Tribunal Update

[RamNut]

4 hours ago, JfR said:

Am I the only one baffled at point 94 of the main decision where the article starts discussing the intricacies of, er... 'unlawful carnal knowledge' I think is the softest way of putting it?

Hello.

You realise that I’ve got to find this now. ?

[Spanish]

1 hour ago, Will Hughes Hair said:

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?

 

Do they specifically state that in the findings?  I didn’t have much time to go through both

[Woodley Ram]

2 minutes ago, Spanish said:

Do they specifically state that in the findings?  I didn’t have much time to go through both

they do, SWFC guilty of not accounting for the stadium sale correctly (not the sale of the stadium itsself) not guilty of its directors trying to hide things   

[Spanish]

1 minute ago, Woodley Ram said:

they do, SWFC guilty of not accounting for the stadium sale correctly (not the sale of the stadium itsself) not guilty of its directors trying to hide things   

Yes I got all that as mentioned several times this afternoon but I didn’t read that the timing of the ‘advice’ was crucial

[gccrowdpleaser]

38 minutes ago, Carnero said:

I've not read the full document, but the thread created by this ESPN reporter suggests that the following is in the report:

think he corrected it elsewhere. They only want the Derby punishment to be next season because it wouldn't have an impact on last season.

Weds charge related to 17/18. Technically they should have been charged and points deducted from 18/19 season when they finished 24 points clear of relegation 

[Sparkle]

2 hours ago, Will Hughes Hair said:

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.

 

 

Absolutely a very vindictive statement if true in fact lawyer material 

[europia]

23 hours ago, Gritty said:

Putting the charge to one side, what is the right approach?

1. Does it make sense to apply an accounting model that requires yearly revaluations of players, when there is no way of testing those valuations? If so, why are we the only club of all 92 to do this?

I don't think it does make sense as previous accounts suggest we had players valued well in excess of zero who ended up leaving on a free that we had to write down significantly, indicating we got our values wrong. 

2. Is it a comfortable position to be in for the club to not own its ground? Charlton are in a complete mess now because the club was sold but owner kept ground.  But then again, it's a common model elsewhere so I think this more debatable.

Overall, I think it's bad as we lose control of rental rate should Mel ever need to cash in on ground. It's not a given that if club is sold the stadium is acquired too.

I realise that some people strongly disagree with some of my posts on these issues.  I'm not trying to troll. I just genuinely feel that our club has not acted correctly in these areas and don't agree with an 'ends justifies means' or 'all is fair in love and war' approach.

I don't think it is disloyal to question our club's actions. These are matters on which reasonable people can simply disagree I think. 

I have also gone on record, regarding the club relinquishing ownership of it's primary asset, Pride Park. Not a good move in my opinion. All this to satisfy unsustainable player wages, excessive transfer fees for average performers and payments to greedy lowlife agents. Loyal supporters deserve better!

[jake the ram]

It's about time the EFL was sacked.all tossers lining their own pockets,bring on premier League 2.it will happen

[RamNut]

It’s a bit of a strange document. Full of emotive terms rather than just dealing in facts, and an awful lot of speculation about probabilities. Either a charge is proved or it isn’t. No need for all the flowery stuff.

auditors and accountants got sheff wed into a mess by being prepared to include the sale in the critical year of accounts despite the fact that the sale was clearly not agreed in that period. The whole back dating shenanigans followed the opening of that unethical and imaginary loophole. 
 

[Van der MoodHoover]

4 hours 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? 

thats no doubt an important issue of governance. How do the EFL come into being?

I'm used to financial services  where regulatory bodies are established by statute.

[Comrade 86]

16 minutes ago, europia said:

I have also gone on record, regarding the club relinquishing ownership of it's primary asset, Pride Park. Not a good move in my opinion. All this to satisfy unsustainable player wages, excessive transfer fees for average performers and payments to greedy lowlife agents. Loyal supporters deserve better!

I was actually gonna suggest you try running that up the flagpole with Mel himself and see what happens but the problem is the guy has a lot more class than most and he'd probably patiently listen to you before trying to explain how things have come about, which wouldn't be the outcome I'd hope for, if I'm honest.

Just for the record, mind, 'loyal supporters' don't tend to turn on their club every 5 minutes, but hey, you're entitled to your opinion, right?

[G STAR RAM]

40 minutes ago, europia said:

I have also gone on record, regarding the club relinquishing ownership of it's primary asset, Pride Park. Not a good move in my opinion. All this to satisfy unsustainable player wages, excessive transfer fees for average performers and payments to greedy lowlife agents. Loyal supporters deserve better!

Let's not forget that the primary asset was mortgaged until MM cleared it...

At the time when MM took control of the club we were losing £10m a year from memory and the owners did not want to put any more money in.

As a loyal supporter was you going to offer to pay the mortgage repayments on the primary asset?

[Reggie Greenwood]

32 minutes ago, RamNut said:

It’s a bit of a strange document. Full of emotive terms rather than just dealing in facts, and an awful lot of speculation about probabilities. Either a charge is proved or it isn’t. No need for all the flowery stuff.

auditors and accountants got sheff wed into a mess by being prepared to include the sale in the critical year of accounts despite the fact that the sale was clearly not agreed in that period. The whole back dating shenanigans followed the opening of that unethical and imaginary loophole. 
 

No loophole imaginary or otherwise it was within the rules 

[RamNut]

2 minutes ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

No loophole imaginary or otherwise it was within the rules 

You haven’t read the judgement, have you.

[Reggie Greenwood]

3 minutes ago, RamNut said:

You haven’t read the judgement, have you.

I don't need to the sale of the stadium was not against the rules as seen by the fact that Sheff Wed were not charged with that, the case against us is about the valuation and the amortisation of the accounts 

[RamNut]

8 minutes ago, Reggie Greenwood said:

I don't need to the sale of the stadium was not against the rules as seen by the fact that Sheff Wed were not charged with that, the case against us is about the valuation and the amortisation of the accounts 

I wasn’t referring to the sale of the stadium. I was referring to the inclusion of the sale in the 2017-18 accounts. 

[Reggie Greenwood]

1 minute ago, RamNut said:

I wasn’t referring to the sale of the stadium. I was referring to the inclusion of the sale in the 2017-18 accounts. 

We are talking cross purposes then 

[europia]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

Let's not forget that the primary asset was mortgaged until MM cleared it...

At the time when MM took control of the club we were losing £10m a year from memory and the owners did not want to put any more money in.

As a loyal supporter was you going to offer to pay the mortgage repayments on the primary asset?

Two completely separate issues.

First off, MM willingly took ownership of the club and improved available transfer funding in an attempt to gain promotion to the PL. At the same time, lets assume that operational running costs were satisfactory and the mortgage payments were manageable. No problem as long as the club is not living beyond it's means....

Secondly, over a number of seasons under the stewardship of MM,  the club has gotten into some sort of financial pickle related to EFL financial rules, and subsequently sold PP in an attempt to get out of trouble. 

Not a criticism, just an observation.

It's seems a ridiculous notion to suggest that a supporter (who merely observes that the current situation is somewhat less than satisfactory) should need to offer to sizeable financial support, in order to express an opinion.  

[G STAR RAM]

13 minutes ago, europia said:

Two completely separate issues.

First off, MM willingly took ownership of the club and improved available transfer funding in an attempt to gain promotion to the PL. At the same time, lets assume that operational running costs were satisfactory and the mortgage payments were manageable. No problem as long as the club is not living beyond it's means....

Secondly, over a number of seasons under the stewardship of MM,  the club has gotten into some sort of financial pickle related to EFL financial rules, and subsequently sold PP in an attempt to get out of trouble. 

Not a criticism, just an observation.

It's seems a ridiculous notion to suggest that a supporter (who merely observes that the current situation is somewhat less than satisfactory) should need to offer to sizeable financial support, in order to express an opinion.  

In what way does £10m losses equate to satisfactory operational running costs?

Let's not forget also at this time £1m was considered big outlay on transfers.

Crowd numbers were dropping.

I'd be interested to know what alternative route you would have taken to MM to make is competitive in this division.

[europia]

46 minutes ago, 86 Schmokes & a Pancake said:

I was actually gonna suggest you try running that up the flagpole with Mel himself and see what happens but the problem is the guy has a lot more class than most and he'd probably patiently listen to you before trying to explain how things have come about, which wouldn't be the outcome I'd hope for, if I'm honest.

Just for the record, mind, 'loyal supporters' don't tend to turn on their club every 5 minutes, but hey, you're entitled to your opinion, right?

Obviously MM has done a lot for the club. I wasn't suggesting otherwise and no doubt he is clear in his mind that he has done the right things. Trying to to gain promotion to the PL is an expensive business and if you are unfortunate and fail after several attempts, investing heavily along the way, it seems that a run in with the EFL is quite likely. The club no doubt employs highly paid financial experts and one would assume that part of that role is risk management.

Not all supporters follow the club line on every issue, and not doing so doesn't make them disloyal......but hey, everyone is entitled to an opinion (or are they ??)