What’s going on? | Page 54 | Vital Football

What’s going on?

Contact must be made with the FBI now to discuss what they found out.

Me?......Harry? ........ the club?......... the Administrators? .......the QC? ....... the EFL ?

Don't worry mate .......I reckon that young Harry and co are on to Elliot Ness as we speak!
;)
 
The major stories immediately following the arrests of the eight defendants prominently quoted a Nevada United States Attorneys Press release that stated that Paul Phua was a prominent member of the 14K Triads, an Asian-based organized crime ring specializing in, you guessed it, sports wagering. The additional documentation released in the defense’s latest submission also makes it clear that Richard Yong was also described as being a 14K Triad member, though any affiliations regarding other defendants (including Hui Tang, in whose name the Villa 8888 rental was placed) have not been made.

:oops::oops::oops::oops::oops::oops:
 
Me?......Harry? ........ the club?......... the Administrators? .......the QC? ....... the EFL ?

Don't worry mate .......I reckon that young Harry and co are on to Elliot Ness as we speak!
;)

The efl 😂😂😂😂

That’s cheered me up no end Moonay. Don’t forget the esteemed chairman of this outfit claimed it’s hard to find out about people from Asia. I doubt they’ll have much luck finding contact details for this firm from across the pond either.
 
If this lad's work proves to play any part in getting our appeal through (should it be required), or, even better, getting Owd Stanley his comeuppance from this proper fine mess he's got us into (them were t' days), then he deserves a season ticket for life and the freedom of Wigan.


The Administrators have not been asked directly about the exact grounds of our appeal and maybe they wouldnt say if they were but my impression from what has been said is we are appealing on 'force majeure' over the effects of covid rather than if Yeung / Choi was fit.

So while all of this research is fascinating and I hope helps I'm not sure if this is the stuff our QC will be presenting to the pannel.
 
I'm sure you're right KDZ, but with each little snippet that's unearthed, all pointing toward a) Choi being a right dirty piece, and b) the EFL having completely missed it, you never know how the QC might weave it into their case.

When the appeal was lodged, much of this wasn't known ........ but now, well, there's a whole arsenal of smoking guns.
 
It is all fascinating what the sluths are digging up but is any of it relevant to us and is there any proof of any misdoings regarding the club
 
I'm sure you're right KDZ, but with each little snippet that's unearthed, all pointing toward a) Choi being a right dirty piece, and b) the EFL having completely missed it, you never know how the QC might weave it into their case.

When the appeal was lodged, much of this wasn't known ........ but now, well, there's a whole arsenal of smoking guns.
We're appealing on the basis of force majeure due to Covid aren't we? If so then all this info whilst admirably researched is utterly useless in regards to getting our 12 point deduction overturned.
 
We're appealing on the basis of force majeure due to Covid aren't we? If so then all this info whilst admirably researched is utterly useless in regards to getting our 12 point deduction overturned.

It clearly isn’t utterly useless. There will be many aspects to the appeal and the more doubt raised the better. The efl chairman said himself it was linked to a bet and given all this information- which I accept is circumstantial - it raises questions about the efl aiding and abetting this by deducting us points so it wins. I’ve said it before but any prudent organisation would actually investigate first to ensure they aren’t complicit in wrongdoing.
 
It is all fascinating what the sluths are digging up but is any of it relevant to us and is there any proof of any misdoings regarding the club

You have a good point here Zakky. Much of the stuff that's been dug up, probably doesn't quite go far enough to nail Choi for anything ......... however much it taints his reputation. There's still time though !

We're appealing on the basis of force majeure due to Covid aren't we? If so then all this info whilst admirably researched is utterly useless in regards to getting our 12 point deduction overturned.

C_Latic, though we're appealing under force majeure (as that's - I think - the only option according to EFL rules) then unless there's a law that says new evidence can't be presented during the hearing (there won't be) , all of this is fantastic supporting evidence will help to cast doubt on the rigour of the EFL's carrying out of the "fit and proper person's test".

There's a precedent as well (Blackpool) for the EFL imposing a relaxed penalty, based on the actions of the owner................. which surely, the QC will be bringing up.

Up the sleuths..........Up the Tics.
 
You have a good point here Zakky. Much of the stuff that's been dug up, probably doesn't quite go far enough to nail Choi for anything ......... however much it taints his reputation. There's still time though !



C_Latic, though we're appealing under force majeure (as that's - I think - the only option according to EFL rules) then unless there's a law that says new evidence can't be presented during the hearing (there won't be) , all of this is fantastic supporting evidence will help to cast doubt on the rigour of the EFL's carrying out of the "fit and proper person's test".

There's a precedent as well (Blackpool) for the EFL imposing a relaxed penalty, based on the actions of the owner................. which surely, the QC will be bringing up.

Up the sleuths..........Up the Tics.

Sorry to put a damper on this but if we have appealed against the deduction on grounds of force majeure, specifically covid related, then that is the only evidence they will hear.

Any information regarding the unsuitability of the owners will not be presentable.

However there will be no reason why this evidence could not be presented to the EFL as a separate issue and used as a possible means to attempt to plead mitigation against the deduction and for a possible reduction.

Alternatively it could be forwarded to the fraud squad for investigation into links to a betting scandal.

The best thing we can do is beat Fulham tonight and hope Leeds or Blackburn do the decent thing as professional players and clubs.
 
Fair do TB. I was considering it like a court, or a tribunal.

So am I mate, any evidence that is not specific to the case will be deemed inadmissable. His unsuitability therefore has no bearing on the fact that we are appealing against the decision on grounds of covid related force majeure.
 
So am I mate, any evidence that is not specific to the case will be deemed inadmissable. His unsuitability therefore has no bearing on the fact that we are appealing against the decision on grounds of covid related force majeure.
Makes me worried, did the admin really investigate or look into the reasons on why we are in admin, why appeal on this ground when there is much better alternatives to appeal on?
 
Apparently under EFL rules there are no other grounds to appeal on.

Any other reasons can be given in mitigation but can't form part of the appeal.

But there surely was other grounds of force majeure right? JJ and the Royles did try to stop it but it's beyond their control that we went into admin? Seriously if Yeung just refused to put money in we could of sustained ourselves until the end of the season AGM meeting by selling players like now for a little better prices. What ifs don't matter now ofcourse but what he done is so illogical.
 
So am I mate, any evidence that is not specific to the case will be deemed inadmissable. His unsuitability therefore has no bearing on the fact that we are appealing against the decision on grounds of covid related force majeure.
I'd have thought that as part of the Force majeure "umbrella", evidence that the "peculiar" transfer of ownership, the initial instruction to liquidate us, and the unsavoury history of Choi and Au Yeung are all (just about) related to the appeal grounds - Covid led to later season finish, led to ever improving league position, led (unbelievably and illogically) to admin.

We don't have a time machine, but if Covid hadn't happened, and we'd have carried on our run of form back in March, then there's an argument to say that we wouldn't have been put into admin ..................... otherwise the owners would have done it back then.

There's also a parallel argument that says they would have, because of the alleged bet ........but of course, there's not quite sufficient evidence of that yet.

The QC will surely try to weave both element into his case ................. which is that our admin wouldn't have happened had we not had the Covid delay.
 
But there surely was other grounds of force majeure right? JJ and the Royles did try to stop it but it's beyond their control that we went into admin? Seriously if Yeung just refused to put money in we could of sustained ourselves until the end of the season AGM meeting by selling players like now for a little better prices. What ifs don't matter now ofcourse but what he done is so illogical.

You are right, there is no logic behind what he has done, at least legal logic.

The fact that not all the board were in agreement doesn't make it a force majeure event. Although it was beyond their control, that is irrelevant because it was controlled by the owners.

I agree we could have probably loaned enough money to see us through the season and then put the club up for sale thus avoiding administration and the deduction, however Yeung had other ideas. In the interview with one of the admins he has said that they tried to persuade Yeungs solicitor to allow them to go another way but he was adamant that it was liquidation or administration.

That fact alone lends credence to the betting scandal conspiracy.

Why on Earth would you deliberately sabotage the season having supposedly just invested £41 million when in all probability you will only "legally" get back £10 million.

It beggars belief.
 
I'd have thought that as part of the Force majeure "umbrella", evidence that the "peculiar" transfer of ownership, the initial instruction to liquidate us, and the unsavoury history of Choi and Au Yeung are all (just about) related to the appeal grounds - Covid led to later season finish, led to ever improving league position, led (unbelievably and illogically) to admin.

We don't have a time machine, but if Covid hadn't happened, and we'd have carried on our run of form back in March, then there's an argument to say that we wouldn't have been put into admin ..................... otherwise the owners would have done it back then.

There's also a parallel argument that says they would have, because of the alleged bet ........but of course, there's not quite sufficient evidence of that yet.

The QC will surely try to weave both element into his case ................. which is that our admin wouldn't have happened had we not had the Covid delay.

I think your reasoning is sound mate, however the legal system doesn't recognise reasoning.

The fact that the EFL's rules state that an appeal can only be lodged against a "force majeure" means that any history the directors have will be deemed inadmissable. The argument will centre around whether covid has caused the club to become unsustainable, and whether this was forseeable.

The EFL say that in Yeungs case it was forseeable as he only purchased the club during the pandemic whilst the club was in lockdown and provided evidence of sufficient funds to get through this and next season. His decision to stop funding the club therefore could not be related to covid.

I am sure, as you say, the QC will have a stategy to try to introduce as much doubt about Au Yeung and Choi's reasons for the pull out but it will be difficult. I only hope he is as good as everyone keeps saying he is and that we get a sympathetic panel.

As far as the betting scandal goes that would be a case for the fraud squad and wouldn't affect the decision to give a points deduction.