Maybe the league split is closer than ever now. Premier League and Championship (which is EPL2 in all but name) could break away completely from the structure with a lucrative global TV cash deal?
League 1,2 and National league / North and South are probably closer to the original football structure but they have to be run as a separate entity away from the EPL and where team owners aren't chasing an unrealistic money dream.
Feel sorry for Bury but we've been on the edge for years now. Could happen to any lower league club. Sad times for the fans.
They cannot stop a willing party selling his asset (the shares in the company) to another willing party. That's allowed under the law of the land.
Don't know if the rules of the EFL allow the EFL to punish the club if this happens without their approval. If they do their potential options are limited - points deduction? but what would that have achieved - expulsion from league? simply gets us to where they are trying to avoid more quickly.
And in practice even if they did have powers, could they have used them at the time. Bury were then in severe financial trouble. Day's business were failing. he couldn't fund the club. Dale was the only known bidder. If the EFL could have blocked Dale, Bury would probably simply have gone bust then.
Not sure the answer if we want to prevent this happening again is going to lie in the ownership test. Other solutions will need to be found. Not sure I can see what they are though.
They cannot stop a willing party selling his asset (the shares in the company) to another willing party. That's allowed under the law of the land.
Don't know if the rules of the EFL allow the EFL to punish the club if this happens without their approval. If they do their potential options are limited - points deduction? but what would that have achieved - expulsion from league? simply gets us to where they are trying to avoid more quickly.
And in practice even if they did have powers, could they have used them at the time. Bury were then in severe financial trouble. Day's business were failing. he couldn't fund the club. Dale was the only known bidder. If the EFL could have blocked Dale, Bury would probably simply have gone bust then.
Not sure the answer if we want to prevent this happening again is going to lie in the ownership test. Other solutions will need to be found. Not sure I can see what they are though.
If the pitch was 5cm too wide or narrow they wouldn't be allowed to play.
If takeovers had to be approved or you couldn't play a whole raft of conditions could be checked first, otherwise nobody would buy.
What happens in other regulated industries, you can't buy a pub out without the licensee being checked out
If they'd turned him down they may have collapsed earlier, they may have found a buyer in less distressed circumstances.
@DevC I see you're making the same points as you did in the other thread (or maybe earlier in this one) where you repeatedly asked what could be done differently and then promptly disappeared when the question was answered.
As far as I know it didn't see the question about what could be done credibly answered @drcongo . If you have workable options, I would be interested in seeing them. If it was you (or if you can find them), could you repost. Like everyone I would like to protect clubs from themselves and overkeen/corrupt owners. I can't think of a workable solution.
@DevC I believe I read somewhere that the EFL have admitted that they did not do any of their established checks on Dale's 'fit and proper'-ness (even if they are pointless). @mooneyman indeed. The shower of local ****s involved in this fiasco is mind-blowing!
my understanding @Wendoverman is that Dale refused to give the EFL the documentation to allow them to do their "ownership" test and just went ahead and bought the shares (quite legally) from a business in such financial trouble that the previous owner was happy to sell for £1. My understanding is not that the EFL just didn't bother to do their normal checks.
Assuming I am right, I don't really see what else the EFL could have done at the time. Its clearly a weakness in the design of the ownership test but I don't really see how it could realistically be strengthened.
These figures about how many companies a person has wound up is really misleading. Companies are wound up all the time and very often with no financial loss to anyone. Look at any major business man or woman and you'll see failures. Peter Jones from Dragon's Den fame has been in the press this week about his and three quarters of Richard Bransons book is about money he lost.
Finding the correct fit and proper owner check is a hell of a job for someone. Would the Man City or Chelsea owners pass?
Botton line is anyone buying a club for a pound is either up to something or an idiot. I still can't get my head around how a clubs last game before financial ruin can be a promotion party.
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
I still can't get my head around how a clubs last game before financial ruin can be a promotion party.
That's the bit I can get my head around; same as if my last party before bankruptcy was a house-warming at my new mansion with top club DJs, guest appearances from global megastars and gallons of free champagne and caviar. The result of irresponsible overspending in pursuit of an unrealistic and unsustainable outcome.
@Right_in_the_Middle said:
These figures about how many companies a person has wound up is really misleading. Companies are wound up all the time and very often with no financial loss to anyone. Look at any major business man or woman and you'll see failures. Peter Jones from Dragon's Den fame has been in the press this week about his and three quarters of Richard Bransons book is about money he lost.
Finding the correct fit and proper owner check is a hell of a job for someone. Would the Man City or Chelsea owners pass?
Botton line is anyone buying a club for a pound is either up to something or an idiot. I still can't get my head around how a clubs last game before financial ruin can be a promotion party.
Have you seen the Fyre festival documentary? A hilarious insight. Similar characters.
there is not a cat in hell's chance we will be relegated this season ........ with only 3 now going down and Bolton on -11 and unable to sign any players until January after 2nd September and that date is now looming large for them to have completed things by.
@DevC said:
As far as I know it didn't see the question about what could be done credibly answered @drcongo . If you have workable options, I would be interested in seeing them. If it was you (or if you can find them), could you repost. Like everyone I would like to protect clubs from themselves and overkeen/corrupt owners. I can't think of a workable solution.
_In answer to @DevC's question of "What would you rather they had done?"...
1.51/49 ownership rule like in Germany
2.Better monitoring of spending and enforcement of spending rules
3.Enforced financial transparency, what's being spent and on what
4.Actual punishments for breaching said rules
As things stand they're like the football equivalent of the Financial Conduct Authority before, during and after the 2008 financial crisis - taking the money and sitting on their hands while bad actors among their members burn everything to the ground. They're impotent, pointless and possibly corrupt. I'd rather they'd done everything differently._
So this is your plan.
Re point 1) how do you suggest the EFL management persuade half (or would they need threequarters) the 72 club owners to vote to give up 51% of the shares in their business for nothing?
re point 2) that is a reasonable point but so far lots of leagues have tried this but no one has really made it work. Lovely idea but very hard to do in practise I fear.
re point 3) not really sure what you are suggesting here. Are you really suggesting that privately owned football clubs should publish every transaction - eg how much they spend on paper clips for example. Or are you suggesting that the precise financial terms (basic wage, bonuses etc) of say Scott Kashket's contract should be published for all to see.
re point 4) if you get a bad owner prepared to call your bluff, what punishments do you suggest in practise - points deductions and relegations do nothing to punish an owner who doesn't care about results. Expulsion just brings about the inevitable death of a club that the league is concerned about and trying to protect from that very fate.
I don't think your solutions are realistic with respect. a fair response would be OK what would you do instead. Honest truth is I don't know.
I love the gasroom! We suffer from a perception filter in general. In particular, we expect others to think or feel the same as we do. Or what we think is true everyone else must also think is true.
Dec C you have dismissed points 1 & 2 of Dr Congo because they don't meet your truths & perception filter. However, they are salient points that are achievable and I believe they can be met.
The banks have certainly had to conform since 2008, those that don't are getting punished more so than they were before 2008. There will always be loopholes that some will expose, as there is never a silver bullet.
3 - as usual, you've blown it out of all proportion to suit your perception. If point #1 becomes the truth then clubs would probably not be privately owned any longer under this new model and perhaps the rules could require transfer fees per individual, agent fees per individual and collective wages of the playing squad to be clearly shown.
4 - this is your belief and not a fact. I see it the other way around. If the sanctions are significant then why would rogue owners get involved in the first place? It may take a while to sort out but in the long run I think it would help redress the stupidity we currently see.
If the EFL really wanted to get serious, they could re-write the rules - invite clubs to rejoin in their current leagues, with the transparency and rules upgraded significantly and any clubs that choose not to could be refused entry...who knows how many would join and what would happen but I think we've reached a point where something drastic needs to be done.
Comments
Only 5 miles from Salford to Bury.
People will say otherwise but Salford have changed the landscape in the Greater Manchester area.
Maybe the league split is closer than ever now. Premier League and Championship (which is EPL2 in all but name) could break away completely from the structure with a lucrative global TV cash deal?
League 1,2 and National league / North and South are probably closer to the original football structure but they have to be run as a separate entity away from the EPL and where team owners aren't chasing an unrealistic money dream.
Feel sorry for Bury but we've been on the edge for years now. Could happen to any lower league club. Sad times for the fans.
You can bet there are marketing people there who'll be thinking those exact thoughts.
It'll be those pricks at Salford City.
They had an option not allow Dale to take over without doing any proper checks...but decided not to.
The whole point @Wendoverman is that they didn't.
They cannot stop a willing party selling his asset (the shares in the company) to another willing party. That's allowed under the law of the land.
Don't know if the rules of the EFL allow the EFL to punish the club if this happens without their approval. If they do their potential options are limited - points deduction? but what would that have achieved - expulsion from league? simply gets us to where they are trying to avoid more quickly.
And in practice even if they did have powers, could they have used them at the time. Bury were then in severe financial trouble. Day's business were failing. he couldn't fund the club. Dale was the only known bidder. If the EFL could have blocked Dale, Bury would probably simply have gone bust then.
Not sure the answer if we want to prevent this happening again is going to lie in the ownership test. Other solutions will need to be found. Not sure I can see what they are though.
If the pitch was 5cm too wide or narrow they wouldn't be allowed to play.
If takeovers had to be approved or you couldn't play a whole raft of conditions could be checked first, otherwise nobody would buy.
What happens in other regulated industries, you can't buy a pub out without the licensee being checked out
If they'd turned him down they may have collapsed earlier, they may have found a buyer in less distressed circumstances.
Stuart Day also had an option NOT to sell the club to Dale!
@DevC I see you're making the same points as you did in the other thread (or maybe earlier in this one) where you repeatedly asked what could be done differently and then promptly disappeared when the question was answered.
As far as I know it didn't see the question about what could be done credibly answered @drcongo . If you have workable options, I would be interested in seeing them. If it was you (or if you can find them), could you repost. Like everyone I would like to protect clubs from themselves and overkeen/corrupt owners. I can't think of a workable solution.
@DevC I believe I read somewhere that the EFL have admitted that they did not do any of their established checks on Dale's 'fit and proper'-ness (even if they are pointless).
@mooneyman indeed. The shower of local ****s involved in this fiasco is mind-blowing!
my understanding @Wendoverman is that Dale refused to give the EFL the documentation to allow them to do their "ownership" test and just went ahead and bought the shares (quite legally) from a business in such financial trouble that the previous owner was happy to sell for £1. My understanding is not that the EFL just didn't bother to do their normal checks.
Assuming I am right, I don't really see what else the EFL could have done at the time. Its clearly a weakness in the design of the ownership test but I don't really see how it could realistically be strengthened.
These figures about how many companies a person has wound up is really misleading. Companies are wound up all the time and very often with no financial loss to anyone. Look at any major business man or woman and you'll see failures. Peter Jones from Dragon's Den fame has been in the press this week about his and three quarters of Richard Bransons book is about money he lost.
Finding the correct fit and proper owner check is a hell of a job for someone. Would the Man City or Chelsea owners pass?
Botton line is anyone buying a club for a pound is either up to something or an idiot. I still can't get my head around how a clubs last game before financial ruin can be a promotion party.
That's the bit I can get my head around; same as if my last party before bankruptcy was a house-warming at my new mansion with top club DJs, guest appearances from global megastars and gallons of free champagne and caviar. The result of irresponsible overspending in pursuit of an unrealistic and unsustainable outcome.
Misleading?!
A guy who has wound up 43 of 50 businesses?!
I'd say that's a pretty shocking record, and he's either a massive failure as a business man at best, or a sinister asset stripper at worst.
Have you seen the Fyre festival documentary? A hilarious insight. Similar characters.
would we be so bothered about them being expelled if we felt relegation for us this season was still a possibility ???
Yes @rmjlondon and anyone thinking relegation isn't an option this season is seriously deluded.
Yes thanks.
there is not a cat in hell's chance we will be relegated this season ........ with only 3 now going down and Bolton on -11 and unable to sign any players until January after 2nd September and that date is now looming large for them to have completed things by.
richie predicting a landslide vote for Rob and backing us for survival. Why do I suddenly feel a sense of impending doom?
@Wendoverman do you really think that us being relegated is realistic after Bury have been expelled and that way we have started the season ???
Funny that, as I made a point of @ mentioning you as you'd asked the same question so many times. https://gasroom.org/discussion/comment/116009#Comment_116009
And others answer it later on, but as usual, you ask the same question repeatedly and then disappear as soon as it's answered.
_In answer to @DevC's question of "What would you rather they had done?"...
1.51/49 ownership rule like in Germany
2.Better monitoring of spending and enforcement of spending rules
3.Enforced financial transparency, what's being spent and on what
4.Actual punishments for breaching said rules
As things stand they're like the football equivalent of the Financial Conduct Authority before, during and after the 2008 financial crisis - taking the money and sitting on their hands while bad actors among their members burn everything to the ground. They're impotent, pointless and possibly corrupt. I'd rather they'd done everything differently._
So this is your plan.
Re point 1) how do you suggest the EFL management persuade half (or would they need threequarters) the 72 club owners to vote to give up 51% of the shares in their business for nothing?
re point 2) that is a reasonable point but so far lots of leagues have tried this but no one has really made it work. Lovely idea but very hard to do in practise I fear.
re point 3) not really sure what you are suggesting here. Are you really suggesting that privately owned football clubs should publish every transaction - eg how much they spend on paper clips for example. Or are you suggesting that the precise financial terms (basic wage, bonuses etc) of say Scott Kashket's contract should be published for all to see.
re point 4) if you get a bad owner prepared to call your bluff, what punishments do you suggest in practise - points deductions and relegations do nothing to punish an owner who doesn't care about results. Expulsion just brings about the inevitable death of a club that the league is concerned about and trying to protect from that very fate.
I don't think your solutions are realistic with respect. a fair response would be OK what would you do instead. Honest truth is I don't know.
I love the gasroom! We suffer from a perception filter in general. In particular, we expect others to think or feel the same as we do. Or what we think is true everyone else must also think is true.
Dec C you have dismissed points 1 & 2 of Dr Congo because they don't meet your truths & perception filter. However, they are salient points that are achievable and I believe they can be met.
The banks have certainly had to conform since 2008, those that don't are getting punished more so than they were before 2008. There will always be loopholes that some will expose, as there is never a silver bullet.
3 - as usual, you've blown it out of all proportion to suit your perception. If point #1 becomes the truth then clubs would probably not be privately owned any longer under this new model and perhaps the rules could require transfer fees per individual, agent fees per individual and collective wages of the playing squad to be clearly shown.
4 - this is your belief and not a fact. I see it the other way around. If the sanctions are significant then why would rogue owners get involved in the first place? It may take a while to sort out but in the long run I think it would help redress the stupidity we currently see.
If the EFL really wanted to get serious, they could re-write the rules - invite clubs to rejoin in their current leagues, with the transparency and rules upgraded significantly and any clubs that choose not to could be refused entry...who knows how many would join and what would happen but I think we've reached a point where something drastic needs to be done.