Guest mrbluesky Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 Derby, in doing it the right way "shocker!" Fair play to em Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalmJimmers Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 I'm not really getting this - could just be me being a pleb. What are the key differences in cases from ours compared to Derby, Birmingham, QPR and Bournemouth? Because there's a range of different sanctions there and one has just been thrown out. Did we fluff it up that much compared to those above that we start a season on minus 12 points, 2 seasons after the charge should have been brought? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SallyCinnamon Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 I don’t feel any injustice really. Derby cheated properly. We didn’t. Their owner is savvy when it comes to things like this and would have made sure they avoided punishment. I always expected them to get off. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheff74 Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 9 minutes ago, CalmJimmers said: I'm not really getting this - could just be me being a pleb. What are the key differences in cases from ours compared to Derby, Birmingham, QPR and Bournemouth? Because there's a range of different sanctions there and one has just been thrown out. Did we fluff it up that much compared to those above that we start a season on minus 12 points, 2 seasons after the charge should have been brought? The EFL couldn't bring the charge in the relevant season (17/18) because our accounts for that season were not submitted until July 19, in which we tried to shoe horn a stadium sale that hadn't been completed in time. So the charge and relevant sanction had to happen either in 19/20 (which the EFL wanted, and would have lead to relegation) or next season, which is where we now are. The key difference is that Derby, and all the others you mention didn't try to backdate their sale, or should I say got all the paperwork done in time for the season they wanted to account for it. Derby were taken to task over their valuation, which has been dismissed. 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichSheffWeds Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 Demonstrates further what a set of clowns the EFL are. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalmJimmers Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 1 minute ago, Sheff74 said: The EFL couldn't bring the charge in the relevant season (17/18) because our accounts for that season were not submitted until July 19, in which we tried to shoe horn a stadium sale that hadn't been completed in time. So the charge and relevant sanction had to happen either in 19/20 (which the EFL wanted, and would have lead to relegation) or next season, which is where we now are. The key difference is that Derby, and all the others you mention didn't try to backdate their sale, or should I say got all the paperwork done in time for the season they wanted to account for it. Derby were taken to task over their valuation, which has been dismissed. Thanks for the summary mate, appreciate it. What I don't get is people saying the stadium sale issue wasn't a problem? So did we just go over FFP? If so, did QPR and Bournemouth go over as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank_Lucas Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 -12 and will still finish above Derby KARMA 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manwë Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 17 minutes ago, CalmJimmers said: I'm not really getting this - could just be me being a pleb. What are the key differences in cases from ours compared to Derby, Birmingham, QPR and Bournemouth? Because there's a range of different sanctions there and one has just been thrown out. Did we fluff it up that much compared to those above that we start a season on minus 12 points, 2 seasons after the charge should have been brought? We tried to put the sale of Hillsborough in Year X, when actually, legally, according to the panel, the transaction took place in Year X+1. Therefore, the accounts for year X had £60m that shouldn't have been there (according to the panel), meaning for year X (and X-1, and X-2) we didn't meet P&S requirements. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheff74 Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 Just now, CalmJimmers said: Thanks for the summary mate, appreciate it. What I don't get is people saying the stadium sale issue wasn't a problem? So did we just go over FFP? If so, did QPR and Bournemouth go over as well? No worries. We went over FFP because the stadium sale couldn't be included for that year, so instead it will go into 18/19's accounts instead. Even then we will need to have tightened our belts significantly in order to avoid another sanction. We'll see in the next set of accounts, which are now overdue. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Willow Owl Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 18 minutes ago, SallyCinnamon said: I don’t feel any injustice really. Derby cheated properly. We didn’t. Their owner is savvy when it comes to things like this and would have made sure they avoided punishment. I always expected them to get off. Also, having a Derby employee on the EFL board always helps in getting steered in the right direction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OwlBiSeeinThi Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 1 hour ago, prowl said: On the other hand if the stadium sale stands in the year we suggested we wouldn't have breached P and S. While you are technically correct it is disingenuous because one thing is dependent on the other. I don't agree it's disingenuous. We were in breach for the three seasons from 15/16 to 17/18. Regardless of the incompetence and naivety of both the EFL and SWFC our stadium sale was proved to be inadmissible in the period we wanted and therefore does not factor in our punishment. The reality from what I've read was the stadium sale was mooted many months before but not progressed whilst less extreme solutions were explored. That was a mistake in my opinion and the due diligence should have been carried out so everything was in place IF the sale was eventually deemed necessary even if it was never taken up. We shouldn't have trusted the EFL and the EFL should have brought their case more efficiently and timely for the P&S breach so that our deduction could be applied in the 18/19 season as precedence had previously been set with Birmingham. One thing we can both agree on is the whole thing is a shambles. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owls-swfc Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 5 minutes ago, Sheff74 said: The EFL couldn't bring the charge in the relevant season (17/18) because our accounts for that season were not submitted until July 19, in which we tried to shoe horn a stadium sale that hadn't been completed in time. So the charge and relevant sanction had to happen either in 19/20 (which the EFL wanted, and would have lead to relegation) or next season, which is where we now are. It's posts like this and others that provide ammunition to any appeal being thrown out... I know OT is all about debate./ opinion, but not's let provide the bullets to shoot ourself in the foot aswell..! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Willow Owl Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 5 minutes ago, Sheff74 said: No worries. We went over FFP because the stadium sale couldn't be included for that year, so instead it will go into 18/19's accounts instead. Even then we will need to have tightened our belts significantly in order to avoid another sanction. We'll see in the next set of accounts, which are now overdue. Hopefully tightened enough, got rid of a lot of wages with the likes of Hooper, Abdi Etc. Also the sale of Joao and we haven’t really spent money on signings. Fingers crossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister Soul Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 3 hours ago, OwlBiSeeinThi said: I think the problem was the EFL not telling us what the implications would be for breaching P&S at the time which affected when we decided to sell the stadium. We should have just gone ahead and sold the stadium when we said we would and put in the correct accounts rather than trying to hedge either way. Derby getting off helps us as it vindicates the action of stadia sales. This now strengthens our case with regard to vindictive application of penalties which is a result of the EFL pursuing the wrong case at the wrong time. I suspect our deduction may be reduced as a result. This exactly.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jack Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 Think it is a certainty that EFL will appeal, this will run on a while yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobness Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 18 minutes ago, RichSheffWeds said: Demonstrates further what a set of clowns the EFL are. It's almost as if DC is auditioning to be on their executive staff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OwlBiSeeinThi Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 17 minutes ago, Sheff74 said: The EFL couldn't bring the charge in the relevant season (17/18) because our accounts for that season were not submitted until July 19, in which we tried to shoe horn a stadium sale that hadn't been completed in time. So the charge and relevant sanction had to happen either in 19/20 (which the EFL wanted, and would have lead to relegation) or next season, which is where we now are. The key difference is that Derby, and all the others you mention didn't try to backdate their sale, or should I say got all the paperwork done in time for the season they wanted to account for it. Derby were taken to task over their valuation, which has been dismissed. Are you suggesting we didn't submit our 17/18 accounts until July 2019. Not sure that's right is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheff74 Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 7 minutes ago, owls-swfc said: It's posts like this and others that provide ammunition to any appeal being thrown out... I know OT is all about debate./ opinion, but not's let provide the bullets to shoot ourself in the foot aswell..! Nothing that I or anyone else on here will impact the appeal. It's all pretty much been laid out in the panel's report why we were found guilty of charge 1. It's indisputable really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DSandersonOWL Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 12 minutes ago, Manwë said: We tried to put the sale of Hillsborough in Year X, when actually, legally, according to the panel, the transaction took place in Year X+1. Therefore, the accounts for year X had £60m that shouldn't have been there (according to the panel), meaning for year X (and X-1, and X-2) we didn't meet P&S requirements. Algebra question! Great! Solved it : X = 2017/18 ! More difficult one next time, please! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Wall Posted August 25, 2020 Share Posted August 25, 2020 20 minutes ago, Sheff74 said: The EFL couldn't bring the charge in the relevant season (17/18) because our accounts for that season were not submitted until July 19, in which we tried to shoe horn a stadium sale that hadn't been completed in time. So the charge and relevant sanction had to happen either in 19/20 (which the EFL wanted, and would have lead to relegation) or next season, which is where we now are. The key difference is that Derby, and all the others you mention didn't try to backdate their sale, or should I say got all the paperwork done in time for the season they wanted to account for it. Derby were taken to task over their valuation, which has been dismissed. The bit about ours that I don't understand is - did we get done for backdating documents (literally forging the dates on the signatures), or because they didn't like our accounting methods? From the outside it looks like we both had an audited set of accounts that shows we didn't lose over £39m in three years. Isn't that all we have to do to meet FFP (or P&S, whatever)? 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