Jump to content

Owls Legal Fight Starts - Decision 12 Point Deduction 31/07/20

Recommended Posts

20 hours ago, ALAN 58 said:

 Villa smash the EFL P and S  to get promoted to PL  and cannot be touched for the offence by EFL , Get relegated back to the championship  with parachute payments for three years and the EFL  still cannot touch them.   Mind boggling to say the least , lets get on with the job in hand thats football.

Those are the rules though. That was Wednesday's plan, and it very nearly worked. Bend the rules and succeed, and you end up like Villa/Wolves, bend the rules and fail, you end up like Wednesday. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Moistened said:

Those are the rules though. That was Wednesday's plan, and it very nearly worked. Bend the rules and succeed, and you end up like Villa/Wolves, bend the rules and fail, you end up like Wednesday. 

Hence my comments above, when 6 or 7 bend the rules, only 3 can ever be winners in any given season.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, abbeyedges said:

.......as long as everybody abides by the rules. 

Don't forget SUFC were handed an embargo that they kept quiet but was revealed in the High Court, is some rule breaking acceptable?

Share this post


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

Don't forget SUFC were handed an embargo that they kept quiet but was revealed in the High Court, is some rule breaking acceptable?

SUFC were never under a transfer embargo, and if we couldn't sign players temporarily, it certainly wasn't enforced by the FPL. 

 

I know they like to let clubs get away with murder, but I don't think they'd have let us sign six players if we were under an embargo at the time! 

 

76. Apart from the need for more money going forward, Blades had to deal with the implications of the £3 million Charwell debt. To comply with the Salary Costs Management Protocol of the English Football League, part of the debt had to be taken off Blades’ balance sheet by the end of the season. Mr Tutton ingeniously suggested that that problem and the imbalance in the equity contributions of UTB and SUL in 2016/17 could be addressed together, by UTB taking on liability for £2.3 million of the debt and SUL for £0.7 million (i.e. UTB contributing £1.6 million more than SUL). It was later decided that, instead, £1.6 million of the Charwell loan should be novated to UTB, leaving Blades liable to repay £1.4 million. That suggestion was rather indelicately put to Mr Alsaady, on behalf of Charwell, who initially was uncooperative, with the result that no resolution was achieved in time to avoid a temporary embargo on the Club’s transfer activity. Had the issue not been resolved (as it later was, on 25 July 2017) it could have had a damaging impact on the Club’s ability to position itself for the new season in the Championship

Edited by Moistened

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All accountants bend the rules , but the company owner has to sign the accounts off .

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well best thing to do is spend like mad ,go up and that sorts it,if they cannot touch you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/08/2020 at 10:13, Brooker11 said:

Don't forget SUFC were handed an embargo that they kept quiet but was revealed in the High Court, is some rule breaking acceptable?

If you could show us all where the EFL handed SUFC an embargo, which they  (the EFL) would have been duty bound to let every other member club know about, that would be great.

 

I seem to think you may be talking about when Steve Bettis (the CEO of SUFC) informed the EFL, out of duty to the club, and courtesy to the EFL, that with the owners at loggerheads about who should put how much money in, we would sail close the wind in funding, resulting in giving notice that we would be in a transfer embargo.

 

Within a few weeks, we had signed half a dozen players (including I think, current players John Lundstram and George Baldock), so, not much of an embargo, eh?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Back on topic please. This thread is about SWFC.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, nikki-red said:

Back on topic please. This thread is about SWFC.

Totally agree nikki-red, not sure why people keep trying to bring SUFC into it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plus there were possibly unfounded allegations of jiggery-pokery in the conveyancing work re the stadium, non-registration (for a year) of a Transfer deed, and supposedly involvement in that work of a limited company that at the time didn't even exist. I know nothing proving anything wrong; I guess that all was above board- and I hope that it was- but perhaps we'll eventually learn who did what wrong when!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

now we could be in trouble as our books/accounts are late,even though we were granted extra time,wonder if theres anything wrong?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, bassett one said:

now we could be in trouble as our books/accounts are late,even though we were granted extra time,wonder if theres anything wrong?

Apparently it is because the club are waiting to hear which years accounts the stadium sale will be included in.

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.