Jump to content

Tribunal Update


Shipley Ram

Recommended Posts

Sith Happens
3 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Was going to post something similar earlier on.

I think this season is the first time since 2012/13 that we have not had something to play for on the last day of the season, there wont be many that can say that.

16/17 it was well over before the last game. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 3.5k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 hours ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

I don't think there is any "rose tinted " glasses brigade just people who have come up with different interpretations and opinions of the "doom mongers brigade " ?  

Well I’m not sure I’ve seen any doom mongers posts. I was referring to the numerous posts that state categoricalLy that the club are whiter than white, and have done nothing wrong. The reality is WE DON’T KNOW. we can’t possibly know. Therefore we will have to await the outcome and hopefully a transparent analysis and verdict. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RamNut said:

Well I’m not sure I’ve seen any doom mongers posts. I was referring to the numerous posts that state categoricalLy that the club are whiter than white, and have done nothing wrong. The reality is WE DON’T KNOW. we can’t possibly know. Therefore we will have to await the outcome and hopefully a transparent analysis and verdict. 

We’ll get the outcome. On the basis of other cases we won’t get any transparent analysis from the EFL or the IDC

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, DcfcJG said:

News on the EFL charge is expected in the next week. 

You'd hope so, it's taken long enough. My nagging paranoid fears kicked in with Wednesday getting a 12pt deduction we're gonna be humped but then lodge appeals and challenges.

Still, the waiting will be over.

Unless of course the mods already know but aren't telling us because they're enjoying us proles not knowing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

That's probably the EFL's argument, but even with the Companies House filing, however clumsy that may appear, I don't believe it works within the rules.

An arms length transaction would be ok, they would still have had to inform the EFL of their intentions (as in the quote below), but even if the EFL were of the impression that was the type of transaction they were signing off I don't understand why they would think it acceptable to ask for any adjustment, when the rules make no mention of it?

The quote below also suggests they would have required a copy of the lease by the beginning of the 2018/19 season, which started just over 5 weeks after the transaction date, would that have told them who the new owner was? Or the land registry entry? If there was an issue of misunderstanding wouldn't it have come to light then? It certainly doesn't explain how it took until January 2020 for the charge.

https://www.efl.com/-more/governance/efl-rules--regulations/section-4---clubs/

Also insurance, theres a requirement for clubs to have insurance covering their home stadium, I'd guess the valuation plays a huge part in this as it has to cover the things mentioned in the quote below, including the full cost of rebuilding. I can only imagine the cost of insurance for that yet there are people that believe someone would overvalue it by c.£30m. ?

I'd also be really interested to know whether there's a grey area when it comes to transferring players between clubs with a related party owner? I wonder if they come under the same scrutiny regarding fair market value? I'd like to think that they are putting as much time, effort and money into checking those transactions, after all a player's registration is also classed as an asset.

I genuinely think it took till January 2020 because of Steve Gibson. 

I honestly feel that once he threatened to sue the EFL they had to be seen to be doing something about his complaints to stop them being sued.

If Gibson's hadn't mentioned anything then I don't think the EFL would have ever charged us.

It could well be that the EFL know they signed off on everything and know we have an extremely strong case. But by doing this it would allow them to say to Gibson "Well we did all in our power but an independent panel has found that they have not done anything against the rules"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, MACKWORTHRAM said:

It could well be that the EFL know they signed off on everything and know we have an extremely strong case. But by doing this it would allow them to say to Gibson "Well we did all in our power but an independent panel has found that they have not done anything against the rules"

What are the odds on an appeal by EFL if we are found innocent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hopefully it is this week.

I have a feeling a lot is on hold until the outcome of this hearing.  

Not sure if investment is still a possibility, assuming it is, that won't go anywhere until this is out the way.  Also I am sure transfers are completely on hold until results are known.

Next seasons expectations are literally hanging on the verdict of the EFL and there independent panel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Hopefully it is this week.

I have a feeling a lot is on hold until the outcome of this hearing.  

Not sure if investment is still a possibility, assuming it is, that won't go anywhere until this is out the way.  Also I am sure transfers are completely on hold until results are known.

Next seasons expectations are literally hanging on the verdict of the EFL and there independent panel.

I agree. I can't imagine we're allowed to sign players whilst this is hanging over us. 

I think it's called a soft transfer embargo.

We had one when Lampard took over. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, MACKWORTHRAM said:

I genuinely think it took till January 2020 because of Steve Gibson. 

I honestly feel that once he threatened to sue the EFL they had to be seen to be doing something about his complaints to stop them being sued.

If Gibson's hadn't mentioned anything then I don't think the EFL would have ever charged us.

It could well be that the EFL know they signed off on everything and know we have an extremely strong case. But by doing this it would allow them to say to Gibson "Well we did all in our power but an independent panel has found that they have not done anything against the rules"

 

I was thinking the same.

Wondering if it could also be that their evidence in the Sheffield Wednesday case is stronger than their evidence in ours as they were charged about 2 months before us but I think the talk was that the investigations were started at about the same time?

I know Parry didn't get the job until mid to late September last year, I feel he is likely to be playing a huge part in all this too.

The ultimate irony being had he, as someone who helped set up the Premier League, made sure that a fair share of their revenue was distributed down to the rest of the football pyramid in the first place then he'd probably be finding his new job a whole lot easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, MackworthRamIsGod said:

Hopefully it is this week.

I have a feeling a lot is on hold until the outcome of this hearing.  

Not sure if investment is still a possibility, assuming it is, that won't go anywhere until this is out the way.  Also I am sure transfers are completely on hold until results are known.

Next seasons expectations are literally hanging on the verdict of the EFL and there independent panel.

I has to be doesn't it, we don't know whether we have to change our amortisation method / whether all of the profits of the stadium sale are accepted.

If we win we may still have to change at least one of the above as it may cause a change in the future rules, if we lose we'd definitely have to change at least one of the above and then might get a points deduction of an unknown amount of points, a fine, a transfer embargo on top of that.

It's ridiculous that we still don't know. Even the clubs in the playoff final can at least have two plans they can work on, depending on what happens. Our situation is completely unique as anything can happen so you can't even plan. The players are back in next week as well aren't they?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said:

I has to be doesn't it, we don't know whether we have to change our amortisation method / whether all of the profits of the stadium sale are accepted.

If we win we may still have to change at least one of the above as it may cause a change in the future rules, if we lose we'd definitely have to change at least one of the above and then might get a points deduction of an unknown amount of points, a fine, a transfer embargo on top of that.

It's ridiculous that we still don't know. Even the clubs in the playoff final can at least have two plans they can work on, depending on what happens. Our situation is completely unique as anything can happen so you can't even plan. The players are back in next week as well aren't they?

Doubt it looking at instagram For some with quarantine rules

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Sparkle said:

I expect no further action bar asking us to change the way we value our players 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but the way we amortise players values over the length of their contract seems to me to a far more accurate value than straight line decreases, if done correctly.

Maybe the EFL will instruct all clubs to adopt our model in future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, reverendo de duivel said:

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this, but the way we amortise players values over the length of their contract seems to me to a far more accurate value than straight line decreases, if done correctly.

Maybe the EFL will instruct all clubs to adopt our model in future.

Depends whether you are carrying brad at 6m all the way through because to properly value him would breach PS. not saying that is the case for the record.  I dislike our method which can lump significant cost into the final year,it is not prudent imo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...