Owls To Be Charged.

[Brooker11]

7 hours ago, cmonkes said:

According to The Guardian, it seems the EFL are more than aware of Sheffield Wednesday's "non-operating" sponsors. However, as these companies aren't currently generating mass amounts of money for the club, they are willing to other look it at the moment. 

 

It is said that Chansiri has used the "non-operating" companies to inject £1m per year into the club.

 

It seems that they might have got away with this one for now, shame really as it is another blatant exploitation of the FFP rules. Whilst they haven't generated substantial amounts, the amounts generated, in conjunction with the "stadium sale", seem to have kept them the right side of FFP.

 

I know Wednesday seem to be putting up a fight, but it will fall on deaf ears. They are guilty of multiple breaches and the EFL WILL punish them heavily..... and all things said and done, so they should!

The Guardian article says absolutely nothing, just regurgitates info that already been covered a thousand times, check how many subsidiary companies Scarborough Holdings has before commenting further, its exactly the same practice.

[Brooker11]

2 hours ago, cmonkes said:

Subsidiary companies? 

 

The main difference being that all of our sponsors have always been and always will be active companies. The sponsors injecting money into Sheffield Wednesday (regardless of how much) we're set up and have never been operational. They we're simply set up as a means to inject money into the club, however for whatever reason, they haven't done so in large amounts. Whether this be due to "better advice" on the matter or the better plan of selling the ground, who knows?. Had vaster amounts been injected through these companies, then it is in no doubt that the EFL would have had them over a barrel for this also. 

 

 

 

 

They haven't though so its a total non story.

[Brooker11]

8 minutes ago, cmonkes said:

It would be a non story had it not happened plural,  but it has happened (regardless of how much and the non-punishment). It remains fact that "non-operating" companies were set up, in order to put money into the club. 

 

Whether you choose to accept it or not is up to you.

The EFL have said they have no problem with it, non story.

[nikki-red]

This thread is about SWFC. Stay on topic please.

[atticus]

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

[NERVY-OWL]

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

[Brooker11]

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.

[bassett one]

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?

[Brooker11]

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.

[bassett one]

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?