sale should have been finalised and ready to sign with all components in place in case we needed it as an instrument for P&S. That's where DC and co failed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OwlBiSeeinThi Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 2 hours ago, A12owl said: If the appeal fails and the club (Chansiri) is deemed to be guilty as charged then there he is the only person who can be held responsible for the position we will be in this coming season. 1. If he knowingly tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the EFL then he has a lot to answer for. 2. If he mistakenly believed somebody at the EFL told him he could do what he did then should be cleared of all charges. It has to be one or the other. Which does anybody think is the case? You don't know what they are appealing. It may be just the number of points deducted considering the sliding scale of breach was not in operation at the time if our infringement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slinger208b Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 6 hours ago, nevthelodgemoorowl said: Can anyone guess why Micky is Sticky because he didn't licky?.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 1 hour ago, djorkaeff said: Obviously we back dated the stadium sale a year and that was a silly error. however the principle is the same, the benefit from selling your stadium to your owner. 12points footballing deduction for an accountancy error .... that won’t stick. It was quite fundamental though, well a fundamental lack of credible contractural evidence to justify including the transaction in the accounts in the year to 31st July 18. If a bit more care and attention had been paid - well paid 30k in advisors fees perhaps - then this would have been waterproof Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwë Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 11 minutes ago, mkowl said: It was quite fundamental though, well a fundamental lack of credible contractural evidence to justify including the transaction in the accounts in the year to 31st July 18. If a bit more care and attention had been paid - well paid 30k in advisors fees perhaps - then this would have been waterproof I wonder what the cost would be for some competent people to have done things correctly on time in the first instance, compared to the money we've spent on lawyers trying to get out of the mess. Let alone the stress and uncertainty surrounding the issue, let alone the 12 points lost. Must be hundreds of thousands of pounds in difference. The 12 points is incalculable right now but it could soon cost us £Ms per annum. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWLERTON GHOST Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, quinnssweetshop said: Wayne Rooneys derby Terence Trent is going to be their new manager.. According to the chairman it's his new Hardline approach.... I'll get mi coat .... Edited August 25, 2020 by OWLERTON GHOST 1 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mkowl Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 7 minutes ago, Manwë said: I wonder what the cost would be for some competent people to have done things correctly on time in the first instance, compared to the money we've spent on lawyers trying to get out of the mess. Let alone the stress and uncertainty surrounding the issue, let alone the 12 points lost. Must be hundreds of thousands of pounds in difference. The 12 points is incalculable right now but it could soon cost us £Ms per annum. Yep - I think the term is false economy. OK there would be no guarantees but there would have been more credence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roscoe P. Coltrane Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 1 minute ago, OWLERTON GHOST said: Terence Trent may have something to say about that ..... Hope that's not a euphenismn 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OWLERTON GHOST Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 (edited) 3 minutes ago, Roscoe P. Coltrane said: Hope that's not a euphenismn I was wishing ........ Well now I've changed my mind... Edited August 25, 2020 by OWLERTON GHOST 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergeant Tibbs Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 1 hour ago, TheEnchanter said: It was all just a big misunderstanding. Please can we have our points back. I wonder how many times DC has reflected on his actions. I’ll start with releasing Stuart Gray. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarrowbyOwl Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 1 hour ago, latemodelchild said: When did the points deduction punishment scale come into effect? From what I remember, when we were dithering about we were unsure what the punishment would be. If a 'crime' gmhas its punishment changed for some reason you get punished according to what it was when you committed it don't you? Be a bit rough if you got caught speeding on the 9th July, then the punishment for speeding increased to 10 grand fine and banned for a year on 12th July. You get your little picture from the Dibble saying what you've done and you're given the increased punishment. That's the only way I see us getting a reduction in the minus points. The sanctioning guidelines were issued on 17 September 2019. But they only informed clubs of the penalties that the EFL would be asking disciplinary commissions to impose. The DCs are not however bound by them and have a wide range of penalties that they can impose under the P&S rules, which are supplementary to the regulations. The sanctioning guidelines have no formal status. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now