If this doesn't spark big change at the top, I don't know what will. There needs to be a clearly defined structure in place to stop clubs getting into these situations in the first place. The Germany 50+1 model is a great one. Outside football, NFL owners can basically boot bad owners out before it's too late. The EFL may not be able to go into Bury and start calling the shots, but the FPP test clearly wasn't - and isn't - up to scratch, so surely they have to shoulder some of the blame.
I know the EFL didn't approve it, but I don't think they could have blocked it as they don't have control over what Bury FC the business does. But could they not have at least threatened to bar them from playing in their competitions then if they weren't satisfied?
@RogertheBandito said:
So if Bury can't meet all outstanding requirements of the League’s insolvency policy by the 23rd of August, its membership of the EFL will be withdrawn. And that'll be bye bye Bury.
Horrible scenario, but it's only right what the league are doing.
Otherwise, they'd be suspending games indefinitely, and leave a ridiculous backlog.
If they do see their status revoked, what happens?
They have to apply at the bottom of the non league scene next year?!
Andy Holt talking about scrapping the fit and proper test again in some recent podcasts, idea that there should be regular auditable obligations for owners rather than a one off cv check and then do what you like. Unfortunately its going to make it more difficult for clubs who are honest to prove it, he was against posting bonds as it makes it more expensive for everyone.
I think we'll eventually move to a model where the league can force administration and sale where rules have been breached but getting owners to vote for that is not easy.
Needs to be rules about how much owners can spend if they aren't actually putting it in themselves in advance, general disclosure rules, no undisclosed fees, undisclosed owners, debt levels, commercial sensitivity would be less of an issue if everyone was more open.
Then you get into maximum spend on wages compared to take etc etc..
Some of this will make it difficult to attract investment but It needs to happen for sustainable investment to be attractive, look how long the bloody oystons hung on for.
@RogertheBandito said:
So if Bury can't meet all outstanding requirements of the League’s insolvency policy by the 23rd of August, its membership of the EFL will be withdrawn. And that'll be bye bye Bury.
Horrible scenario, but it's only right what the league are doing.
Otherwise, they'd be suspending games indefinitely, and leave a ridiculous backlog.
If they do see their status revoked, what happens?
They have to apply at the bottom of the non league scene next year?!
Results would be removed from league table if any had been played, anyone due to play them in a cup would get a bye, they'd need to apply to join another lower league or regroup and play freindlies until the summer. Probably a group of fans would emerge as the most likely and set about trying to start again from scratch or aquire the existing name, badge, ground access etc. Bit of a mess all around and lots of work, you can see why they'd want to try and stay alive as first option.
The usual killer is an owner who hangs on, either he doesn't care or he misguidedly believes he can sort it out and will get all his money back some way down the line.
Problem being at Bolton, if they do regroup much lower down the pyramid, how can they possibly sustain even the maintenance on the existing ground with much lower crowds? These things cost fortunes.
@EwanHoosaami said:
Problem being at Bolton, if they do regroup much lower down the pyramid, how can they possibly sustain even the maintenance on the existing ground with much lower crowds? These things cost fortunes.
Rather depends who buys the stadium from the administrator. A rugby team or the local council might be able to accommodate them on the cheap, housebuilders wouldn't. You are right though, prem stadiums in the 9th tier probably aren't going to work, see Darlington.
Bolton need to keep going as they are to "lose" debt and be a big team at our level with eyes on a higher division. Much more difficult for Bury.
Rather depends who buys the stadium from the administrator. A rugby team or the local council might be able to accommodate them on the cheap, housebuilders wouldn't. You are right though, prem stadiums in the 9th tier probably aren't going to work, see Darlington.
Bolton need to keep going as they are to "lose" debt and be a big team at our level with eyes on a higher division. Much more difficult for Bury.
Rather depends who buys the stadium from the administrator. A rugby team or the local council might be able to accommodate them on the cheap, housebuilders wouldn't. You are right though, prem stadiums in the 9th tier probably aren't going to work, see Darlington.
Bolton need to keep going as they are to "lose" debt and be a big team at our level with eyes on a higher division. Much more difficult for Bury.
You mean like Wasps accommodate Coventry!
To be fair to Wasps...and I don't want to...I think that's more to do with the owners of Coventry suing Wasps and the Council over the ground sale or something which made it impossible (unsurprisingly) for the egg-chasers to keep letting the Blues play there. (I may be simplifying the issue)
Rather depends who buys the stadium from the administrator. A rugby team or the local council might be able to accommodate them on the cheap, housebuilders wouldn't. You are right though, prem stadiums in the 9th tier probably aren't going to work, see Darlington.
Bolton need to keep going as they are to "lose" debt and be a big team at our level with eyes on a higher division. Much more difficult for Bury.
You mean like Wasps accommodate Coventry!
Ha, I said they might be able to, I didn't say it would be anywhere near ideal, I assume if they'd got their mits on AP when Hayes left we might well be ground sharing elsewhere now. Not to mitigate the awful job sisu are doing at /on Coventy.
@Malone said:
If they do see their status revoked, what happens?
They have to apply at the bottom of the non league scene next year?!
The Times reckons that of Bury go under only three teams will be relegated from L1 and only one from L2. Then it will up to whatever becomes of Bury FC to make a case to the FA about where a 'new' club should be placed.
Comments
If this doesn't spark big change at the top, I don't know what will. There needs to be a clearly defined structure in place to stop clubs getting into these situations in the first place. The Germany 50+1 model is a great one. Outside football, NFL owners can basically boot bad owners out before it's too late. The EFL may not be able to go into Bury and start calling the shots, but the FPP test clearly wasn't - and isn't - up to scratch, so surely they have to shoulder some of the blame.
The EFL have admitted they didn't conduct a fit and proper person review on Steve Dale before he took over at Bury.
I know the EFL didn't approve it, but I don't think they could have blocked it as they don't have control over what Bury FC the business does. But could they not have at least threatened to bar them from playing in their competitions then if they weren't satisfied?
Why are the games suspended and not postponed?
I agree the cup game should be forfeited or give a lucky loser a chance.
Horrible scenario, but it's only right what the league are doing.
Otherwise, they'd be suspending games indefinitely, and leave a ridiculous backlog.
If they do see their status revoked, what happens?
They have to apply at the bottom of the non league scene next year?!
Andy Holt talking about scrapping the fit and proper test again in some recent podcasts, idea that there should be regular auditable obligations for owners rather than a one off cv check and then do what you like. Unfortunately its going to make it more difficult for clubs who are honest to prove it, he was against posting bonds as it makes it more expensive for everyone.
I think we'll eventually move to a model where the league can force administration and sale where rules have been breached but getting owners to vote for that is not easy.
Needs to be rules about how much owners can spend if they aren't actually putting it in themselves in advance, general disclosure rules, no undisclosed fees, undisclosed owners, debt levels, commercial sensitivity would be less of an issue if everyone was more open.
Then you get into maximum spend on wages compared to take etc etc..
Some of this will make it difficult to attract investment but It needs to happen for sustainable investment to be attractive, look how long the bloody oystons hung on for.
Results would be removed from league table if any had been played, anyone due to play them in a cup would get a bye, they'd need to apply to join another lower league or regroup and play freindlies until the summer. Probably a group of fans would emerge as the most likely and set about trying to start again from scratch or aquire the existing name, badge, ground access etc. Bit of a mess all around and lots of work, you can see why they'd want to try and stay alive as first option.
The usual killer is an owner who hangs on, either he doesn't care or he misguidedly believes he can sort it out and will get all his money back some way down the line.
Problem being at Bolton, if they do regroup much lower down the pyramid, how can they possibly sustain even the maintenance on the existing ground with much lower crowds? These things cost fortunes.
Rather depends who buys the stadium from the administrator. A rugby team or the local council might be able to accommodate them on the cheap, housebuilders wouldn't. You are right though, prem stadiums in the 9th tier probably aren't going to work, see Darlington.
Bolton need to keep going as they are to "lose" debt and be a big team at our level with eyes on a higher division. Much more difficult for Bury.
You mean like Wasps accommodate Coventry!
To be fair to Wasps...and I don't want to...I think that's more to do with the owners of Coventry suing Wasps and the Council over the ground sale or something which made it impossible (unsurprisingly) for the egg-chasers to keep letting the Blues play there. (I may be simplifying the issue)
If Bolton, Bury, Oxford and Coventry all bite the dust I assume we are safe for another season!
Ha, I said they might be able to, I didn't say it would be anywhere near ideal, I assume if they'd got their mits on AP when Hayes left we might well be ground sharing elsewhere now. Not to mitigate the awful job sisu are doing at /on Coventy.
The Times reckons that of Bury go under only three teams will be relegated from L1 and only one from L2. Then it will up to whatever becomes of Bury FC to make a case to the FA about where a 'new' club should be placed.
It'll be an awful mess.