Jump to content
IGNORED

Sheffield Wednesday charged for FFP


daored

Recommended Posts

I'd heard that before vaguely too- something about legal action v Sam Rush their former Chief Executive- this formed part of the case/evidence on Derby's part.

Without questioning their motives, it is interesting that it came in the run up to summer 2018- a time where the FFP issue was about to come about- they wanted £6.8m in compensation from him (Sam Rush) for 'breach of fiduciary duty'- according to reports from the time.

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/business/derby-county-sue-sam-rush-1391922http://livesportgo.com/2018/03/29/revealed-amazing-court-allegations-in-derbys-6-8m-case-against-former-chief-including-a-700000-payment-to-inces-wife-for-scouting-and-a-1m-report-that-suggested-they-buy-mbappe-and-dembele/

This line caught the eye.

Quote

The statement says the claim is for the sum of £6,841,107.60 and that the club is also seeking an indemnity from Rush in relation to "significant contingent liabilities that will crystallise in the future".

Because this case was launched in March or April 2018- late March maybe...just 2 months before the Pride Park sale.

Wonder what the difference between their claims against Rush- and any projected FFP overspend- was. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is part 2 of my look at Hillsborough value.

Still an ongoing process of course but 1997 to 2015- question marks certainly about some things, will post some of my own thoughts later or tomorrow.

I am really, really struggling to see how a £60m price is justified!

In 2016 and 2017, there will be estimates on the Cost front- ie statement based on Cost- as Sheffield Wednesday stopped stating it at that when Chansiri took charge.

Also not compared SWFC PLC and SWFC standard from about 2001, but I assume at this stage that the difference in Revaluation Reserve is regarding something else.

Year Valuation listed- DRC £ Starting Net Book Value £ Additions at cost £ Depreciation £ Transfer to SWFC Adjustment to Revaluation- Surplus/Deficit £ New Net Book Value £ Revaluation Reserve £ Adjustment to Revaluation Reserve £ New or Unadjusted Revaluation Reserve £ Statement at Original Cost £ Adjustment to Statement at Original Cost £ Depreciation Based on Statement at Original Cost £ New Original Statement at Net Cost £ Question Marks          
1997 23,350,000 (1997) 18,638,000 £610,000 N/A Yes £4,339,000 23,587,000 4,339,000 N/A 4,339,000 19,248,000 17,244,000 N/A 19,248,000
Differences between SWFC PLC and SWFC in particular with Revaluation Reserve, but also on cost and valuation
         
1998 23,350,000 (1997) 23,587,000 1,375,000 N/A N/A N/A 24,962,000 4,339,000 N/A 4,339,000 19,248,000 N/A N/A 19,248,000 As above          
1999 23,350,000 (1997) 24,962,000 552,000 N/A N/A N/A 25,514,000 4,339,000 N/A 4,339,000 19,248,000 N/A N/A 19,248,000 As above          
2000 23,350,000 (1997) 25,514,000 88,000 N/A N/A N/A 25,602,000 4,339,000 N/A 4,339,000 19,248,000 N/A N/A 19,248,000 As above          
2001 26,200,000 (2001) 25,602,000 31,000 N/A N/A 566,000 26,199,000 4,339,000 (2000) 566,000 (2001) 4,905,000 (2001) 19,248,000 N/A N/A 19,248,000
Still the differences, but less of a gap- the difference maybe a Revaluation Reserve on other assets
         
2002 26,199,000 (2001) 26,199,000 35,000 516,000 N/A N/A 25,718,000 4,905,000 (2001) -98,000 4,807,000 15,795,000 -3,453,000 -423,000 15,372,000
Suddenly costs are aligned on valuation/cost- still a difference in Revaluation Reserve though
         
2003 26.199,000 (2001) 25,718,000 (2002) 24,000 517,000 N/A N/A 25,225,000 4,807,000 (2002) -98,000 4,709,000 15,795,000 N/A -739,000 15,056,000 The sudden fall in 2001/02          
2004 24,800,000 (2004) 25,225,000 (2003) 105,000 496,000 N/A -1,164,000 23,670,000 4,709,000 (2003) -1,164,000 3,545,000 15,795,000 N/A 739,000 15,056,000            
2005 24,335,000 (2005) 23,671,000 (2004) 44,000 489,000 N/A ADD BACK DEPRECIATION 1,529,000 24,775,000 (2005) 3,545,000 1,529,000 5,074,000 16,002,000 44,000 ADJUSTED- 1,371,000 14,631,000            
2006 24,335,000 (2005) 24,755,000 (2005) 42,000 498,000 N/A N/A 24,299,000 (2006) 5,074,000 N/A 5,074,000 (2005) 16,002,000 N/A ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 1,687,000 14,315,000            
2007 25,100,000 (2007) 24,299,000 (2006) 30,000 498,000 N/A ADD BACK DEPRECIATION- 1,485,000 25,500,000 (2007) 5,074,000 (2006) 1,482,000 6,566,000 16,032,000 30,000 ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 2,008,000 14,024,000            
2008 25,100,000 (2007) 25,500,000 (2007) 75,000 503,000 N/A N/A 25,072,000 6,566,000 -181,000 6,385,000 16,032,000 N/A ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 2,329,000 13,703,000            
2009 25,100,000 (2007) 25,072,000 (2008) 39,000 504,000 N/A N/A 24,607,000 6,385,000 N/A 6,385,000 16,032,000 N/A ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 2,650,000 13,382,000            
2010 21,800,000 (2010) 24,607,000 (2009) 224,000 504,000 N/A ADD BACK DEPRECIATION- 1,511,000, but also -3,638,000 22,200,000 (2010) 6,385,000 (2009) -2,309,000 4,076,000 16,256,000 N/A ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 2,792,000 13,284,000            
2011 21,800,000 (2010) 22,200,000 (2010) 4,000 504,000 N/A N/A 21,700,000 4,076,000 (2010) -179,000 3,897,000 16,260,000 N/A ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 3,297,000 12,963,000            
2012 21,800,000 (2010) 21,700,000 (2011) N/A 466,000 N/A N/A 21,234,000 3,897,000 -141,000 3,756,000 16,260,000 N/A ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 3,622,000 12,638,000            
2013 21,800,000 (2010) 21,234,000 (2012) 28,000 466,000 N/A N/A 20,796,000 3,756,000 -141,000 3,615,000 16,260,000 28,000 ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 3,947,000 12,341,000            
2014 22,250,000 (2014) 20,796,000 (2013) N/A 439,000 N/A ADD ON 1,518,000 PLUS ADD BACK DEPRECIATION 1,758,000 23,633,000 3,615,000 3,163,000 6,778,000 (2014) 16,288,000 N/A ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 4,272,000 12,016,000            
2015 22,250,000 (2014) 23,633,000 (2014) 250,000 445,000 N/A N/A 23,438,000 6,778,000 -119,000 6,659,000 16,288,000 250,000 ADJUSTED AND CUMULATIVE- 4,,598,000 11,940,000            
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On a general note, I see they are quite confident of winning their case- Monk has been talking about it- says the charges were totally unexpected (mind you, public pronouncements etc).

If challenged legally outside the Tribunal, suspend them perhaps. Suspend their membership were a full vote to permit it. Should be an option.

If a panel finds you guilty- Arbitration, with possibly the same guys who did the Birmingham case- google Charles Flint QC- and you go outside the system as you cannot accept what you did was wrong, you are going against not only the League but more importantly the bulk of other member clubs.

Suspension of membership for the duration of such a case I think is a fair option for consideration.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a timely and helpful indicator that the panel have some independence which should reduce perceptions and evidence or claims were the independence to be challenged, of an EFL stitch up.

Bolton got a suspended points penalty over non-fulfilment of fixtures- EFL are set to appeal this.

This is a view I'm taking on the EFL now, not necessarily under Harvey. The EFL appealing an independent Disciplinary Commission decision is certainly a new one!

Now to clarify my point from yesterday, appeal within the system- absolutely. Both sides can do this and there is provision built in. The reason in part or one reason the Arbitration methods were introduced was to get it done within a solid time frame, after the QPR thing dragged and dragged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Other interesting thing- covered it months ago at the time on the FFP thread but anyway- and I'm sure there is a term for this but it's not one I know.

When "Sheffield 3 Limited" purchased Hillsborough, the controlling party was "Sheffield 4 Limited"- though ultimate controlling party was all Chansiri.

On 28th June 2019, the day the transaction apparently went though- as per the Land Registry (funny, the accounts were dated June 20th and June 21st 2019 for signing off but anyway), it was listed for Sheffield 3 Limited that Sheffield 4 Limited was no longer controlling Sheffield 3 Limited, but instead that it would be Sheffield 5 Limited.

Curiously as well, for Sheffield 4 Limited he is listed as his correspondence address being in Bradford- whereas quite clearly it's Hillsborough as it is for all other Sheffield Wednesday type companies.

Sheffield 4 Limited was wound up or at least the application was put in for this on 28th June 2019.

https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/12062155/filing-history

I remember ranting about it back in the summer, but a bit more measured now. ?

Should also add that Elev8- a loss making company for one if not both of Drinks and Clothing, both sponsor Sheffield Wednesday- that would be a club sponsored by a company/companies who are loss making. ?

Ultimate controlling party maybe  "Sheffield Wednesday Holdings Limited" and it's possibly based in Hong Kong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aaah, I think- and it's only think- I see what Aston Villa did.

They removed their Parent company- aka NSWE UK formerly Recon Group as the controlling party and stuck the owners in as controlling party.

Which might enable a sale of the ground from NSWE Sports Limited- to NSWE Stadium Limited- formerly Recon Football Limited. Xia and Purslow resigned (or were told to resign?) on 16th May 2019 from NSWE Stadium Limited so that the new owners could take over, whereas NSWE Sports Limited is still controlled by NSWE UK Limited.

Additionally, Aston Villa Limited stopped being a person with significant control on 16th May 2019.

On the other hand, that if correct is a very underhand attempt to circumvent the regs- and I was under the impression that EFL FFP regs gave provision for that.

This could have stopped being applicable and been superseded when the updated/new regs came in but if not...

Quote

11.3.1 the overall objective of seeking to prevent any attempt to circumvent the Financial Fair Play Objectives as defined in Regulation 18.1 of the Regulations of The League;

This bit below, definitely from the updated regs is also worth bearing in mind.

Quote

5 Clubs Ceasing to be Members of the Championship

5.1 If a Club is promoted or relegated out of the Championship Division that Club shall, notwithstanding promotion or relegation, remain bound by these as if it were still a Championship Club, until such time as it has complied with all of its obligations relating to its last Season as a Championship Club.

So in layman's terms- I hope:

  1. Aston Villa Limited are/were controlled by NSWE Sports Limited.
  2. NSWE Sports Limited had the stadium listed for assets- ie how much it is worth etc.
  3. NSWE Stadium purchased the stadium from NSWE Sports Limited.
  4. Edens and Sawiris (plus Purslow) listed as controlling NSWE Sports Limited.
  5. Aston Villa Limited ceased controlling NSWE Stadium Limited on 16th May 2019.
  6. Same day that Edens and Sawiris took it over

I'm sure there are bits I've missed though!

So in layman's terms- I hope:

  1. Aston Villa Limited are/were controlled by NSWE Sports Limited.
  2. NSWE Sports Limited had the stadium listed for assets- ie how much it is worth etc.
  3. NSWE Stadium purchased the stadium from NSWE Sports Limited.
  4. Edens and Sawiris (plus Purslow) listed as controlling NSWE Sports Limited.
  5. Aston Villa Limited ceased controlling NSWE Stadium Limited on 16th May 2019.
  6. Same day that Edens and Sawiris took it over

I'm sure there are bits I've missed though!

Another oddity in and around their accounts seemed to be that "Group accounts" seemed to be listed on both Recon Group and Recon Sports in the last one, maybe 2 sets of accounts!

Ultimate controlling party was Recon Group UK and now I assume would be NSWE UK but maybe not!

EDIT: Does NSWE Stadium Limited remain within the group however? Really hard to say- if so then it should surely cancel out at group level?

If they come back down soon, have they heard the end of it I wonder?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting note- (or possibly not)?

Anyway, saw this in their (Sheffield Wednesday's) accounts from 2000.

Under Tangible Fixed Assets, explanation of Accounting policies etc I saw this.

Quote

"In the opinion of the directors, the requirements of the Safety of Sports Grounds Acts 1975 and a policy of maintaining facilities to a high standard give rise to a level of expenditure on repairs and renewals that no provision for depreciation is required for the freehold ground and the stadium".

They started depreciating this- well possibly not freehold land, but Hillsborough in 2002 but did wonder when I saw it. Freehold land not being depreciated is alright, because it is considered to have an infinite useful life.

Still though, I'm struggling a fair bit with how £60m in 2018, is fair or market value.

This thread makes for interesting reading too- check the dates, especially posts 1, 4 and 20!

https://www.owlstalk.co.uk/forums/topic/283140-ground-sale-to-go-through-shortly/

If they had a contract in place pre July 31 2018, then it's possible that it could save them, but then why wouldn't they have produced it in the 7-8 weeks between the issue first being raised and the charges being laid? I mean of course it's possible.

owlstalk post 4 stadium sale.png

owlstalk post 20 stadium sale.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody seems especially pissed off with Reading (£26.5m sale price in 2017/18) guess we'll have to wait for Aston Villa's return but this line from an article I saw in The Athletic- quoted on another site- is revealing.

SL's Tweet in August after we won at Derby, is possibly as I stated at the time.

Quote

On the latest EFL charges over the sale of Hillsborough to Chansiri, other chairmen are said to be very upset at both Wednesday and Derby (who similarly sold their Pride Park stadium to their owner Mel Morris), and even those with particularly good relationships with both clubs want action and sanctions. There is feeling that selling football grounds in order to avoid breaching financial rules is not as clever a way around regulations as it first looked.

If the bulk of clubs want it, it could well happen basically. That's one interpretation anyway!

It's why I see the great sliding doors moment of recent times as when Gibson wanted full disclosure back in March/April. Feel he overplayed his hand a little at that time. Had 18/24 ie the necessary threshold, voted for his proposals though then I wonder if in-season penalties to especially Aston Villa and Derby, could have been the result.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People might be interested in this excellent article.

Specialist Sports lawyer and a Sheffield Wednesday fan, about halfway through it myself.

http://captivatelegalsports.com/analysis-publications/a-sheffield-wednesday-supporting-sport-lawyers-reflections-on-the-efls-financial-misconduct-charges/

@Davefevs @downendcity @Coppello @Vincent Vega @Drew Peacock @martnewts

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

People might be interested in this excellent article.

Specialist Sports lawyer and a Sheffield Wednesday fan, about halfway through it myself.

http://captivatelegalsports.com/analysis-publications/a-sheffield-wednesday-supporting-sport-lawyers-reflections-on-the-efls-financial-misconduct-charges/

@Davefevs @downendcity @Coppello @Vincent Vega @Drew Peacock @martnewts

Hard hitting and almost damning words from someone who is not only a Wednesday fan, but legally "in the know on these matters".

His final words are, " I would rather have a sustainable, sensibly run and honest football club, than one at the behest of an owner who seems naive to what is required to be a successful football club both on and off the pitch in modern times. I hope all fans of any club would want the same".

How lucky are we to have an owner that is providing exactly that for Bristol City and it's fans.

P.S. Also interesting to read that although sale of assets to related parties is not in itself a breach of EFL rules ( thanks to the EFL's own cock up!) it does breach EUFA rules if the valuation is overinflated. If this is the case then it would seem to give the EFL the means by which they can pressure those clubs that have cheated ( good to see the Wednesday fan, who is a lawyer, use that word). 

@Mr Popodopolous I have got some feedback about commercial/stadium valuations from my friend who is a practicing chartered surveyor dealing with commercial property. Need to do a bit more work with the information , but hope to post some details asap.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, downendcity said:

Hard hitting and almost damning words from someone who is not only a Wednesday fan, but legally "in the know on these matters".

His final words are, " I would rather have a sustainable, sensibly run and honest football club, than one at the behest of an owner who seems naive to what is required to be a successful football club both on and off the pitch in modern times. I hope all fans of any club would want the same".

How lucky are we to have an owner that is providing exactly that for Bristol City and it's fans.

P.S. Also interesting to read that although sale of assets to related parties is not in itself a breach of EFL rules ( thanks to the EFL's own cock up!) it does breach EUFA rules if the valuation is overinflated. If this is the case then it would seem to give the EFL the means by which they can pressure those clubs that have cheated ( good to see the Wednesday fan, who is a lawyer, use that word). 

@Mr Popodopolous I have got some feedback about commercial/stadium valuations from my friend who is a practicing chartered surveyor dealing with commercial property. Need to do a bit more work with the information , but hope to post some details asap.

 

 

Well this is it- his perspective is a very interesting one. He also suggested that it could be worse than expected in the article.

Quote

If that is the case, I would not be surprised should the punishment be even more severe than some think in terms of a points deduction. 

Found his points about context and a need to do and be seen to do something pretty notable too.

Agreed- so very lucky to have SL, especially from the 2013 reboot- Year Zero in a way, second chance- the darkness before the dawn!

Will have to re-read it that bit on UEFA- possibly missed that bit about UEFA regs and overinflated and the EFL using that means, but I did see the UEFA regs mentioned.

UEFA rules- Basically you can do it, but it'd be pointless as the profit would simply cancel out, be zero- my interpretation anyway. I suspect that would have been the case under the last version of the EFL FFP regs too.

That will be very interesting- sure I speak for everyone with an interest in the subject, thank you. Best not to rush it out though, better to have it right than rushed and possibly not fully accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aston Villa. Done a bit more work on this.

Looked for a piece I saw a while ago.

Seems there could have been some sort of Transfer across of Villa Park and maybe more as in 2015/16 it was listed under Recon Sports, formerly known as Reform Acquisitions Limited and possibly in 2016/17 also.

In 2017/18, it was back under Aston Villa Limited- NOT to be confused with Aston Villa Football Club Limited, or Aston Villa FC Limited. If you add back on the depreciation then maybe it looks alright as far as £56.7m for Villa Park goes- unfortunately. Still questions about the Impairment in 2015/16.

Curiously, though it only came through in March 2019, Recon Football Limited and Aston Villa Limited swapped names on January 23rd 2019.

In March 2019, Recon Football Limited seemed to have had its name changed back to Aston Villa Limited- but they still owned the ground at this time. Person/Party with Significant control is and was NSWE UK- aka Recon Group, Xia's parent company or top one in the UK.

In May 2019- May 16th in fact, Aston Villa Limited no longer controlled NSWE Stadium Limited, but instead the owners were now in direct control.

Owners purchased the ground- seemed to have been removed from the group...?

Genuinely shit like this and the fact that they had 3 years with the Parachute Payments makes it significantly worse, merits serious consideration given to a suspension from the League pending action/votes/disciplinary as and when they come back down IMO!

Oh yeah, the piece.

Don't want to read about those pricks, epitomised by the King ***** Purslow really so I'll pull out two key bits...the two bits below were written by Yorkshire AVFC, a prolific FFP blogger and especially on Aston Villa and unsure who wrote the original piece, maybe his work too.

img_20190601_174147.jpg

img_20190601_174152.jpg

This is very much I think, what is called taking the piss and I'd be interested genuinely to see how clubs would vote on a suspension of membership for Aston Villa on return if put to them? Or perhaps a suspension vote that gets shelved in return for a large FFP points related penalty? Why we helped the ******* with Baker instalment- given what their fans are like, let alone in particular Purslow- I'll never know!

Yes, it's common in the corporate world (possibly) these sorts of renaming, restructuring, juggling- but this is a very clear but yet complex attempt to flout and get round the regulations.

To summarise, NSWE Stadium Limited was founded in 2017/18 but was nonetheless part of the group. Had multiple names, including curiously, Vilden Limited. Club removed it from the Group it would appear, let the owners take it over then sold the ground to this company controlled by the owners but not the club/the group.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Admin

Sky sports news confirm Sheffield Wednesday owner among three people charged by EFL with misconduct. 

Dejphon Chansiri charged following investigation into sale of Hillsborough Stadium. 

Sale of Hillsborough for £60m to Chansiri allowed Sheffield Wednesday to post a profit for 2017/18 season. 

Without Stadium sale Sheffield Wednesday would have failed the EFLs profitability and sustainability rules. 

Sheffield Wednesday finance director John Redgate and former Chief Executive Katrien Meire also charged 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read online that Chansiri will come out fighting- well I suppose he has little choice given the charges against his club and him!

If it disrupts the League as a whole though though, or he goes outside the accepted and perfectly sensible in EFL- see their big section on Arbitration on EFL website, then behind closed doors the risk of suspension must be a very real one- remote but real.

I wonder if that's a reason why QPR didn't go beyond arbitration and to an extent, Birmingham too? All clubs have to agree to this as a condition for their membership in writing. That's possibly an oversimplification by me but it's all there on the EFL website- if they wish to sue the EFL, fine- EFL ie the 23 should refuse to allow them to fulfil or unallocate the fixtures for the duration IMO, or explore this possibility to its max. Enough is enough- the time to draw a line in the sand could be approaching!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was having a nose on Wednesday's forum to see how their fans received the news,  I also looked back early in the year to see if their was any mention of Derby's stadium"sale" and if their reactions were different when it was another club in the dock.

As it happened I could see nothing about Derby, but early in the year their was a thread about Wednesday's own problems with ffp and in that thread was this article from four four two:

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/financial-fair-play-vs-fairy-tales-football-leagues-intractable-fiscal-conundrum

Some scary reading in there and it's especially damning that successive promotion teams ( Leicester, QPR and Bournemouth) broke the then ffp limits but suffered only small financial penalties in return for the financial rewards of premier league promotion. Bournemouth's losses of £38m were well beyond the then £6m then allowed under ffp and their wage bill was an eye watering 235% of turnover!

You can see why the EFL felt they needed to change ffp rules, limits and penalties.

The article also makes reference to the real elephant in the room as far as championship clubs' finances are concerned, i.e. parachute payments to relegated clubs. It does makes a mockery of the expression "financial fair play" (does it make it an oxymoron?).  Not to defend the Wednesday owner's actions, but you understand his frustrations ( and I am sure those of most other championship owner) at having tottery and compete with the financial muscle afforded to relegated clubs while balancing the books so as to satisfy ffp. Having said that, the efforts of the likes of Stoke and Huddersfield are making the job look a bit easier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, downendcity said:

Was having a nose on Wednesday's forum to see how their fans received the news,  I also looked back early in the year to see if their was any mention of Derby's stadium"sale" and if their reactions were different when it was another club in the dock.

As it happened I could see nothing about Derby, but early in the year their was a thread about Wednesday's own problems with ffp and in that thread was this article from four four two:

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/financial-fair-play-vs-fairy-tales-football-leagues-intractable-fiscal-conundrum

Some scary reading in there and it's especially damning that successive promotion teams ( Leicester, QPR and Bournemouth) broke the then ffp limits but suffered only small financial penalties in return for the financial rewards of premier league promotion. Bournemouth's losses of £38m were well beyond the then £6m then allowed under ffp and their wage bill was an eye watering 235% of turnover!

You can see why the EFL felt they needed to change ffp rules, limits and penalties.

The article also makes reference to the real elephant in the room as far as championship clubs' finances are concerned, i.e. parachute payments to relegated clubs. It does makes a mockery of the expression "financial fair play" (does it make it an oxymoron?).  Not to defend the Wednesday owner's actions, but you understand his frustrations ( and I am sure those of most other championship owner) at having tottery and compete with the financial muscle afforded to relegated clubs while balancing the books so as to satisfy ffp. Having said that, the efforts of the likes of Stoke and Huddersfield are making the job look a bit easier.

It's also why it grates when people lazily cite Bournemouth as a team that "overtook" us.

They didn't just break the FFP rules, they flouted them without a care.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, JamesBCFC said:

It's also why it grates when people lazily cite Bournemouth as a team that "overtook" us.

They didn't just break the FFP rules, they flouted them without a care.

I'm pretty sure it was Bournemouth's promotion that prompted the revision to EFL ffp rule - and that it followed QPR and Leicester doing much the same. These rule changes allowed projected accounts to be provided in the third year  and for points to be deducted where clubs breached the limits. The should have meant that clubs attempting to gain promotion by spending beyond the limits could be penalised with a points deduction in the same season, thereby potentially denying promotion and the financial rewards that in the past would have justified such reckless and rule breaking spending.

Unfortunately, thanks to the EFL's own rules cock up and ineptitude, Villa look to have got away with similar, and like other clubs , have used questionable stadium stadium transactions to avoid penalty.

I meant to add in my previous post that Wednesday's owner complains about the ffp rules being unfair, and implies that he is spending what he can afford and that he is not putting the club at risk, but every club is in the same position but most ( including us) have made major changes to the way they operate, including the sales of key players to balance the books, even if that might compromise on pitch competitiveness. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll respond to posts later but...

https://www.swfc.co.uk/news/2019/december/club-statement/

Put the ******* on notice of possible suspension! Time to ballot Championship clubs IMO! Get the ******* out- the bolded bit feels the final straw...

The Club has also notified the EFL that it stands ready to bring a claim against the EFL to obtain compensation for its conduct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, downendcity said:

Was having a nose on Wednesday's forum to see how their fans received the news,  I also looked back early in the year to see if their was any mention of Derby's stadium"sale" and if their reactions were different when it was another club in the dock.

As it happened I could see nothing about Derby, but early in the year their was a thread about Wednesday's own problems with ffp and in that thread was this article from four four two:

https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/financial-fair-play-vs-fairy-tales-football-leagues-intractable-fiscal-conundrum

Some scary reading in there and it's especially damning that successive promotion teams ( Leicester, QPR and Bournemouth) broke the then ffp limits but suffered only small financial penalties in return for the financial rewards of premier league promotion. Bournemouth's losses of £38m were well beyond the then £6m then allowed under ffp and their wage bill was an eye watering 235% of turnover!

You can see why the EFL felt they needed to change ffp rules, limits and penalties.

The article also makes reference to the real elephant in the room as far as championship clubs' finances are concerned, i.e. parachute payments to relegated clubs. It does makes a mockery of the expression "financial fair play" (does it make it an oxymoron?).  Not to defend the Wednesday owner's actions, but you understand his frustrations ( and I am sure those of most other championship owner) at having tottery and compete with the financial muscle afforded to relegated clubs while balancing the books so as to satisfy ffp. Having said that, the efforts of the likes of Stoke and Huddersfield are making the job look a bit easier.

As I suggested in an earlier post the parachute payments problem has arisen because clubs have been allowed to use its funds for other purposes than originally intended I. E. To ensure that current contracts with players, staff etc could be satisfied following relegation. The EFL needs to make clear that parachute payments can only be used to fulfil current contracts and are NOT to be used for new contracts, transfer payments etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Mr Popodopolous said:

I'll respond to posts later but...

https://www.swfc.co.uk/news/2019/december/club-statement/

Put the ******* on notice of possible suspension! Time to ballot Championship clubs IMO! Get the ******* out- the bolded bit feels the final straw...

The Club has also notified the EFL that it stands ready to bring a claim against the EFL to obtain compensation for its conduct.

It's like you or me joining a club then, once we are members, demanding that the club change it's dress code, the membership fees and opening times because we don't like them, despite knowing the rules when we joined.

P.S. Just read the article in which they say they are taking action "in order to preserve their rights and integrity, and those of their current and former officers"

Preserve their integrity? 

P.P.S. I reckon Wednesday think they could be in line for having the book thrown at them so apart from charges against the owner ad directors they could be facing a swingeing points deduction. This could  be their short across the EFL bows in the hope that the EFL will back off and give a much less punitive award for fear of dangerous  and damaging litigation.

Hopefully the EFL does not back down, not to punish Wednesday vindictively, but in accordance with the breaches of rules they have committed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, downendcity said:

It's like you or me joining a club then, once we are members, demanding that the club change it's dress code, the membership fees and opening times because we don't like them, despite knowing the rules when we joined.

P.S. Just read the article in which they say they are taking action "in order to preserve their rights and integrity, and those of their current and former officers"

Preserve their integrity? 

P.P.S. I reckon Wednesday think they could be in line for having the book thrown at them so apart from charges against the owner ad directors they could be facing a swingeing points deduction. This could  be their short across the EFL bows in the hope that the EFL will back off and give a much less punitive award for fear of dangerous  and damaging litigation.

Hopefully the EFL does not back down, not to punish Wednesday vindictively, but in accordance with the breaches of rules they have committed.

Agreed- absolutely, spot on.

I know, a very interesting interpretation they have!

That sounds quite possible yes- I would say then suspension of membership must be a viable option if this is their gameplan.

Agreed- the rules are quite clear, they had time to get within them and they actually exacerbated it by £6-7m by extending the accounting period in the way that they did- would've been better taking the hit and having a sort of transitional period like Birmingham.

The EFL and the clubs need to be strong here- not out of vindictiveness, but in accordance with the regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Coming out all guns blazing and threatening the EFL is probably the worst thing they could have done.

Having a bit of humility and being a bit more circumspect may have saved them a few points deduction or worse.

Cheats (almost) never prosper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've simmered down a bit after the initial news,  but the arrogance of threatening to sue the EFL- all Chansiri or his legal advisers? Incredible!

On Owlstalk, some of them are really quite bullish. Talking of suing the EFL, take to cleaners etc etc.

Think they're playing a dangerous game. Other clubs should actually be if they aren't already,  instructing their lawyers about scope for suing Sheffield Wednesday.

Remember it's not just this but also the D-Taxis and Elev8,  the shifting of accounts date and one article that questioned whether they'd even submitted them to EFL last season within required timeframe. 

Some of it in isolation perhaps no problem but put together...?

D-Taxis and Elev8 are sponsors yet loss making companies I read somewhere.  I hope rich owners of compliant clubs will be backing the EFL here...at least one of the 2 aforementioned companies are possibly a device to get cash in.

Sheffield Wednesday aren't the only ones who can play the legal game and these owners if they feel the piss has been taken, could be quite litigious I suspect?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...