Jump to content
We’re excited to announce the forum is under new management! Details to follow.

Owls To Be Charged.

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, atticus said:

Derby County have been charged with pretty much the same thing today. Looks like the EFL are gonna be busy in the coming months

Noticed that. Doesn't fill me with confidence if they've decided to charge them aswell as they seemed to be in a better position than us

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its for different reasons but they are also saying they had prior agreement with the EFL before submitting, the whole thing is an absolute shambles and another nail in the coffin of the (once) beautiful game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i thought derby had a top ground worth more than swfc ground ,if thats true OMG we are going to lose points galore.also as we are swfc and our record over the years ,hillsbrough park her we come?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, bassett one said:

i thought derby had a top ground worth more than swfc ground ,if thats true OMG we are going to lose points galore.also as we are swfc and our record over the years ,hillsbrough park her we come?

Neither club have been found guilty yet and both are claiming what they have done was in agreement with the EFL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BUT if both are found guilty,do you think  our valuation would be better or worse  than derbys or readings valuations ? just a question of who has over valued there ground more?,but again the ground is always what a person would pay for it,take swfc ground it is priceless to most or is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's still the issue that Mr Chansiri gave authority to put the sale of the ground in a previous years' accounts.

 

That does sound serious in company law and I somehow cannot believe the EFL sanctioned that. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, abbeyedges said:

There's still the issue that Mr Chansiri gave authority to put the sale of the ground in a previous years' accounts.

 

That does sound serious in company law and I somehow cannot believe the EFL sanctioned that. 

If the sale agreement can be proved to have been finalised in the previous year the timing of the sale makes no difference.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Brooker11 said:

If the sale agreement can be proved to have been finalised in the previous year the timing of the sale makes no difference.

The date of the sale isn’t in dispute , it’s there in the land registry documents. Good luck in trying to con the EFL in to thinking otherwise 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

so if proved would we be in more trouble than reading or derby ? whos inflated the values of the stadium more?,i hope we dont get promoted then relegated shortly after,its a embaresment?thought he was a top class business man?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, atticus said:

The date of the sale isn’t in dispute , it’s there in the land registry documents. Good luck in trying to con the EFL in to thinking otherwise 

The date of the actual sale is irrelevant if it can be proved that an agreement to sell was in place before a specified date.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Brooker11 said:

The date of the actual sale is irrelevant if it can be proved that an agreement to sell was in place before a specified date.

Isn’t the issue that the company who bought the ground was created 12 months after date Owls are claiming the sale was agreed on? That was one of the stories being bandied about.

 

https://www.thestar.co.uk/sport/football/sheffield-wednesday/latest-owls-news/sheffield-wednesday-hillsborough-sale-has-appeased-efl-land-registry-update-raises-more-questions-491462

Edited by DaMan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Brooker11 said:

The date of the actual sale is irrelevant if it can be proved that an agreement to sell was in place before a specified date.

So what you’re saying is that if Chansari can prove that he had an agreement to sell the club to himself before the date he registered it then all will be fine ? 
Bit of a farce .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.