Jump to content

Tribunal Update


Shipley Ram

Recommended Posts

This is not in response to any particular post and I'm not a moderator but I think we all ought to mindful that in our speculation we don't make any allegations about MM or the club that may have legal implications for a poster or the forum.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
14 minutes ago, RamNut said:

It all looks and smells like accountancy shenanigans rather than a genuine transaction. And that’s ultimately the problem.

Sale and lease back is a very common transaction for companies needing to raise funds.

If the transaction has been independently valued and the auditors have signed off on the transaction, then ultimately there is no problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

It’s a genuine transaction if money has been transferred from one party to another (which looks to be the case). 
I don’t think Wednesday have done this yet. 

The money had not been transferred as at 30 June 2018.

Why do you think it looks to be the case?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sith Happens
2 minutes ago, RamNut said:

It’s a genuine transaction if it’s a commercial transaction with an unrelated third party. 

Where do you draw the line? What about Forest when they were sponsored by Fawaz Refridgeration?

If we are being pulled up because its not an unrelated third party then surely sponsorships etc should also be investigated?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

I'm curious to know where your definition, which includes 'unrelated third party', comes from

From memory, the EFL rules are pretty clear..

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Sale and lease back is a very common transaction for companies needing to raise funds.

If the transaction has been independently valued and the auditors have signed off on the transaction, then ultimately there is no problem.

Hopefully you’re right. But obviously it’s not that straightforward or there wouldn’t be a charge and the need for a tribunal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Hopefully you’re right. But obviously it’s not that straightforward or there wouldn’t be a charge and the need for a tribunal?

Without knowing all the ins and outs its hard to say.

If what we have been told by DCFC is correct then it really is straightforward and the EFL would be ripped to shreds by a decent legal challenge. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

Where do you draw the line? What about Forest when they were sponsored by Fawaz Refridgeration?

If we are being pulled up because its not an unrelated third party then surely sponsorships etc should also be investigated?

Or Forest, again, should they happen to decide to "sell" any unwanted players to their owner's Greek club for potentially inflated fees.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, RamNut said:

From memory, the EFL rules are pretty clear..

Hopefully you’re right. But obviously it’s not that straightforward or there wouldn’t be a charge and the need for a tribunal?

Maybe you're confused with one of the old rules regarding the sale of tangible fixed assets, where profit is excluded from FFP results. This rule was lost when aligning with the Premier League's FFP/P&S. 

If it's an unrelated party, and fee is acceptable (investigation probably likely if it's extreme). It only needs to be fair value for a third party - which this was, due to the independent valuation. It's probably backed up by having the charge. It's highly unlikely someone would lend £81m with the 'insurance' of something being worth significantly less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/07/2020 at 17:36, Mucker1884 said:

I think... off the top of my head... ?

90.3 A Disciplinary Commission shall consist of:

90.3.1 a chairperson who shall be either:

(a) a qualified solicitor or barrister; or

(b) a ‘member’ or ‘fellow’ of the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators,

in either case with at least 5 years post-qualification experience who shall be appointed independently by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators (or such other body as the Board may from time to time determine); and

90.3.2 two suitably qualified side members one of whom shall be selected by the Claimant and the other (subject to Regulation 90.4), by the Respondent,

PROVIDED ALWAYS that:

(a) the side members must be independent of the parties and able to render an impartial decision;

(b) the parties may agree that the Disciplinary Commission be constituted by the Chairman sitting alone; and

(c) a ‘suitably qualified’ side member (if not a solicitor or barrister of at least five years post-qualification experience, shall be a person who is independent of the party appointing them, capable of rendering an impartial decision and not otherwise subject to a Disqualifying Condition (as defined in Appendix 3).

 

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-8---offences-inquiries-commissions-disputes-and-appeals/

I'm staggered by the size and capacity of the top of your head! ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Maybe you're confused with one of the old rules regarding the sale of tangible fixed assets, where profit is excluded from FFP results. This rule was lost when aligning with the Premier League's FFP/P&S. 

If it's an unrelated party, and fee is acceptable (investigation probably likely if it's extreme). It only needs to be fair value for a third party - which this was, due to the independent valuation. It's probably backed up by having the charge. It's highly unlikely someone would lend £81m with the 'insurance' of something being worth significantly less.

Maybe you’re right about interpretation of ‘old rules’....ultimately I would imagine that this is now the relevant clause.

Quote

5.5 A Related Party Transaction may, or may not, have taken place at fair value. Fair value is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable willing parties in an arm’s length transaction. An arrangement or a transaction is deemed to be ‘not transacted on an arm’s length basis’ if it has been entered into on terms more favourable to either party to the arrangement than would have been obtained if there had been no Related Party relationship.

My original point was exactly this....

15 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Without knowing all the ins and outs its hard to say.

 

On 11/07/2020 at 08:57, RamNut said:

No-one can be confident about the outcome.
We don’t know what was disclosed or not disclosed, or how the valuation was achieved.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Maybe you’re right about interpretation of ‘old rules’....ultimately I would imagine that this is now the relevant clause.

My original point was exactly this....

Quote

5.5 A Related Party Transaction may, or may not, have taken place at fair value. Fair value is the amount for which an asset could be exchanged, or a liability settled, between knowledgeable willing parties in an arm’s length transaction. An arrangement or a transaction is deemed to be ‘not transacted on an arm’s length basis’ if it has been entered into on terms more favourable to either party to the arrangement than would have been obtained if there had been no Related Party relationship.

Sorry,  where does that say it can only be sold to a 3rd party?

I interpret that as Mel can sell to another of his companies (outside of the NewCo 203 group) as long as it's for a fee the same as what he'd get if it was to some un-related party (fair value). As the stadium was was for a fee matching the independent valuation, that appears to be the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, FindernRam said:

I'm staggered by the size and capacity of the top of your head! ?

I'm staggered you're staggered!  You really shouldn't be! 

I've been on here long enough now, and posted enough times, for that to be patently obvious!  ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, RamNut said:

Maybe you’re right about interpretation of ‘old rules’....ultimately I would imagine that this is now the relevant clause.

My original point was exactly this....

No-one can be confident about the outcome.
We don’t know what was disclosed or not disclosed, or how the valuation was achieved.

We know the valuation was prepared by an independent valuer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, G STAR RAM said:

We know the valuation was prepared by an independent valuer.

The £40m or the £80m?
And how was the ‘other’ figure determined?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...