The Championship Thread | Page 109 | Vital Football

The Championship Thread

Pope John XXIII said:
EFL statement;

“The club was charged in November 2019 and referred to an independent disciplinary commission, which conducted a full hearing at the end of June 2020, before finding the club guilty based on the fact that the club should not have included profits from the sale of Hillsborough Stadium in financial statements for the period ending July 2018."

The wording is crucial. The difference between Wednesday and Derby was that, in theory, Wednesday included their stadium sale in the wrong accounting period to avoid an FFP sanction.

The basic statement does not suggest that is what they were punished for. It implies that the stadium sale itself was found to contravene the rules.

If that is truly the case, then Derby surely have no real defence (neither do Reading)
Click to expand...

I know we agree on very little but I don't agree (as much as I want to in this case)

I would highlight this bit

“The club was charged in November 2019 and referred to an independent disciplinary commission, which conducted a full hearing at the end of June 2020, before finding the club guilty based on the fact that the club should not have included profits from the sale of Hillsborough Stadium in financial statements for the period ending July 2018."

To me, it's the period that's the problem, not the sale in SW's case.
 
JC21 said:
I know we agree on very little but I don't agree (as much as I want to in this case)

I would highlight this bit

“The club was charged in November 2019 and referred to an independent disciplinary commission, which conducted a full hearing at the end of June 2020, before finding the club guilty based on the fact that the club should not have included profits from the sale of Hillsborough Stadium in financial statements for the period ending July 2018."
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what you mean.

I wondered whether the dates it gives referred to them including the sale in the wrong reporting period. But that sounds too much like "advice" to me. There was nothing wrong with them including it in that reporting period if that is when it was sold. I can't see the EFL saying 'tut tut, should have reported it a year earlier and you wouldn't be in this mess, never mind".

I suppose it could be that, but it just seems less likely than it being a generic statement that they shouldn't have used stadium profit at all.

We won't know until the detailed judgement comes out, and that could be weeks
 
Must admit my first thought was the same as JCs. They put the sale into the wrong accounts to help them with FFP. That is what they have been deducted points for rather than the sale itself.

As you say we will find out in due course.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
I'm not sure what you mean.

I wondered whether the dates it gives referred to them including the sale in the wrong reporting period. But that sounds too much like "advice" to me. There was nothing wrong with them including it in that reporting period if that is when it was sold. I can't see the EFL saying 'tut tut, should have reported it a year earlier and you wouldn't be in this mess, never mind".

I suppose it could be that, but it just seems less likely than it being a generic statement that they shouldn't have used stadium profit at all.

We won't know until the detailed judgement comes out, and that could be weeks
Click to expand...
From what I understand, it wasn't sold in the period in which they put through the books. They sold it in one period and reported in another as a deliberate attempt to avoid the punishment. Derby on the other hand sold the ground and reported in the same period.

In Derby's case, it isn't about the selling of the ground, it's whether they gave a true valuation or not.
 
JC21 said:
From what I understand, it wasn't sold in the period in which they put through the books. They sold it in one period and reported in another as a deliberate attempt to avoid the punishment. Derby on the other hand sold the ground and reported in the same period.

In Derby's case, it isn't about the selling of the ground, it's whether they gave a true valuation or not.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know that. But my understanding (which could be wrong) was that the period they reported it in did not actually keep them within FFP for a three year period. I thought that the time of the sale wasn't the issue, but incorrectly reporting it for the wrong year and thus falling foul of FFP. I may have got that wrong though.
 
Charlton should have a case, aren't they being charged for it this season so the points should come off this season? Derby will wriggle out of it with a slap on the wrist.
 
Mao’s explanation about a month ago, on here, about points deduction and penalties and the reasoning behind penalties and which season appeared very rational and understandable. Wednesday being penalised and not receiving penalty this season appears both irrational and not understandable. It is a huge mess. How can a team plan for next season if lack of clarity this. Barnsley, Charlton, Wigan and Reading are still uncertain of league they are in. Derby could start next season with a point penalty. This all should have been cleared up by end of season. EFL could argue season ends after playoff final. I await clarification.
 
According to Sky’s report, going into Admin is dealt with by the EFL an is an immediate penalty thus Wigan being relegated.

Sheffield Wednesday broke Profitability and Sustainability rules which means an independent tribunal make the decision on guilt and punishment.

Assuming their remit gives them the power to decide what season a penalty should apply from then Charlton have little hope of a successful challenge.
 
Basha73 said:
According to Sky’s report, going into Admin is dealt with by the EFL an is an immediate penalty thus Wigan being relegated.

Sheffield Wednesday broke Profitability and Sustainability rules which means an independent tribunal make the decision on guilt and punishment.

Assuming their remit gives them the power to decide what season a penalty should apply from then Charlton have little hope of a successful challenge.
Click to expand...
And in reality, it needs to be next season to ensure the integrity of this. The season is over; we can't have teams being miraculously saved or relegated afterwards.

That said, the Wigan judgment was last night and I am yet to see the outcome
 
Pope John XXIII said:
And in reality, it needs to be next season to ensure the integrity of this. The season is over; we can't have teams being miraculously saved or relegated afterwards.

That said, the Wigan judgment was last night and I am yet to see the outcome
Click to expand...
Wigan was an appeal which is slightly different but in principle I totally agree. This should all have been wrapped up by final day for everyone to have clarity.

If I am honest and with the Sheffield Wednesday decision in mind, I am quite happy to see the Sheep get a penalty next season. They managed to screw this season all on their own so...
 
Basha73 said:
Wigan was an appeal which is slightly different but in principle I totally agree. This should all have been wrapped up by final day for everyone to have clarity.

If I am honest and with the Sheffield Wednesday decision in mind, I am quite happy to see the Sheep get a penalty next season. They managed to screw this season all on their own so...
Click to expand...
The EFL need to hit all three clubs, plus villa if they ever come down just to stop teams doing it again
 
Pope John XXIII said:
The EFL need to hit all three clubs, plus villa if they ever come down just to stop teams doing it again
Click to expand...
They should. But whether they will is a different matter. Would have been interesting to see if they would have looked at Villa had they been relegated.
 
Reading the wording suggests to me that Wednesday have not been penalised for selling the Ground to themselves but for reporting the fact that they had done so inaccurately.

The fact that they have been found not guilty of the second charge is bizarre: “The club was found not guilty of a further charge of breaching its duty of utmost good faith to the EFL by deliberately concealing information from the League in respect of filings made in respect of the profitability and sustainability rules.”

If registering the sale in the wrong years accounts is not deliberately concealing information what the fuck is?

The fact that the points are not being deducted this season stinks, but I suppose the EFL have had little choice should they want to start the new season on time.

This will be appealed you can be certain of that; if the points deducted had meant relegation you would guess a High Court injunction in lieu of appeal would prevent the season commencing.
 
Pope John XXIII said:
The EFL need to hit all three clubs, plus villa if they ever come down just to stop teams doing it again
Click to expand...

I think the bird has flown on that one.

If rules exist to the effect that assets like the Ground cannot be sold to related Companies, the disciplinary cases would be a binary choice and a decision reached long before now.

You cannot implement new rules, back date them and then charge Clubs retrospectively.
 
The EFL are responsible for bringing in these relatively complex rules, but then fail to put a realistic process in place to deal with breaches speedily, so that any indiscretions can be applied at the correct time
 
It’s not uncommon business practice for companies to sell assets to related companies and is covered by HM tax. Therefore it is legal though poor practice. Owls is for late and inappropriate filing to by pass S&M. Derby’s problem as I see it is amortisation. I am not aware of actual transgressions details but CP explained it on here a few months back.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.