Tribunal Update

[RadioactiveWaste]

45 minutes ago, Arsene Titman said:

This article is heavy reading but worth ploughing through. It does look like the EFL are not going to win regarding the charges related to the stadium sale. It could be that we may get a slap on the wrist ( and fine?) regarding amortisation of player values. I would be amazed if we are deducted any points

I'm still not sure how we could be found in breech on the amortisation given it wasn't actually against the rules, unless the EFL can prove our valuations were fraudulent (which is very hard to "prove" - although i wouldn't be surprised if the club had been trying to hide all manner of sins in this) - at most an instruction (i.e. ruling from tribunal) to bring our practices in line with standard, with possibly some suspended threat if we don't.

The stadium sale, as per the article if our reliance on EFL communications is backed up I think we'll get off, or have a suspended threat to be imposed in we're found in breach in future, however, we've not see the text of these communications (and given they are probably written in heavy legal language, most of us probably couldn't accurately assess anyway) and the devil may in the detail where specific wording might leave a get out for either party (you'd hope DCFC cast legal eye over these things before acting in reliance on them).

My prediction:

Amortization - very hard to prove we've done wrong, but will be told to bring ourselves in line with standard practice.

Stadium sale: We either get off completely, or, we get a big deduction (some possibly suspended) which will apply next season. I don't think the "slap on the wrist" or "small deduction which changes this season's standing but doesn't really matter" outcomes are in play. We're either proper ducked, or, we're not.

I also predict we are and have been far to clever for the EFL, but the EFL don't think it matters because they are the governing body.

[Tamworthram]

1 hour ago, Arsene Titman said:

This article is heavy reading but worth ploughing through. It does look like the EFL are not going to win regarding the charges related to the stadium sale. It could be that we may get a slap on the wrist ( and fine?) regarding amortisation of player values. I would be amazed if we are deducted any points

With regard to the stadium sale, having read the article, it seems to my simple brain to depend on:

1) Were the alleged discussions and approval verbal or in writing(email)?
2) Can evidence of the above be provided? Obviously, if verbal the answer is probably no. If written the answer is almost certainly yes

3) Was the “approval” given by someone of sufficient authority? You’d like to think so and the club didn’t rely on some junior bod

4) Was the said approval unambiguous or open to interpretation?
 

If the answers are 1) in writing, 2) yes, 3) yes and 4) unambiguous, then it’s difficult to see how we can be found guilty. As ever, the devil will be the detail.

 

[Barney1991]

1 hour ago, Tamworthram said:

With regard to the stadium sale, having read the article, it seems to my simple brain to depend on:

1) Were the alleged discussions and approval verbal or in writing(email)?
2) Can evidence of the above be provided? Obviously, if verbal the answer is probably no. If written the answer is almost certainly yes

3) Was the “approval” given by someone of sufficient authority? You’d like to think so and the club didn’t rely on some junior bod

4) Was the said approval unambiguous or open to interpretation?
 

If the answers are 1) in writing, 2) yes, 3) yes and 4) unambiguous, then it’s difficult to see how we can be found guilty. As ever, the devil will be the detail.

 

On derbys statement they say we had written approval from efl executive who then asked it to be tweaked it was and then again written sign off be efl executive. I for one would say efl exective sounds like a high up person to me. 

I don't see how they can win when we have written approval.

[Sith Happens]

7 minutes ago, Barney1991 said:

On derbys statement they say we had written approval from efl executive who then asked it to be tweaked it was and then again written sign off be efl executive. I for one would say efl exective sounds like a high up person to me. 

I don't see how they can win when we have written approval.

I agree, I would be surprised Derby went public with that if it wasn't true. 

 

[RandomAccessMemory]

4 minutes ago, Barney1991 said:

On derbys statement they say we had written approval from efl executive who then asked it to be tweaked it was and then again written sign off be efl executive. I for one would say efl exective sounds like a high up person to me. 

I don't see how they can win when we have written approval.

Definition from the EFL website

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-1----general/

Quote

‘Executive’ means all or any of the Chief Executive of The League and the officers of The League. The Board decides which of The League’s employees are deemed to be officers for these purposes.

I don't know which other people are 'deemed to be officers for these purposes' but, at the time of the stadium transaction, the Chief Executive of The League was Shaun Harvey, he left last summer after the play offs.

https://www.efl.com/news/2019/february/shaun-harvey-to-leave-efl/

Quote

“I am happy to remain as CEO until after the Play-Offs, in order to conclude a number of outstanding matters that we are currently dealing with, after which I will move on to pastures new and hopefully make a positive difference elsewhere.”

Replaced this summer by David Baldwin

https://www.efl.com/news/2019/december/david-baldwin-appointed-as-efl-chief-executive/

Quote

David will take up his position at the EFL in June 2020.

I don't know if this means they went for an entire year without one or if someone took the position temporarily in the interim?

Although that's irrelevant to us as this was done a year before Shaun Harvey left.

[May Contain Nuts]

I imagine the EFL will be trying to claim that we knew they'd made a mistake, and that we proceeded to exploit this mistake with the full knowledge that if they went over it again they'd spot their error and the submissions should/would have been rejected.

Something along the lines of your wage packet being £500 over for no apparent reason and you not informing the company of the mistake, then investing that £500 in some shares and making a profit on it, or a bank transfer accidentally being sent to your account and you not informing the bank.

[Rab a dab doo]

This whole thing is now getting extremely borrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrring

[RadioactiveWaste]

1 hour ago, Coconut said:

I imagine the EFL will be trying to claim that we knew they'd made a mistake, and that we proceeded to exploit this mistake with the full knowledge that if they went over it again they'd spot their error and the submissions should/would have been rejected.

Something along the lines of your wage packet being £500 over for no apparent reason and you not informing the company of the mistake, then investing that £500 in some shares and making a profit on it, or a bank transfer accidentally being sent to your account and you not informing the bank.

I think that probably is the EFL argument, however, the defense is that the presence of a mistake on their part cannot be expected to be picked up by the club, it is the responsibility of the EFL to issue correct guidance.....basically, they gave us something we could reasonably take reliance on how are they to prove we knew it was a mistake? Even if it was, the line of the club is the responsibility to approve P&S submissions is upon the EFL, and if they incorrectly did so, that is incompetent on their part but not a basis to seek a later punishment. The club have always insisted had the transaction not been agreed to, they would've taken other action to comply and did not based upon the EFL accepting the stadium sale - as such, even if we lose, we'd probably then seek damages relating to the actions of the EFL (don't know how far we'd get but I could see Mel trying).

Ultimately, the EFL have been incompetent in governing FFP/P&S and if they punish Wednesday and ourselves, we seek damages because they've been incompetent in approving our submission's which has directly led to the punishments, if we both are found not to have breached P&S other clubs (Gibson et al) will similarly claim damages based on the EFL incompetence damaging their sporting chances. The whole thing is ultimately on the EFL, and the EFL are very much between a rock and a hard place and bringing the charges has been their way of trying to navigate out of it, but it's probably just re positioned them within DooDoo creek having used their padel on these hearings.

[Tamworthram]

9 minutes ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I think that probably is the EFL argument, however, the defense is that the presence of a mistake on their part cannot be expected to be picked up by the club, it is the responsibility of the EFL to issue correct guidance.....basically, they gave us something we could reasonably take reliance on how are they to prove we knew it was a mistake? Even if it was, the line of the club is the responsibility to approve P&S submissions is upon the EFL, and if they incorrectly did so, that is incompetent on their part but not a basis to seek a later punishment. The club have always insisted had the transaction not been agreed to, they would've taken other action to comply and did not based upon the EFL accepting the stadium sale - as such, even if we lose, we'd probably then seek damages relating to the actions of the EFL (don't know how far we'd get but I could see Mel trying).

Ultimately, the EFL have been incompetent in governing FFP/P&S and if they punish Wednesday and ourselves, we seek damages because they've been incompetent in approving our submission's which has directly led to the punishments, if we both are found not to have breached P&S other clubs (Gibson et al) will similarly claim damages based on the EFL incompetence damaging their sporting chances. The whole thing is ultimately on the EFL, and the EFL are very much between a rock and a hard place and bringing the charges has been their way of trying to navigate out of it, but it's probably just re positioned them within DooDoo creek having used their padel on these hearings.

I this is a very salient point. 

[RandomAccessMemory]

1 hour ago, Coconut said:

I imagine the EFL will be trying to claim that we knew they'd made a mistake, and that we proceeded to exploit this mistake with the full knowledge that if they went over it again they'd spot their error and the submissions should/would have been rejected.

Something along the lines of your wage packet being £500 over for no apparent reason and you not informing the company of the mistake, then investing that £500 in some shares and making a profit on it, or a bank transfer accidentally being sent to your account and you not informing the bank.

 

1 minute ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I think that probably is the EFL argument, however, the defense is that the presence of a mistake on their part cannot be expected to be picked up by the club, it is the responsibility of the EFL to issue correct guidance.....basically, they gave us something we could reasonably take reliance on how are they to prove we knew it was a mistake? Even if it was, the line of the club is the responsibility to approve P&S submissions is upon the EFL, and if they incorrectly did so, that is incompetent on their part but not a basis to seek a later punishment. The club have always insisted had the transaction not been agreed to, they would've taken other action to comply and did not based upon the EFL accepting the stadium sale - as such, even if we lose, we'd probably then seek damages relating to the actions of the EFL (don't know how far we'd get but I could see Mel trying).

Ultimately, the EFL have been incompetent in governing FFP/P&S and if they punish Wednesday and ourselves, we seek damages because they've been incompetent in approving our submission's which has directly led to the punishments, if we both are found not to have breached P&S other clubs (Gibson et al) will similarly claim damages based on the EFL incompetence damaging their sporting chances. The whole thing is ultimately on the EFL, and the EFL are very much between a rock and a hard place and bringing the charges has been their way of trying to navigate out of it, but it's probably just re positioned them within DooDoo creek having used their padel on these hearings.

The other day I said I wondered what "mistake" they'd admitted to, that was partly because of this.

I'm really struggling to see what mistake they actually think they've made, or us for that matter.

For the amortisation charge: there's nothing about acceptable methods in the rules, so that surely can't be it?

As mentioned before it's been in place since the 2015/16 accounts, if you read back on that thread it was spotted very quickly once they were published on companies house. People on here, even if it is their day job, aren't being paid to actually look through the clubs accounts, it's being done as a hobby or because of holding an interest, and if it's been spotted by posters on here that quickly I don't for one second believe it wasn't spotted by people that were supposed to be doing that job at the EFL. The FFP rules for 2015/16 were different to 2016/17 onwards, but they are all posted on the same page on the EFL website and there is no mention at all, so not a mistake by either party.

For the stadium sale: sales of fixed assets are allowed, profits are allowed to be included for FFP/P&S in the 2016/17 onwards rules, so the only thing I can see is the 'fair market value' clause. But how could we be expected to know that current value without asking for a valuation? So we appointed an independent valuer (Jones Lang LaSalle - a highly respected company in their field - judging from the club statement about it being the same valuer used as 2007 and 2013) to give us just that. That was then discussed with the EFL, and and agreement made after them asking us to alter the value, so where's the mistake on either the club or the EFL's part there?

IMO the only mistake the EFL have made is to charge us for something that's not actually even against the rules because of outside pressures from other clubs. That is wrong and they should never have bowed down to it.

[G STAR RAM]

7 hours ago, RadioactiveWaste said:

I'm still not sure how we could be found in breech on the amortisation given it wasn't actually against the rules, unless the EFL can prove our valuations were fraudulent (which is very hard to "prove" - although i wouldn't be surprised if the club had been trying to hide all manner of sins in this) - at most an instruction (i.e. ruling from tribunal) to bring our practices in line with standard, with possibly some suspended threat if we don't.

The only thing I see that has looked dodgy is when players have had their contracts extended so we dont have to write off their value at the end of the contract.

Now it has never been proven that this is what has been done but heavily speculated.

If so, all of the players that this happened with had no value to us and should have been written down to zero.

As I say, no factual evidence this has happened.

[RadioactiveWaste]

17 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The only thing I see that has looked dodgy is when players have had their contracts extended so we dont have to write off their value at the end of the contract.

Now it has never been proven that this is what has been done but heavily speculated.

If so, all of the players that this happened with had no value to us and should have been written down to zero.

As I say, no factual evidence this has happened.

Yeah, it's one of those virtually impossible to prove it was inaccurate or fraudulent, and if there's no proof of wrong doing by using the practice which WAS NOT AGAINST the rules, I don't see how a charge could stick to it. Saying "well if you'd worked it out differently you'd have different results in different years of the cycle" does not constitute a breach of the rules.

[RandomAccessMemory]

13 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

The only thing I see that has looked dodgy is when players have had their contracts extended so we dont have to write off their value at the end of the contract.

Now it has never been proven that this is what has been done but heavily speculated.

If so, all of the players that this happened with had no value to us and should have been written down to zero.

As I say, no factual evidence this has happened.

I think apart from in Johnson's case this happened with players who were sent out on loan, if they had brilliant loans then they may have made us a bit of money as they would've had time left on their contracts instead of being available for nothing at the end, that seems fairly standard. Chelsea have extended van Ginkel's contract, but he's apparently already been quoted as saying he'll likely be out on loan, for example.

[Mucker1884]

Can admin change this thread title to “Tribunal chatter” or such like?  Perhaps edit it again to include the word “Update” when we do eventually get an actual/official update?

i suspect I’m not alone in continuously checking the latest/unread posts on here, searching for that all elusive update!  

[TomG]

11 minutes ago, Mucker1884 said:

Can admin change this thread title to “Tribunal chatter” or such like?  Perhaps edit it again to include the word “Update” when we do eventually get an actual/official update?

i suspect I’m not alone in continuously checking the latest/unread posts on here, searching for that all elusive update!  

'When will it be, when will it be this update you speak of'?

[IslandExile]

Just now, TomG said:

'When will it be, when will it be this update you speak of'?

Yeah, please can we have an update on the update?

[Mucker1884]

7 minutes ago, TomG said:

'When will it be, when will it be this update you speak of'?

[EraniosSocks]

8 minutes ago, IslandExile said:

Yeah, please can we have an update on the update?

I’d also like an update on the update of the update 

[Mucker1884]

I'll shove the bloody update up someone's ar5e in a minute, if you lot don't pack in updating this bloody thread!  

Grrrrrrrrrr.......  

[Ted McMinn Football Genius]

6 hours ago, Barney1991 said:

On derbys statement they say we had written approval from efl executive who then asked it to be tweaked it was and then again written sign off be efl executive. I for one would say efl exective sounds like a high up person to me. 

I don't see how they can win when we have written approval.

To be fair if it is written on EFL headed paper, by an EFL employee (doesn’t matter if it’s the Tea boy” they have to stand by it. Whether or not the person signing the written instruction or confirmation has the authority, that is not DCFCs problem, it’s an internal issue within the EFL. Move along people nothing to see here ???????