Sparkle Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 I know it’s being mardy but I hope we enter into no financial transactions with the likes of Middlesbrough Barnsley Millwall and Bristol city no matter how much it hurts us ( selling or buying) for the foreseeable future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mucker1884 Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 I think I'm beginning to hope we do actually get done for the valuation of the stadium. The mere thought of seeing the valuers taking The EFL to the cleaners is beginning to excite me far more than is healthy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topram Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 Just give us -12 from last season so we can move on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomAccessMemory Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 1 minute ago, therealhantsram said: The timeline from these documents is interesting for us. Hearing took place June 22-30 Decision communicated to EFL and club on 16 July Sanction communicated to EFL and club on 31 July. Our hearing started 13 July. In our case there have been consistent press rumours since last weekend that 'things don't look good for Derby'. It could be that the press have wind of the decision in our case, but we are awaiting details of the sanction. Given all the emphasis in the reports about being consistent, it would not surprise me if the panel in our case were waiting for the written verdict from the Wed case before setting our sanction. They are completely different, they have different facts, so consistency is not a valid reason, their case should not affect ours, and ours should not affect theirs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spanish Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 1 minute ago, RandomAccessMemory said: They are completely different, they have different facts, so consistency is not a valid reason, their case should not affect ours, and ours should not affect theirs. I agree, the dishonesty bit took a long time to review and was dismissed in short order Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
therealhantsram Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 3 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said: They are completely different, they have different facts, so consistency is not a valid reason, their case should not affect ours, and ours should not affect theirs. I wonder if you misunderstand? The panel refer to wanting to make sure the punishment is consistent with Birmingham City punishment, and indeed refers to other cases, in reaching their verdict. So I am extrapolating that the panel in our case will do the same and want to read and refer to the Wed verdict in our case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reggie Greenwood Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 25 minutes ago, therealhantsram said: The timeline from these documents is interesting for us. Hearing took place June 22-30 Decision communicated to EFL and club on 16 July Sanction communicated to EFL and club on 31 July. Our hearing started 13 July. In our case there have been consistent press rumours since last weekend that 'things don't look good for Derby'. It could be that the press have wind of the decision in our case, but we are awaiting details of the sanction. Given all the emphasis in the reports about being consistent, it would not surprise me if the panel in our case were waiting for the written verdict from the Wed case before setting our sanction. One report in a paper does not make "consistent " press rumours , unless there have been more that i haven't seen .Think its all click bait guesswork Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomAccessMemory Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 27 minutes ago, therealhantsram said: I wonder if you misunderstand? The panel refer to wanting to make sure the punishment is consistent with Birmingham City punishment, and indeed refers to other cases, in reaching their verdict. So I am extrapolating that the panel in our case will do the same and want to read and refer to the Wed verdict in our case. That doesn't require them to wait for the SW decision to set our potential sanction, the sanctioning guidelines were agreed in September 2018, so the SW sanction has no bearing on our potential one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomAccessMemory Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 As an aside, surely the fact that sanctioning guidelines were only agreed after the alleged breach has some effect? If we, SW, or any other club thought they had breached for that time period, would they have agreed to put those guidelines in place? Also, I feel other clubs should be very wary of the EFL due to this whole situation, by that I mean if they are going back on previously agreed arrangements, which don't break the rules as they are written, there's no reason why they might not do the same to other clubs. In our case, we had no idea there was a problem with the amortisation and we believe we have agreed everything with them, within the rules, for the stadium sale. Who is to say that other clubs haven't done something that is not against the rules but that the EFL might in the future decide they don't like and backtrack again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Woodley Ram Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 2 hours ago, angieram said: That's a good point, that if the sole issue over the sale is with the amount of the independent evaluation, then the independent commission will be taking on another body rather than just the club if they want to find us guilty. I accept that the principle of us selling the stadium to ourselves is fine but that was never in dispute. On balance then, we should be okay on this charge. On the other charge around amortisation I think the rules are less clear and we probably can no longer use the argument that the EFL 'let' us do it as a defence. Therefore the outcome will depend on whether the independent commission decides this broke the rules or not. How clear are the rules and will our interpretation of them be seen as a breach? I am less confident about this as the rules are so unclear. However, as our hearing has already happened, we haven't had the advantage of hindsight in preparing our defence accordingly. That may also influence the findings. I agree with you on that and I think the amortisation is an issue, but that could be because I'm not an accountant, I understand the logic of what people are saying re the reducing value of an asset and how a player as an intangible asset should be treated differently but I have no idea if the rules allow for that? The tribunal seems to have played with a straight bat with SWFC and I hope they do the same with us. The EFL deciding in advance of a verdict saying when clubs should points deductions so it hurts them the most is bad and they should be sanctioned for that. Nice to see DCFC and SWFC swapping documents etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sparkle Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 2 minutes ago, RandomAccessMemory said: As an aside, surely the fact that sanctioning guidelines were only agreed after the alleged breach has some effect? If we, SW, or any other club thought they had breached for that time period, would they have agreed to put those guidelines in place? Also, I feel other clubs should be very wary of the EFL due to this whole situation, by that I mean if they are going back on previously agreed arrangements, which don't break the rules as they are written, there's no reason why they might not do the same to other clubs. In our case, we had no idea there was a problem with the amortisation and we believe we have agreed everything with them, within the rules, for the stadium sale. Who is to say that other clubs haven't done something that is not against the rules but that the EFL might in the future decide they don't like and backtrack again? For this one think Reading and Aston Villa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePrisoner Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 33 minutes ago, Reggie Greenwood said: One report in a paper does not make "consistent " press rumours , unless there have been more that i haven't seen .Think its all click bait guesswork And each newspaper is just reporting what another newspaper said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TuffLuff Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 I think everything you need to know about The EFL is summed up in that Steve Gibson has been allowed to speak publicly, without punishment,about cases that Middlesborough have nothing to do with. My point isn’t necessarily about Gibson/Boro but more that an organisation let’s self interest influence decision making. See also, Barnsley’s involvement in the Wigan preceding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Scarlet Pimpernel Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 15 minutes ago, TuffLuff said: I think everything you need to know about The EFL is summed up in that Steve Gibson has been allowed to speak publicly, without punishment,about cases that Middlesborough have nothing to do with. My point isn’t necessarily about Gibson/Boro but more that an organisation let’s self interest influence decision making. See also, Barnsley’s involvement in the Wigan preceding. I agree entirely but this is what happens when you have weak or no leadership. Individuals start to represent themselves rather than going through the proper channels. Come to think of it...….What are the proper channels for the EFL? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveWaste Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 4 minutes ago, The Scarlet Pimpernel said: I agree entirely but this is what happens when you have weak or no leadership. Individuals start to represent themselves rather than going through the proper channels. Come to think of it...….What are the proper channels for the EFL? You, if you are a club, put out a statement picturing the corner flag in an empty stadium. As an individual, you phone up a friendly journalist, if you're Gibson, you issue a legal writ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Hughes Hair Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 2 hours ago, Spanish said: yes as I've said previously today it looks like the amortisation is the issue and reliance on EFL approval is not a full defence. We shall see soon Having read both documents my take is that the advice provided by the EFL, was provided after the 31 July and therefore couldn't legally alter the fact that SWFC had broken the profit and sustainability rules as of 01 August (as soon as the clock ticked past midnight on the 31 July). In short, any advice given by the EFL after the rules had been broken didn't alter the fact the rules had been broken. My guess is that any advice received by DCFC (on either the stadium sale or amortisation) would have been within the relevant accounting / reporting period and could have material impact on our decision making processes. In the Birmingham case the charge pertaining to the signing of Kristian Pedersen was thrown out for similar reasons. The other significant point from the SWFC is that the panel found the EFL failed to undertake an appropriate investigation of Charge 2 before charging SWFC (the charge was dismissed). Fancy charging someone on not much more than a whim. Who'd have thought the EFL could do that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RandomAccessMemory Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 In SW's sanction decision in conclusion it says Quote These are very unusual times and what may seem appropriate at this precise moment may not necessarily be so in similar circumstances at other times, but our conclusion was that the combination of (i) the fact that had the 12-point deduction been imposed when, according to the general approach, it should have been (during the 2018-2019 season), the Club would not have faced relegation, (ii) the actual or perceived inconsistency of the EFL's approach in the Derby County case and (iii) the potential effects of the delays caused by the bringing of the eventually dismissed Charge 2, makes it inappropriate to impose the deduction in the current extended season, but to postpone its effect until next season when the onus will be on the Club to redeem its position on the playing field. We did just that "redeem our position on the playing field" this season while we have had the charges looming over us since January like a big ugly spectre, but the EFL want to hurt us more, if found guilty, by making any potential punishment next season? In the same way SW should have had the points taken from them during 2018/19 for this offence, and wouldn't have been relegated, if we are found guilty it is the same, like Birmingham, for the same time period. Neither that season or the season just gone would have seen us in any trouble down the bottom end of the table with the proposed deduction (assuming they want it next season as it wouldn't have put us in trouble the one just gone, so it definitely wouldn't the season before) however, if we happen to have a bad season next, it will, how can this be right when any punishment should have been two seasons previous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Hughes Hair Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 The points on consistency of sanction between the confirmed SWFC sanction and a possible sanction for DCFC relates only to that they should both be applied in the same season as they were both breaches for the same accounting period. That the EFL indicated they would take differing approaches for each club showed a lack of consistency and some might argue a vindictive approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Hughes Hair Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 Can't believe the following hasn't been picked up by the media in the current climate... The EFL also accused, unfairly in the opinion of the panel, an asian male (Dejphon Chansiri) and a Belgian female (Katrien Meire) of being deliberately obstructive. Imagine, the EFL, exhibiting traits consistent with institutional racism and sexism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carnero Posted August 17, 2020 Share Posted August 17, 2020 1 hour ago, RandomAccessMemory said: In SW's sanction decision in conclusion it says We did just that "redeem our position on the playing field" this season while we have had the charges looming over us since January like a big ugly spectre, but the EFL want to hurt us more, if found guilty, by making any potential punishment next season? In the same way SW should have had the points taken from them during 2018/19 for this offence, and wouldn't have been relegated, if we are found guilty it is the same, like Birmingham, for the same time period. Neither that season or the season just gone would have seen us in any trouble down the bottom end of the table with the proposed deduction (assuming they want it next season as it wouldn't have put us in trouble the one just gone, so it definitely wouldn't the season before) however, if we happen to have a bad season next, it will, how can this be right when any punishment should have been two seasons previous? I've not read the full document, but the thread created by this ESPN reporter suggests that the following is in the report: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.