Jump to content

Tribunal Update


Shipley Ram

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
1 minute ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I still think it'll be huge deduction next season or off scot free for us, depends on what friends Mel has in the lodge vs what friends Gibson has in the lodge (funny handshakes all round at the EFL dontcha know)

Isnt Stephen Pearce now part of the EFL board? Thats one friend in our favour ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we please be careful with the ITK and remember that Sheff Wed only heard about their punishment this morning and were given just a few hours to ready their statement.

Just think about it please. Hairdressers have been in lockdown for the last 3 months, let them cut your hair and that’s it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure if this has already been written but there seems to be some confusion on when the 2019-20 season officially ends. Under the EFL constitution all seasons end at the AGM, which is normally in the week after the play off finals. I believe this year’s AGM is set for August 12th and it’s on that day that promotions and relegations are ratified. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens

I personally think Charlton have every right to consider taking action, the fact its taken 8 months to arrive at this decision is nothing short of incompetence.

It should have been done months ago which would have given Wednesday the chance to appeal and the outcome decided by the end of the season.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

I personally think Charlton have every right to consider taking action, the fact its taken 8 months to arrive at this decision is nothing short of incompetence.

It should have been done months ago which would have given Wednesday the chance to appeal and the outcome decided by the end of the season.

 

Thing is, they might get damages in a court, but a court won't and can't overturn the 12 points being in next season not this.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens
Just now, RadioactiveWaste said:

Thing is, they might get damages in a court, but a court won't and can't overturn the 12 points being in next season not this.

 

Possibly, I don't think they will get anywhere to be honest, but can understand them feeling like they should try.

Part of me would like them to do it, and for a court to demand their re-instation to the championship, even if the season has already started, just to give the EFL the kick up the backside they appear to need, as they seem to get away with blundering from on incompetent act to another.

Maybe if they had to see some consequences for their incompetence they might sort themselves out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

I personally think Charlton have every right to consider taking action, the fact its taken 8 months to arrive at this decision is nothing short of incompetence.

It should have been done months ago which would have given Wednesday the chance to appeal and the outcome decided by the end of the season.

 

I believe the hearing dates were set before lockdown. There was never any intention for the penalty to be applied to this season. Would it be fair to apply the penalty this season just because it’s lasted longer than it should? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens
8 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I believe the hearing dates were set before lockdown. There was never any intention for the penalty to be applied to this season. Would it be fair to apply the penalty this season just because it’s lasted longer than it should? 

Is that the case? I was sure I had read, maybe incorrectly, that they should be completed by the end of March initially.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m clinging to the hope that SWFC Retrospectively applied the profits of the sale of Hillsborough to their accounts and that’s what they were ultimately deducted 12 points for.

Also the £60m they sold the ground for wasn’t as it appeared in their accounts as the finance appears to have been paid in instalments. 

Hopefully we filled ours in the correct financial year and the £80m was paid in full. If this turns out to be the case we could be cleared of breaking any rules, yes we bent them somewhat but didn’t actual break any rules. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, GenBr said:

Because a 12 point deduction would have relegated Wednesday this year and seen us survive by 4 points. We'd both have been in relegation scraps this year if we'd started on minus 12.

You say that, but if COVID has its way then god knows how many clubs will go into administration. This season will be decided in the courtroom, honestly the football played will be arbitrary. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've looked into it more as I'm very intrigued by their sale being for £60m and that seemingly not being mentioned as an issue, especially if the EFL's own valuation of Pride Park is only £49m to £50m.

From their accounts, and those of Sheffield Wednesday PLC for the older ones as it appears to have been held in that one originally. Apologies for the state of the table below.

9 January 1975       DRC    Eadon Lockwood & Riddle      £2,312,000
11 April 1990           DRC    Lambert Smith Hampton        £15,150,000
5 March 1997          DRC    Lambert Smith Hampton        £23,350,000
23 May 2001           DRC    Lambert Smith Hampton        £26,200,000
31 May 2004           DRC    Lambert Smith Hampton        £24,800,000
31 May 2005           DRC    Directors                                 £24,355,000
31 May 2007           DRC    Lambert Smith Hampton        £25,100,000
31 May 2010           DRC    Lambert Smith Hampton        £21,800,000
11 February 2014    DRC    Lambert Smith Hampton        £22,250,000
June 2018/19          ?          ?                                               £60,000,000

Hmm.

Theres also this "example"  from the EFL 2019/20 Governance review in January, which could be incredibly misleading if you weren't aware that that Stephen Pearce was voted (by the clubs in this division) onto the EFL board last summer, almost a year after our stadium sale took place...

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/201920/governance-reviews/governance-review.pdf

Quote

More specifically, the non-independent Club directors by definition have an unavoidable conflict of interest. As directors of their respective Clubs, they owe fiduciary duties to those Clubs that may directly conflict with the fiduciary duties they owe as EFL directors to act in the best interest of the EFL and all its members, placing them in an impossible situation. Specific conflicts can be addressed in part by a non-independent Club director recusing himself when an issue involving his Club or that directly impacts his Club is being discussed by the Board. However, (a) this means his division loses its/one of its representatives on the Board for that discussion; and (b) the potential and perceived conflicts extend well beyond these cases of very direct actual conflict. 4 We have learned during the consultation exercise that this conflict means at times the Executive can feel unable to provide full information to the EFL Board on an issue it has to decide, because of a concern that that information could be exploited by one or more of the Clubs represented on the EFL Board. This is a very significant practical problem. Furthermore, other Clubs could become concerned that a non-independent Club director may be pushing the interests of his own Club rather than the interests of the Division as a whole. That may not be the reality, but perception is just as important here.

Quote

4 One example would be if the EFL Board is considering whether to penalise or withdraw membership of a rival Club. Another would be if the Executive wishes the EFL Board to provide some direction in relation to (for example) the application of the Profit & Sustainability Rules (such as the approach to take to determining the fair market value of a Club's stadium). The interests of the Club Director’s club on that issue may differ from the interests of the EFL and its members as a whole.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

I've looked into it more as I'm very intrigued by their sale being for £60m and that seemingly not being mentioned as an issue, especially if the EFL's own valuation of Pride Park is only £49m to £50m.

From their accounts, and those of Sheffield Wednesday PLC for the older ones as it appears to have been held in that one originally. Apologies for the state of the table below.

9 January 1975       DRC    Eadon Lockwood & Riddle      £2,312,000
11 April 1990           DRC    Lambert Smith Hampton        £15,150,000
5 March 1997          DRC    Lambert Smith Hampton        £23,350,000
23 May 2001           DRC    Lambert Smith Hampton        £26,200,000
31 May 2004           DRC    Lambert Smith Hampton        £24,800,000
31 May 2005           DRC    Directors                                 £24,355,000
31 May 2007           DRC    Lambert Smith Hampton        £25,100,000
31 May 2010           DRC    Lambert Smith Hampton        £21,800,000
11 February 2014    DRC    Lambert Smith Hampton        £22,250,000
June 2018/19          ?          ?                                               £60,000,000

Hmm.

Theres also this "example"  from the EFL 2019/20 Governance review in January, which could be incredibly misleading if you weren't aware that that Stephen Pearce was voted (by the clubs in this division) onto the EFL board last summer, almost a year after our stadium sale took place...

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/201920/governance-reviews/governance-review.pdf

 

Very helpful that. 

Finally downloaded something that I can show the missus when she asks what I'm doing....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

Another would be if the Executive wishes the EFL Board to provide some direction in relation to (for example) the application of the Profit & Sustainability Rules (such as the approach to take to determining the fair market value of a Club's stadium). The interests of the Club Director’s club on that issue may differ from the interests of the EFL and its members as a whole.

Interesting ? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...