Tribunal Update

[GrimsbyRam]

42 minutes ago, Carnero said:

I bet they didn't sign off on reporting it in the wrong year.

Is that what it is saying though?....the statement says "finding the Club guilty based on the fact that the Club should not have included profits from the sale of Hillsborough Stadium in the Club’s financial statements for the period ending July 2018".  It could be read that they have ruled they should not have included the profits from the stadium sale in the accounts (the end part just referring to the year they did that).  IE, without inclusion they breach FFP.  If that is the ruling, we will also be in the same boat.

[DCFC1388]

5 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

Not for the first time the EFL are making idiots of themselves.

If you apply -12 points to Sheff Wed this season then they come bottom and Charlton stay up.  Why wouldn’t you do that given that the season doesn’t -according to the EFL - finish until the play off final is over and final positions are agreed? 

One answer for the conspiracy theorists, is that they dislike Charlton even more, because of their ownership issues.  

If Sheff Wed stay up next season despite the -12 start, as they could well do, what nonsense does that make of the league and its S and P rules.  Ditto for us.

The whole thing is a complete and utter mess, largely of the EFL's own making.  If Wigan win their case, or appeal it, it becomes even messier, at a time when there is only a few weeks between seasons. 

The decision for the points deduction to apply next season was made by the independant panel not the EFL. Until the report comes out nobody knows what punishment the EFL pushed for, it could have been for more points and this season for all we know

[Andicis]

1 minute ago, GrimsbyRam said:

Is that what it is saying though?....the statement says "finding the Club guilty based on the fact that the Club should not have included profits from the sale of Hillsborough Stadium in the Club’s financial statements for the period ending July 2018".  It could be read that they have ruled they should not have included the profits from the stadium sale in the accounts (the end part just referring to the year they did that).  IE, without inclusion they breach FFP.  If that is the ruling, we will also be in the same boat.

I believe the issue is the year they included it, the fact they put it in the accounts for the wrong year meant it wasn't allowed to be included for FFP that year which meant they were in breach. Whereas, we included it in the correct year.

[RandomAccessMemory]

Just now, GrimsbyRam said:

Is that what it is saying though?....the statement says "finding the Club guilty based on the fact that the Club should not have included profits from the sale of Hillsborough Stadium in the Club’s financial statements for the period ending July 2018".  It could be read that they have ruled they should not have included the profits from the stadium sale in the accounts (the end part just referring to the year they did that).  IE, without inclusion they breach FFP.  If that is the ruling, we will also be in the same boat.

It does say that, and you could read it that way, but the rules say that you can include the profits from a sale to a related party if at fair market value, so if it's for that then they're not following the rules.

[Mckram]

6 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

Interesting.

I note the EFL statement says that it's for putting the sale in the 2017/18 accounts.

Does anyone know how much they would have gone over the £39m limit without the sale? Without the written decision being published I'm guessing that the 12 point deduction is for that amount, as the sale was the only thing that stopped that happening in the first place.

From the EFL sliding scale included in the Birmingham decision from last March, 12 points with no deduction would be £15m+ over for the period 2015/16 - 2017/18.

I wonder, although they also said they had written permission from the EFL, whether that permission didn't specifically include putting the sale in that set of accounts, hence the guilty verdict. Their initial statement about the charges was quite vague on that compared to ours which set everything out.

I’ve just looked in to it quickly and looks like this...

Lost £20m 2017

Profit £2.5m 2018 (Loss of £36m without stadium profit)

So you could say they would have been absolute brown bread without the sale even over 2 years! 

 

 

[Gaspode]

3 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

As much as I dislike the EFL, it would have been the Independent Disciplinary Commissions decision to put their points deduction onto next season. Although, without a written decision, we don't know what punishment the EFL asked for or what they asked the Commission to take into account.

I’m not sure you’re right - the commission will have determined guilt or innocence, but I’d expect the punishment to be based on EFL guidelines (though this is the EFL, so maybe that’s too simple)

[Ghost of Clough]

13 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

Surely you can't expect a punishment to be meted out to suit a clubs individual circumstances?

 

 

In relation to how much of the season is left I can. 

[Carnero]

6 minutes ago, GrimsbyRam said:

Is that what it is saying though?....the statement says "finding the Club guilty based on the fact that the Club should not have included profits from the sale of Hillsborough Stadium in the Club’s financial statements for the period ending July 2018".  It could be read that they have ruled they should not have included the profits from the stadium sale in the accounts (the end part just referring to the year they did that).  IE, without inclusion they breach FFP.  If that is the ruling, we will also be in the same boat.

The argument was always about which year the transaction took place in, not the legitimacy of selling the stadium to a related party at fair value.

[Wolfie20]

8 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

Not for the first time the EFL are making idiots of themselves.

If you apply -12 points to Sheff Wed this season then they come bottom and Charlton stay up.  Why wouldn’t you do that given that the season doesn’t -according to the EFL - finish until the play off final is over and final positions are agreed? 

One answer for the conspiracy theorists, is that they dislike Charlton even more, because of their ownership issues.  

If Sheff Wed stay up next season despite the -12 start, as they could well do, what nonsense does that make of the league and its S and P rules.  Ditto for us.

The whole thing is a complete and utter mess, largely of the EFL's own making.  If Wigan win their case, or appeal it, it becomes even messier, at a time when there is only a few weeks between seasons. 

My understanding (which is only occasionally correct) is Wigans' 12 point deduction is immediate because of going into administration whereas the Wendies is for a misdeed which they could appeal against and automatically take it well beyond the start of next season.  This would play havoc with next seasons' fixtures so take the 12 points off them then (plus the 6 we'll get off them) so really it's a -18 point start for them in 20/21.

[RandomAccessMemory]

1 minute ago, Gaspode said:

I’m not sure you’re right - the commission will have determined guilt or innocence, but I’d expect the punishment to be based on EFL guidelines (though this is the EFL, so maybe that’s too simple)

It will be their decision, if you read the Birmingham decision from last March it makes it clearer.

https://www.efl.com/siteassets/birmingham-city-report/190322---efl-v-bcfc---decision---final.pdf

Quote

29.On 17 September 2018 the board of the EFL approved sanctioning guidelines for P&S cases. It is clear from the accompanying paper and the guidelines that these constitute instructions given by the board to the executive as to sanctions to be sought in proceedings before the Commission. They do not have any legal force and are not binding on the Commission, which retains its general power to impose any sanction falling within Regulation 91.2. It also needs to be noted that these guidelines were agreed and promulgated after the charge had been brought against the Club.

 

[NottsRam77]

3 minutes ago, Carnero said:

The argument was always about which year the transaction took place in, not the legitimacy of selling the stadium to a related party at fair value.

This 

[Ghost of Clough]

14 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

Interesting.

I note the EFL statement says that it's for putting the sale in the 2017/18 accounts.

Does anyone know how much they would have gone over the £39m limit without the sale? Without the written decision being published I'm guessing that the 12 point deduction is for that amount, as the sale was the only thing that stopped that happening in the first place.

From the EFL sliding scale included in the Birmingham decision from last March, 12 points with no deduction would be £15m+ over for the period 2015/16 - 2017/18.

I wonder, although they also said they had written permission from the EFL, whether that permission didn't specifically include putting the sale in that set of accounts, hence the guilty verdict. Their initial statement about the charges was quite vague on that compared to ours which set everything out.

I’m sure we’ll find out when further details on the hearing are released. I make them out to be about £16m inside with the stadium sale. Profit on the stadium was £38m iirc, resulting in a £22m overspend for the 3 years without the stadium sale. 

[Comrade 86]

God I hate the EFL. They're clearly not fit for purpose. Frankly, it's rather hard to know what their purpose is when they spend more in litigation with own membership than they do actively promoting the leagues they are meant to serve. We've seen it time and again. Eventually the tail starts wagging the dog. Here's the evidence.

 

[RandomAccessMemory]

6 minutes ago, Mckram said:

I’ve just looked in to it quickly and looks like this...

Lost £20m 2017

Profit £2.5m 2018 (Loss of £36m without stadium profit)

So you could say they would have been absolute brown bread without the sale even over 2 years! 

 

 

Thanks, that was quick hunting!

I assume that's what the deduction is for then.

[Rev]

3 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

In relation to how much of the season is left I can. 

In that case, should Wigan have only received a 6-9 point reduction as they only had a limited time to mitigate the deduction?

The remaining points to be applied next season?

[JfR]

15 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

Interesting.

I note the EFL statement says that it's for putting the sale in the 2017/18 accounts.

Does anyone know how much they would have gone over the £39m limit without the sale? Without the written decision being published I'm guessing that the 12 point deduction is for that amount, as the sale was the only thing that stopped that happening in the first place.

From the EFL sliding scale included in the Birmingham decision from last March, 12 points with no deduction would be £15m+ over for the period 2015/16 - 2017/18.

I wonder, although they also said they had written permission from the EFL, whether that permission didn't specifically include putting the sale in that set of accounts, hence the guilty verdict. Their initial statement about the charges was quite vague on that compared to ours which set everything out.

Quoting from: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/nov/14/sheffield-wednesday-charged-efl-misconduct-hillsborough-sale-spending-rules

"Wednesday sold Hillsborough for £60m to a company, Sheffield 3, owned by Chansiri, generating a £38m profit which, in turn, helped them record a pre-tax profit of £2.5m for 2017-18.

Had the promotion-chasing club not sold their ground they would have posted a pre-tax loss of £35.4m for the financial year covering the 2017‑18 campaign. Considering they had lost £9.8m and £20.8m in the previous two seasons, Wednesday would have been well in excess of the permitted spending threshold."

With a £39m allowed loss over three years, using those numbers they would have made a combined loss of £66m, £27m over the allowed limit. I don't know if adjustments would have been made to reduce that loss if they hadn't included the stadium sale, but I'm sure it still would have been very far over the limit.

[Ghost of Clough]

3 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

In that case, should Wigan have only received a 6-9 point reduction as they only had a limited time to mitigate the deduction?

The remaining points to be applied next season?

No because they were punished under rules clearly set out for a club going into administration. 

[G STAR RAM]

2 minutes ago, JfR said:

Quoting from: https://www.theguardian.com/football/2019/nov/14/sheffield-wednesday-charged-efl-misconduct-hillsborough-sale-spending-rules

"Wednesday sold Hillsborough for £60m to a company, Sheffield 3, owned by Chansiri, generating a £38m profit which, in turn, helped them record a pre-tax profit of £2.5m for 2017-18.

Had the promotion-chasing club not sold their ground they would have posted a pre-tax loss of £35.4m for the financial year covering the 2017‑18 campaign. Considering they had lost £9.8m and £20.8m in the previous two seasons, Wednesday would have been well in excess of the permitted spending threshold."

With a £39m allowed loss over three years, using those numbers they would have made a combined loss of £66m, £27m over the allowed limit. I don't know if adjustments would have been made to reduce that loss if they hadn't included the stadium sale, but I'm sure it still would have been very far over the limit.

Given that the stadium sale was done after the event I'm not sure how they could have made any adjustments?

[RandomAccessMemory]

What I am confused about though, and what doesn't add up, if they were on course to be that far over for their submissions, why weren't they charged at the same time as Birmingham?

They would have had to put their accounts in to the EFL before March 2019.

[Rev]

1 minute ago, Ghost of Clough said:

No because they were punished under rules clearly set out for a club going into administration. 

I do realise that, but this stinks like a week old kipper that's slipped behind the bin.

This season doesn't end until the AGM of the league, which is still a few weeks away. 

This case been investigated and deliberated for months and months, and seeing as this season is still active and hasn't been concluded yet, I see no reason the punishment shouldn't apply this season.

There's nothing in the rules that states an EFL tribunal decision should only be applied if a member has the chance to rectify a points deduction on the field!