BARNSLEY WILL GO DOWN | Vital Football

BARNSLEY WILL GO DOWN

pies'r'us

Vital Youth Team
#1
Instead of us. Here's the reality:

The appeal hearing is like a civil court whereby the burden of proof is on the claimant (WA), who must prove that on the balance of probabilities, our case is true. This means that the hearing must be satisfied that on the evidence, the occurrence of an 'event' was more likely than not. Ie. unlike a criminal court 'beyond reasonable doubt'

Important to note: we had 2 barristers appearing for us, each being specialist in their area of law.

As per Zakys post yesterday; Kira King is a renowned specialist in international - civil fraud - insolvency - asset tracing laws.

Also, there was an independent auditor appointed to 'research' the 'events' pre sale agreement and provide evidence to the hearing.

So that tells you which road we're going down... On par with my previous 'conclusion' that IEC docs show the sale was a sham and that Au Yeung was a stooge and whatever happened between them 'at the end' - the club are innocent victims and the management had no control. This a fact!

If this is accepted then a 'Force Majeure event' has occurred. I believe on the burden of proof (evidence) criteria, we cannot fail and will have the points deduction revoked.

For Clarity: The EFL Rules section 3 - 'Sporting Sanctions' state:

12.3.11 For the purposes of this Regulation 12.3, a ‘Force Majeure’ event shall be an event that, having regard to all of the circumstances, was caused by and resulted directly from circumstances, other than normal business risks, over which the Club and/or Group Undertaking (as the case may be) could not reasonably be expected to have control and its Officials had used all due diligence to avoid the happening of that event.

My conclusion is also based upon all my research over 18 months which I have spent circa 70 hours and also confidential communications with QC and administrator etc prior to the hearing.

I've bet the ranch on Barnsley going down.

Last point. I've tried to be objective with my opinion. No offence but I realy don't want to enter into arguments with folks who haven't checked the available data and info or ask me to prove owt or go off at a tangent. Neither will I get involved in doting my 'i's' nor semantics or spelling mistakes or miy arwful gramar. This is a fans forum not the Oxford nob heads debating society.. Please try not to bugger up this thread... U know who u r.
 

FrancosLoveChild

Vital Football Hero
#3
I trust your judgement pies, sadly the EFL didn't trust yours in May. The fact you made people aware of this before the sham took place only strengthens the argument imo.
 

Made in Wigan

Vital Football Hero
#4
I share your confidence Pies. As a point of interest do you have any idea what evidence the mystery man provided in his zoom meeting to aid the appeal?
 

C_Latic

Vital Squad Member
#5
I trust your judgement pies, sadly the EFL didn't trust yours in May. The fact you made people aware of this before the sham took place only strengthens the argument imo.
I’m with you Franco. I’ve made it clear that I don’t believe the decision will be overturned (I hope I’m wrong), however I tip my hat to Pies for his hard work over this takeover. If only the EFL had been bothered to listen to his pleas, we wouldn’t be in this situation. They probably shredded his communications upon receiving them. They have betrayed us, plain and simple with their negligence and we will never forgive them.
 

jocklatic

Vital Squad Member
#6
Nice one pies 'r' us......all sounds very convincing and gives us hope or is that just me being biased & very hopeful for that outcome.
 

jocklatic

Vital Squad Member
#10
Hope and pray your right Pies as Harry Robinson said If we fail we fail knowing we couldn't have done anymore.
Thank you very much for all the time and effort you have put in you should be very proud of your efforts.
👏👏👏👏👏....I second that...
 

The_Pon

Vital Reserves Team
#11
I sincerely hope you're right Pies, and clearly your knowledge of what's gone on is light-years ahead of anyone else in this forum (and probably everyone else bar than the administrators and lawyers directly involved in the case).

An interesting point that I hadn't considered was that is a civil case and as you rightly say, the verdict is decided by a balance of probabilities, not 'beyond reasonable doubt', which will be critical given the volume of 'smoke and mirrors' where the transfer of ownership was concerned, and the consequences that followed.

I'm heartened by your confidence, because it seems you have a very sound grasp of what's going on and I know from previous insights you've given that you're not prone to misplaced confidence based on personal bias in favour of the club, like most of us would be.

To add to the chorus, thanks for your insight and the amount of work you've clearly done researching this. The club is all the better off for people like you (y)
 

SwindonLatic

Vital Squad Member
#12
Instead of us. Here's the reality:

The appeal hearing is like a civil court whereby the burden of proof is on the claimant (WA), who must prove that on the balance of probabilities, our case is true. This means that the hearing must be satisfied that on the evidence, the occurrence of an 'event' was more likely than not. Ie. unlike a criminal court 'beyond reasonable doubt'

Important to note: we had 2 barristers appearing for us, each being specialist in their area of law.

As per Zakys post yesterday; Kira King is a renowned specialist in international - civil fraud - insolvency - asset tracing laws.

Also, there was an independent auditor appointed to 'research' the 'events' pre sale agreement and provide evidence to the hearing.

So that tells you which road we're going down... On par with my previous 'conclusion' that IEC docs show the sale was a sham and that Au Yeung was a stooge and whatever happened between them 'at the end' - the club are innocent victims and the management had no control. This a fact!

If this is accepted then a 'Force Majeure event' has occurred. I believe on the burden of proof (evidence) criteria, we cannot fail and will have the points deduction revoked.

For Clarity: The EFL Rules section 3 - 'Sporting Sanctions' state:

12.3.11 For the purposes of this Regulation 12.3, a ‘Force Majeure’ event shall be an event that, having regard to all of the circumstances, was caused by and resulted directly from circumstances, other than normal business risks, over which the Club and/or Group Undertaking (as the case may be) could not reasonably be expected to have control and its Officials had used all due diligence to avoid the happening of that event.

My conclusion is also based upon all my research over 18 months which I have spent circa 70 hours and also confidential communications with QC and administrator etc prior to the hearing.

I've bet the ranch on Barnsley going down.

Last point. I've tried to be objective with my opinion. No offence but I realy don't want to enter into arguments with folks who haven't checked the available data and info or ask me to prove owt or go off at a tangent. Neither will I get involved in doting my 'i's' nor semantics or spelling mistakes or miy arwful gramar. This is a fans forum not the Oxford nob heads debating society.. Please try not to bugger up this thread... U know who u r.
I sincerely hope you are right, but seeing as you have had conversations with the main players involved in the appeal I’m sure you are party to more info than any of us, so you’ve convinced me! From what you know about this case, is it possible Dr Stanley did some jiggery pokery with the shares in NLF leaving Au Yeung holding the baby. And when he saw it was going to cost £1m a month in nappies, he tried to dump the club as quick as he could, hence the attempt at liquidation?
 
#13
I like your confidence Pies. Similar to many others on here I was pessimistic as to the eventual outcome but you have given me hope. From myself and my lad, thanks for all your effort thus far.
 
#14
I'm slightly more optimistic than I was before I learned that the points penalty could be reduced, I presumed that it could only be -12 or 0 which I couldn't see happening. I've read a lot that in these cases the EFL have never lost, but nearly every Independent Commission has imposed a lower penalty than the EFL have wanted themselves.

I do wish though the EFL had delivered the Sheff Weds verdict earlier, as I'm sure in much better terminology than me, they could have argued against the points coming off this season as EFL have regarded our admin as being equivalent to having occurred on 22nd March, yet imposing a points penalty on SWFC on 31st July has not been treated as being imposed on 11th May ie 9 days after end of regular season, but still before the 2nd legs of the playoffs were due to take place.

I strongly suspect that the reasons I've mentioned are precisely why the Sheff Weds points decision was announced at the time it was and wouldn't be surprised if we hear of a verdict in the Derby case sometime between our decision being announced and the Brentford game kicking off
 

C_Latic

Vital Squad Member
#15
I'm slightly more optimistic than I was before I learned that the points penalty could be reduced, I presumed that it could only be -12 or 0 which I couldn't see happening. I've read a lot that in these cases the EFL have never lost, but nearly every Independent Commission has imposed a lower penalty than the EFL have wanted themselves.

I do wish though the EFL had delivered the Sheff Weds verdict earlier, as I'm sure in much better terminology than me, they could have argued against the points coming off this season as EFL have regarded our admin as being equivalent to having occurred on 22nd March, yet imposing a points penalty on SWFC on 31st July has not been treated as being imposed on 11th May ie 9 days after end of regular season, but still before the 2nd legs of the playoffs were due to take place.

I strongly suspect that the reasons I've mentioned are precisely why the Sheff Weds points decision was announced at the time it was and wouldn't be surprised if we hear of a verdict in the Derby case sometime between our decision being announced and the Brentford game kicking off
All or nothing according to the administrator.

Hope you weren’t too attached to that ranch pies...
 

ZAKKY

Vital 1st Team Regular
#16
From Peterbourgh chap to Kendrick

What’s your gut feel Paul? It may well be 12 points but deferred to next year due to the global unpredictable events. From what QC’s team are saying they are supremely confident for you. Fingers crossed
 

Come on Wigan

Vital Reserves Team
#18
There was a reason Barnsley wanted to be heard at the hearing hope it because they knew we had a good case and from what has been said it sounds like we have.
 
#19
We undoubtedly have a good case, and the right decision would be to overturn the deduction but....

If Wigan win the appeal then the 'outrage' will be heard from a number of clubs past and present about how this is unfair to them.

If Wigan lose the appeal, then it is only little-old Wigan who will be aggrieved.

From what we've seen from the EFL, I can see them taking the latter as a preferred route out of this. Sinking Wigan will be a lot easier for them to deal with than letting us stay up.
 

Zeb2

Vital Reserves Team
#20
Well Ed ....the commission hearing our case isn’t the EFL it’s ‘independent’ supposedly at any rate.

They do appear to have a record of returning more lenient punishments than the EFL originally imposed ....to the point where the EFL have appealed their decisions !.....but seemingly in this instance neither party has any subsequent right to appeal the outcome so whatever it is will be final and binding.

You may wonder though whether the EFL, repeatedly annoyed at independently arrived outcomes ....may have tried to ‘position’ the panel beforehand and indicate how likely (or otherwise) their services will be called upon in the future should they irritate their client any further?