Tribunal Update

[RandomAccessMemory]

I don't think people are laying into @wombatram I think it's just if their information is correct then it's difficult to understand how they (the Commission) have calculated it should be 8 points.

If Sheffield Wednesday have been punished only for including the sale in the wrong years accounts and not the valuation, then it's difficult to understand how theirs could be worth £60m and ours not be worth £81.1m, given their 2014 DRC valuation of £22.25m and our 2007 DRC valuation of £55m (we also had a 2013 valuation, it doesn't say what it was but includes a line about the directors assessing the value and deciding that it is appropriate, so it can't have been hugely different, and that was before Mel bought into the club and did a huge amount of work on it, so may be about right). That's supposedly one of the issues with us.

Then, for the amortisation issue, even if they find that we shouldn't have been using that method, I don't understand how it could possibly be 8 points just for that. Even if the amount we would have been over would mean 8 points, I'm sure mitigating circumstances would come into it and the fact that it's over multiple years and had been signed off in each of them means that we continued to use the same method believing it to be ok and so any loss would have been worse than had we been made aware immediately, as we thought we had FFP/P&S headroom because of that sign off.

Sheffield Wednesday's situation is so different, they went over with absolutely no way (bar backdating the sale) of rectifying it.

If we had known about the amortisation issue in 2015/16, then we would have adjusted our future spending, hence the club saying it cannot retrace its steps, basically it can't change what it didn't know wasn't ok. Also, every value would have changed, including profit from sales of players with higher residual values than had they been amortised in a straight line, so it's not as simple as it looks.

[Carnero]

Why do people equate a points deduction with a relegation scrap? Reach 62 points (mid table) and a 12 point deduction will still mean Wednesday stay up.

A points deduction means a promotion challenge is more unlikely than it does a relegation scrap likely.

[Andicis]

Just now, Carnero said:

Why do people equate a points deduction with a relegation scrap? Reach 62 points (mid table) and a 12 point deduction will still mean Wednesday stay up.

A points deduction means a promotion challenge is more unlikely than it does a relegation scrap likely.

Because Wednesday didn't even reach 62 points this season and didn't finish it well - you'd not assume they would do any better next year, hence they'll be in a relegation scrap.

[IslandExile]

4 minutes ago, Carnero said:

Why do people equate a points deduction with a relegation scrap? Reach 62 points (mid table) and a 12 point deduction will still mean Wednesday stay up.

A points deduction means a promotion challenge is more unlikely than it does a relegation scrap likely.

Going into the transfer window on negative points will be a disincentive to any potential signings.

As promising as the academy players are, and they truly are, we need to sign other more established players in order to accomplish 62 points plus.

Edited to add: my biggest fear is that another season without a realistic possibility of promotion reduces our chances of keeping those promising youngsters.

[Carnero]

3 minutes ago, Andicis said:

Because Wednesday didn't even reach 62 points this season and didn't finish it well - you'd not assume they would do any better next year, hence they'll be in a relegation scrap.

Serves them right then. If you're not wheat then you're chaff.

[Ghost of Clough]

Any word on whether Wednesday can now move the stadium profit until the 18/19 accounts (for P&S purposes), thus boosting their figures for the P&S  3 years to 2021?

[Carnero]

Just now, Ghost of Clough said:

Any word on whether Wednesday can now move the stadium profit until the 18/19 accounts (for P&S purposes), thus boosting their figures for the P&S  3 years to 2021?

That's the logical conclusion anyway. If it's not 2017/18 then it's 2018/19.

[Ghost of Clough]

4 minutes ago, Carnero said:

That's the logical conclusion anyway. If it's not 2017/18 then it's 2018/19.

Could be a nice boost for them to have that extra cash to spend in this transfer window

[RandomAccessMemory]

9 minutes ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Any word on whether Wednesday can now move the stadium profit until the 18/19 accounts (for P&S purposes), thus boosting their figures for the P&S  3 years to 2021?

Logic would suggest that's the case wouldn't it, if the issue was solely the year it was included.

It's also quite interesting that they were found not guilty of the other charge regarding deliberately concealing information. I wonder if it's that it can't be proven, or if the EFL have messed up and actually nothing was concealed from them?

Also don't forget our club statement said that no allegation had been made to the contrary with regard to us being transparent. Also we used "mistake" in quotations, like that's the exact word the EFL used in their correspondence to us, surely the EFL making a mistake that leads to us breaking FFP/P&S is a mitigating circumstance that would mean any potential guilty finding is reduced?

[Carnero]

1 minute ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Could be a nice boost for them to have that extra cash to spend in this transfer window

They just need to spend enough to reach 100 points. No Guts No Glory!

[ilkleyram]

2 hours 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.

So, what you are effectively saying @Random Access Memory is that the EFL are handing over the outcome of the league - relegation and, potentially should future circumstances dictate, promotion - to an Independent (appointed by the EFL so not really) Disciplinary Commission. No longer is the championship decided on the pitch.

As this season has not yet concluded there is no obvious logic behind Sheff Wed having a points deduction next season other than fear of the consequences to the league if it were to happen this season. If the EFL truly run the league, and not the IDC, then they will have to formally ratify the IDC's decision in order to formally conclude final positions in the table. That effectively makes it the EFL's decision. If the EFL don’t run the league and decide the final placings, then what’s the point of having them.

The mess, because that is what it is, is of the EFL'S making. They have a set of rules and a disciplinary process that are not fit for purpose. The rules are not clear enough, the Disciplinary process is too cumbersome and slow and the EFL's grip on the consequences of premier league TV money and parachute payments - which is/are the fundamental issue at the heart of all this and has been for years - is incompetent at best. 
Wigan are arguing that the first global pandemic for a century is causing them to go into administration. It is an argument whatever the rights and wrongs of their ownership. Should Mel decide enough is enough then we too will follow suit. And many other clubs could follow suit too if crowds aren't allowed back next season - now looking even less likely. If Wigan win their case then the league is in complete and utter turmoil before it restarts, in 6 weeks time. 

 

[GenBr]

45 minutes ago, Carnero said:

Why do people equate a points deduction with a relegation scrap? Reach 62 points (mid table) and a 12 point deduction will still mean Wednesday stay up.

A points deduction means a promotion challenge is more unlikely than it does a relegation scrap likely.

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.

[Van der MoodHoover]

1 hour ago, Ghost of Clough said:

Wednesday also had “dialogue” with the EFL over their stadium sale. 

For sure - and that could easily be about the valuation and in principle transaction rather than the specifics of the timing, which is what they've been done for.

Unless they choose to appeal and set out the grounds, we can't tell what the substance of any dialogue was...

[RandomAccessMemory]

16 minutes ago, ilkleyram said:

So, what you are effectively saying @Random Access Memory is that the EFL are handing over the outcome of the league - relegation and, potentially should future circumstances dictate, promotion - to an Independent (appointed by the EFL so not really) Disciplinary Commission. No longer is the championship decided on the pitch.

As this season has not yet concluded there is no obvious logic behind Sheff Wed having a points deduction next season other than fear of the consequences to the league if it were to happen this season. If the EFL truly run the league, and not the IDC, then they will have to formally ratify the IDC's decision in order to formally conclude final positions in the table. That effectively makes it the EFL's decision. If the EFL don’t run the league and decide the final placings, then what’s the point of having them.

The mess, because that is what it is, is of the EFL'S making. They have a set of rules and a disciplinary process that are not fit for purpose. The rules are not clear enough, the Disciplinary process is too cumbersome and slow and the EFL's grip on the consequences of premier league TV money and parachute payments - which is/are the fundamental issue at the heart of all this and has been for years - is incompetent at best. 
Wigan are arguing that the first global pandemic for a century is causing them to go into administration. It is an argument whatever the rights and wrongs of their ownership. Should Mel decide enough is enough then we too will follow suit. And many other clubs could follow suit too if crowds aren't allowed back next season - now looking even less likely. If Wigan win their case then the league is in complete and utter turmoil before it restarts, in 6 weeks time. 

 

Oh I don't disagree that the EFL have made an absolute farce of the whole thing. The league should never be decided in the courtroom, that's not what football is about and I do share your concerns about the Independence of the Commission due to them being appointed by the EFL.

I was just pointing out that it wouldn't have been them directly that decided that part, but also that we don't know what they asked the IDC for, which may have been that, although I see it as highly unlikely.

The problem with not having an IDC though is that teams like us would have already been hung, drawn and quartered because of other clubs moaning and we'd not even be able to fight our corner.

[Mafiabob]

This is going on longer than trying to sign Ferrie Bodde

[Elwood P Dowd]

It is odd that in the EFL statement they don’t appear to be punishing Sheff Wed for selling their stadium and then leasing it back. The punishment stated is linked with taking the profits of the sale in the next accounting period. It would appear that selling the stadium and leasing it back is fine as long as you account for it in the same period, which I hope we did.

[BramcoteRam84]

Let’s just wait for the outcome and favour hearing before we speculate. The arguments the club have put forward are from an FFP perspective their accounts were signed off by the EFL both for stadium sale and the player amortisation method, and that the EFL were consulted about the approach we were taking. Furthermore, the sale of Wednesday’s stadium wasn’t disputed, it was the fact they tried to put it in the previous season to comply with the FFP cycle. We haven’t done anything of the sort. I still don’t see any conceivable logical reason why we should be charged. 
 

FFP was intended to protect clubs, it’s now being used as a weapon by clubs to do others over. The inequality driven by parachute payments is leading clubs like us to look at all ways to compete and it’s those clubs with parachute payments who have made more irresponsible transfer decisions than we have but have been insulated to that by parachute payments that are trying to get us penalised (Have we ever spent £15m and £60k per week on a striker?)

The biggest crime is the vetting of fit and proper owners by the EFL leading to situations like Wigan Bury Charlton amongst others. Get that right, sort out parachute payments and introduce a salary cap -  you don’t need FFP 
 

And yes I’m referring to Boro’s acquisition of Assombalonga above.

[Mafiabob]

No points will be deducted for Derby - Mark my words. 

[RandomAccessMemory]

7 minutes ago, Elwood P Dowd said:

It is odd that in the EFL statement they don’t appear to be punishing Sheff Wed for selling their stadium and then leasing it back. The punishment stated is linked with taking the profits of the sale in the next accounting period. It would appear that selling the stadium and leasing it back is fine as long as you account for it in the same period, which I hope we did.

There hasn't been a problem with the actual sale since the rule change in 2016/17.

The old rules (2015/16 and before) said

Quote

4.2 The Fair Play Result is calculated as profit / loss before tax (as identified by the Accounts), adjusted to take into account:

4.2.1 profit / loss on disposal of tangible fixed assets;

4.2.2 depreciation / impairment of tangible fixed assets (net of any capital grants);

4.2.3 amortisation / impairment of intangible fixed assets (other than player registrations);

4.2.4 the element of any transaction(s) with Related Party(ies) (as defined in Appendix A), above or below fair value;

4.2.5 net expenditure on Youth Development Activities (as defined in Appendix B);

4.2.6 financial support for the Championship Club’s Charitable Community Scheme (as defined in Appendix C);

4.2.7 Permitted Exceptional Items (as defined in Appendix D); and

4.2.8 in the case of Promoted League One Clubs or Promoted Championship Clubs (as defined in Rule 8.1) only, Promotion Related Payments (as defined in Appendix E).

So profit (or any loss) from the sale would have been excluded from the 'Fair Play Result'

The 2016/17 and after rules say

Quote

1.1.7 Earnings Before Tax means profit or loss before tax, as shown in the Annual Accounts.

Quote

1.1.2 Adjusted Earnings Before Tax means Earnings Before Tax adjusted to exclude costs (or estimated costs as the case may be) in respect of the following:

(a) depreciation and/or impairment of tangible fixed assets, amortisation or impairment of goodwill and other intangible assets (but excluding amortisation and/or impairment of the costs of players’ registrations);

(b) Women’s Football Expenditure;

(c) Youth Development Expenditure; and

(d) Community Development Expenditure.

Each of Youth Development Expenditure, Women’s Football Expenditure and Community Development Expenditure shall only be excluded from the calculation of Adjusted Earnings Before Tax if separately disclosed:

(i) by way of notes to the Annual Accounts; or

(ii) by way of supplementary information which reconciles to the Annual Accounts and which has been subject to independent audit.

It no longer mentions that it excludes 'profit / loss on disposal of tangible fixed assets', they removed that exclusion, so you can now include that profit.

[Stive Pesley]

2 hours ago, Andicis said:

This is where I roll my eyes a bit.

"Legal challenge"

What law has been broken here?

It's just a game, and a governing body and a set of arbitrary internal rules. 

Like that time I considered a legal challenge when Dave Johnson took his jumper home with him leaving us with only one goal post