The Wendies bringing a counterclaim against the EFL should prove interesting, a little like the Rat telling the EFL they had to buy Charlton.
I agree it has all the signs of Belgian legal advice. From what their statement says it sounds as though they sought approval to sell the ground during the financial year under review but failed to deliver it in time for the accountants to include it in their financial results. Their problem is that accounting rules in the UK mean that a transaction is recognised only when it is completed not when you think about doing it. So, yes they would not have broken FFP rules is they had done it when they thought about it and asked permission to do it, but Lazy Daisy appears not to have done the paperwork. So the EFL appear to have a case to investigate.
Belgian accounting rules may be somewhat more flexible, as many people in business have found to their cost over the years and the Belgian courts only seem to follow up on Belgian companies not paying their social security over when that company is acquired by British, French or German acquiriers. Perhaps the Wendies owner believed that Miere brought with her a magic Belgian accounting wand. The key is in the title "English Football League".
What an absolutely bizarre statement. Why would you fill a PR shout with legalese like "without prejudice"? This is meant for the public and press to know Wednesday's response. Utterly bizarre.
If Sheff Weds' win their case and are awarded substntial damages against the EFL, it could spell disaster for Charlton's takeover. How on Earth will the EFL be able to afford to buy Charlton if that happens?
Wow, that reads like a statement that they want to make sound like it was written by a lawyer when it wasn't.
Doesn't address the key issue. EFL haven't said the sale and lease back were "unlawful". They are charging SWFC for deliberately putting it in the wrong set of accounts to dodge a points deduction.
The statement doesn't say that the EFL has charged SWFC with an unlawful act. SWFC are (bizarrely, in my view) claiming that the EFL charges are, themselves, unlawful.
I've heard the RFU and ECB are absolutely furious and considering taking the FA to court. They want to know why her ban would only be extended to football. You know, just in case.
I heard those two bunches of witless trough snouters are furious nobody told them she'd buggered off back to Belgium, they both wanted a new patsy to wheel out to the press while they guzzle their sponsors' cash while their respective products rot away through neglect and idiocy.
Comments
I agree it has all the signs of Belgian legal advice. From what their statement says it sounds as though they sought approval to sell the ground during the financial year under review but failed to deliver it in time for the accountants to include it in their financial results. Their problem is that accounting rules in the UK mean that a transaction is recognised only when it is completed not when you think about doing it. So, yes they would not have broken FFP rules is they had done it when they thought about it and asked permission to do it, but Lazy Daisy appears not to have done the paperwork. So the EFL appear to have a case to investigate.
Belgian accounting rules may be somewhat more flexible, as many people in business have found to their cost over the years and the Belgian courts only seem to follow up on Belgian companies not paying their social security over when that company is acquired by British, French or German acquiriers. Perhaps the Wendies owner believed that Miere brought with her a magic Belgian accounting wand. The key is in the title "English Football League".
And totally within character!!!
Gave me a stroke halfway through reading that.