Premier League fit and proper person test – disqualifying events in full:
A person shall be disqualified from acting as a director and no club shall be permitted to have any person acting as a director of that club if:
Either directly or indirectly he is involved in or has any power to determine or influence the management or administration of another club or Football League club
Either directly or indirectly he holds or acquires any Significant Interest in a club while he either directly or indirectly holds any interest in any class of shares of another club
He becomes prohibited by law from being a director
He is convicted on indictment of an offence set out in the Appendix 12 Schedule of Offences or he is convicted of a like offence by a competent court having jurisdiction outside England and Wales
He makes an Individual Voluntary Arrangement or becomes the subject of an Interim Bankruptcy Restriction Order, a Bankruptcy Restriction Order or a Bankruptcy Order
He is a director of a club which, while he has been a director of it, has suffered two or more unconnected events of insolvency
He has been a director of two or more clubs or clubs each of which, while he has been a director of them, has suffered an Event of Insolvency.
Schedule of offences:
Conspiracy to defraud: Criminal Justice Act 1987, section 12 Conspiracy to defraud: Common Law Corrupt transactions with (public) agents, corruptly accepting consideration: Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, section 1 Insider dealing: Criminal Justice Act 1993, sections 52 and 61 Public servant soliciting or accepting a gift: Public Bodies (Corrupt Practices) Act 1889, section 1 Theft: Theft Act 1968, section 1 Obtaining by deception: Theft Act 1968, section 15 Obtaining a money transfer by deception: Theft Act 1968, section 15A + B Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception: Theft Act 1968, section 16 False accounting: Theft Act 1968, section 17 False statements by Company Directors: Theft Act 1968, section 19 Suppression of (company) documents: Theft Act 1968, section 20 Retaining a wrongful credit: Theft Act 1968, section 24A Obtaining services by deception: Theft Act 1978, section 1 Evasion of liability by deception: Theft Act 1978, section 2 Cheating the Public Revenue/Making false statements tending to defraud the public revenue: Common Law Punishment for fraudulent training: Companies Act 1985, section 458 Penalty for fraudulent evasion of duty etc: Customs & Excise Management Act 1979, section 170 Fraudulent evasion of VAT: Value Added Tax Act 1994 section 72 Person subject to a Banning order (as defined) : Football (Disorder) Act 2000, Schedule 1 Forgery: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 1 Copying a false instrument : Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 2 Using a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 3 Using a copy of a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 4 Cheating the Public Revenue/ Making false statements tending to defraud the public revenue: Common Law Punishment for fraudulent training: Companies Act 1985, section 458 Penalty for fraudulent evasion of duty etc: Customs & Excise Management Act 1979, section 170 Fraudulent evasion of VAT: Value Added Tax Act 1994, section 72 Person subject to a Banning order (as defined): Football (Disorder) Act 2000, Schedule 1 Forgery: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 1 Copying a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 2 Using a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 3 Using a copy of a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 4
It is of note that it's not called the fit and proper test at all, (you've just made that up). But the Owners and Directors Test. It does not measure a prospective owner's competencies. Even if it did, Roland would have passed I'm sure. Instead it lists "disqualifying conditions", like being a bankrupt, for example.
I assumed the brainiest owner in the room answered the questions and all the other owners copied his answers when the teachers back was turned FA wasn't looking
Premier League fit and proper person test – disqualifying events in full:
A person shall be disqualified from acting as a director and no club shall be permitted to have any person acting as a director of that club if:
Either directly or indirectly he is involved in or has any power to determine or influence the management or administration of another club or Football League club
Either directly or indirectly he holds or acquires any Significant Interest in a club while he either directly or indirectly holds any interest in any class of shares of another club
He becomes prohibited by law from being a director
He is convicted on indictment of an offence set out in the Appendix 12 Schedule of Offences or he is convicted of a like offence by a competent court having jurisdiction outside England and Wales
He makes an Individual Voluntary Arrangement or becomes the subject of an Interim Bankruptcy Restriction Order, a Bankruptcy Restriction Order or a Bankruptcy Order
He is a director of a club which, while he has been a director of it, has suffered two or more unconnected events of insolvency
He has been a director of two or more clubs or clubs each of which, while he has been a director of them, has suffered an Event of Insolvency.
Schedule of offences:
Conspiracy to defraud: Criminal Justice Act 1987, section 12 Conspiracy to defraud: Common Law Corrupt transactions with (public) agents, corruptly accepting consideration: Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, section 1 Insider dealing: Criminal Justice Act 1993, sections 52 and 61 Public servant soliciting or accepting a gift: Public Bodies (Corrupt Practices) Act 1889, section 1 Theft: Theft Act 1968, section 1 Obtaining by deception: Theft Act 1968, section 15 Obtaining a money transfer by deception: Theft Act 1968, section 15A + B Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception: Theft Act 1968, section 16 False accounting: Theft Act 1968, section 17 False statements by Company Directors: Theft Act 1968, section 19 Suppression of (company) documents: Theft Act 1968, section 20 Retaining a wrongful credit: Theft Act 1968, section 24A Obtaining services by deception: Theft Act 1978, section 1 Evasion of liability by deception: Theft Act 1978, section 2 Cheating the Public Revenue/Making false statements tending to defraud the public revenue: Common Law Punishment for fraudulent training: Companies Act 1985, section 458 Penalty for fraudulent evasion of duty etc: Customs & Excise Management Act 1979, section 170 Fraudulent evasion of VAT: Value Added Tax Act 1994 section 72 Person subject to a Banning order (as defined) : Football (Disorder) Act 2000, Schedule 1 Forgery: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 1 Copying a false instrument : Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 2 Using a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 3 Using a copy of a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 4 Cheating the Public Revenue/ Making false statements tending to defraud the public revenue: Common Law Punishment for fraudulent training: Companies Act 1985, section 458 Penalty for fraudulent evasion of duty etc: Customs & Excise Management Act 1979, section 170 Fraudulent evasion of VAT: Value Added Tax Act 1994, section 72 Person subject to a Banning order (as defined): Football (Disorder) Act 2000, Schedule 1 Forgery: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 1 Copying a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 2 Using a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 3 Using a copy of a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 4
Unbelievable! Not a single question about Duck Tape FFS!!!
The rules need to be stricter. One look at what RD had done at any other club should have disqualified him.
But that's the point, he hasn't done much at all at Alcorcon, and he's built practically a whole new stadium at STVV and got them competing on the top tier of Belgian football. He also is part of a club that is building a new stand at their stadium and recently got promoted to the 3rd tier from the 4th, and used to own a team that regularly competed at the top of their national league in Standard Liege, whilst producing and selling good players. The test won't look at alienated fans etc. as why should it? Football fans are fickle as hell, look at the green and yellow protest that happened at Manure, or the constant crying of Arsenal fans, does that mean those owners would fail the test too?
The rules need to be stricter. One look at what RD had done at any other club should have disqualified him.
But that's the point, he hasn't done much at all at Alcorcon, and he's built practically a whole new stadium at STVV and got them competing on the top tier of Belgian football. He also is part of a club that is building a new stand at their stadium and recently got promoted to the 3rd tier from the 4th, and used to own a team that regularly competed at the top of their national league in Standard Liege, whilst producing and selling good players. The test won't look at alienated fans etc. as why should it? Football fans are fickle as hell, look at the green and yellow protest that happened at Manure, or the constant crying of Arsenal fans, does that mean those owners would fail the test too?
If an owner is asset stripping and loading clubs with debt should they really be allowed to buy and continue to own a football club?
The rules need to be stricter. One look at what RD had done at any other club should have disqualified him.
But that's the point, he hasn't done much at all at Alcorcon, and he's built practically a whole new stadium at STVV and got them competing on the top tier of Belgian football. He also is part of a club that is building a new stand at their stadium and recently got promoted to the 3rd tier from the 4th, and used to own a team that regularly competed at the top of their national league in Standard Liege, whilst producing and selling good players. The test won't look at alienated fans etc. as why should it? Football fans are fickle as hell, look at the green and yellow protest that happened at Manure, or the constant crying of Arsenal fans, does that mean those owners would fail the test too?
If an owner is asset stripping and loading clubs with debt should they really be allowed to buy and continue to own a football club?
As long as they are not trading fraudulently and comply with accounting standards then there is nothing to stop them.
Acting like a tosser and acting unlawfully are two entirely different things, unfortunately.
I don't actually think there is any new owners in the pipeline it's just an excuse to sell off our current best players and use it as a another reason why Karl cannot bring anyone in Just a few more million clawed back into his account from this little exersise
The rules need to be stricter. One look at what RD had done at any other club should have disqualified him.
But that's the point, he hasn't done much at all at Alcorcon, and he's built practically a whole new stadium at STVV and got them competing on the top tier of Belgian football. He also is part of a club that is building a new stand at their stadium and recently got promoted to the 3rd tier from the 4th, and used to own a team that regularly competed at the top of their national league in Standard Liege, whilst producing and selling good players. The test won't look at alienated fans etc. as why should it? Football fans are fickle as hell, look at the green and yellow protest that happened at Manure, or the constant crying of Arsenal fans, does that mean those owners would fail the test too?
If an owner is asset stripping and loading clubs with debt should they really be allowed to buy and continue to own a football club?
But he hasn't asset stripped us.
He's run us really incompetently, hence we've made massive losses which he's only partially recouped from player sales.
The rules need to be stricter. One look at what RD had done at any other club should have disqualified him.
But that's the point, he hasn't done much at all at Alcorcon, and he's built practically a whole new stadium at STVV and got them competing on the top tier of Belgian football. He also is part of a club that is building a new stand at their stadium and recently got promoted to the 3rd tier from the 4th, and used to own a team that regularly competed at the top of their national league in Standard Liege, whilst producing and selling good players. The test won't look at alienated fans etc. as why should it? Football fans are fickle as hell, look at the green and yellow protest that happened at Manure, or the constant crying of Arsenal fans, does that mean those owners would fail the test too?
If an owner is asset stripping and loading clubs with debt should they really be allowed to buy and continue to own a football club?
But he hasn't asset stripped us.
He's run us really incompetently, hence we've made massive losses which he's only partially recouped from player sales.
And this is why he is hated (in my opinion). If he had invested the money wisely in the club, we would at minimum still be in the championship.
I was willing, begrudgingly, to 'let it go' / 'move on' following the first transfer window debacle when they stated that they under-estimated the league and would learn from their mistakes. It is the fact that the ownership / management never learnt from their mistakes that is the problem. Money wasted on paying off poor purchases. Money wasted on paying off poor managers. If they had bought in a decent manager and given him the backing to create his own squad, and manage within the set budgets it could have all been different.
He isn't hated because of the relegation. He isn't hated because he stays away. He isn't hated because the club is in debt. He is hated because he is incompetent and will not show any humility and accept that he has been wrong with any of it.
The rules need to be stricter. One look at what RD had done at any other club should have disqualified him.
But that's the point, he hasn't done much at all at Alcorcon, and he's built practically a whole new stadium at STVV and got them competing on the top tier of Belgian football. He also is part of a club that is building a new stand at their stadium and recently got promoted to the 3rd tier from the 4th, and used to own a team that regularly competed at the top of their national league in Standard Liege, whilst producing and selling good players. The test won't look at alienated fans etc. as why should it? Football fans are fickle as hell, look at the green and yellow protest that happened at Manure, or the constant crying of Arsenal fans, does that mean those owners would fail the test too?
If an owner is asset stripping and loading clubs with debt should they really be allowed to buy and continue to own a football club?
But he hasn't asset stripped us.
He's run us really incompetently, hence we've made massive losses which he's only partially recouped from player sales.
And this is why he is hated (in my opinion). If he had invested the money wisely in the club, we would at minimum still be in the championship.
I was willing, begrudgingly, to 'let it go' / 'move on' following the first transfer window debacle when they stated that they under-estimated the league and would learn from their mistakes. It is the fact that the ownership / management never learnt from their mistakes that is the problem. Money wasted on paying off poor purchases. Money wasted on paying off poor managers. If they had bought in a decent manager and given him the backing to create his own squad, and manage within the set budgets it could have all been different.
He isn't hated because of the relegation. He isn't hated because he stays away. He isn't hated because the club is in debt. He is hated because he is incompetent and will not show any humility and accept that he has been wrong with any of it.
I agree with all of this. As a Charlton fan. From the point of view of the authorities though, massive incompetence is not their problem.
Comments
Even Cellino who initially failed it, then had it overturned on appeal.
A person shall be disqualified from acting as a director and no club shall be permitted to have any person acting as a director of that club if:
Either directly or indirectly he is involved in or has any power to determine or influence the management or administration of another club or Football League club
Either directly or indirectly he holds or acquires any Significant Interest in a club while he either directly or indirectly holds any interest in any class of shares of another club
He becomes prohibited by law from being a director
He is convicted on indictment of an offence set out in the Appendix 12 Schedule of Offences or he is convicted of a like offence by a competent court having jurisdiction outside England and Wales
He makes an Individual Voluntary Arrangement or becomes the subject of an Interim Bankruptcy Restriction Order, a Bankruptcy Restriction Order or a Bankruptcy Order
He is a director of a club which, while he has been a director of it, has suffered two or more unconnected events of insolvency
He has been a director of two or more clubs or clubs each of which, while he has been a director of them, has suffered an Event of Insolvency.
Schedule of offences:
Conspiracy to defraud: Criminal Justice Act 1987, section 12
Conspiracy to defraud: Common Law
Corrupt transactions with (public) agents, corruptly accepting consideration: Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, section 1
Insider dealing: Criminal Justice Act 1993, sections 52 and 61
Public servant soliciting or accepting a gift: Public Bodies (Corrupt Practices) Act 1889, section 1
Theft: Theft Act 1968, section 1
Obtaining by deception: Theft Act 1968, section 15
Obtaining a money transfer by deception: Theft Act 1968, section 15A + B
Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception: Theft Act 1968, section 16
False accounting: Theft Act 1968, section 17
False statements by Company Directors: Theft Act 1968, section 19
Suppression of (company) documents: Theft Act 1968, section 20
Retaining a wrongful credit: Theft Act 1968, section 24A
Obtaining services by deception: Theft Act 1978, section 1
Evasion of liability by deception: Theft Act 1978, section 2
Cheating the Public Revenue/Making false statements tending to defraud the public revenue: Common Law
Punishment for fraudulent training: Companies Act 1985, section 458
Penalty for fraudulent evasion of duty etc: Customs & Excise Management Act 1979, section 170
Fraudulent evasion of VAT: Value Added Tax Act 1994 section 72
Person subject to a Banning order (as defined) : Football (Disorder) Act 2000, Schedule 1
Forgery: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 1
Copying a false instrument : Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 2
Using a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 3
Using a copy of a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 4
Cheating the Public Revenue/ Making false statements tending to defraud the public revenue: Common Law
Punishment for fraudulent training: Companies Act 1985, section 458
Penalty for fraudulent evasion of duty etc: Customs & Excise Management Act 1979, section 170
Fraudulent evasion of VAT: Value Added Tax Act 1994, section 72
Person subject to a Banning order (as defined): Football (Disorder) Act 2000, Schedule 1
Forgery: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 1
Copying a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 2
Using a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 3
Using a copy of a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 4
It is of note that it's not called the fit and proper test at all, (you've just made that up). But the Owners and Directors Test. It does not measure a prospective owner's competencies. Even if it did, Roland would have passed I'm sure. Instead it lists "disqualifying conditions", like being a bankrupt, for example.
Not my opinion, that was taken from the FL Fit and Proper Person document.
teachers back was turnedFA wasn't lookingEven now, he'd pass. Tony Jimenez might find it harder though...
The test won't look at alienated fans etc. as why should it? Football fans are fickle as hell, look at the green and yellow protest that happened at Manure, or the constant crying of Arsenal fans, does that mean those owners would fail the test too?
Acting like a tosser and acting unlawfully are two entirely different things, unfortunately.
Just a few more million clawed back into his account from this little exersise
He's run us really incompetently, hence we've made massive losses which he's only partially recouped from player sales.
I was willing, begrudgingly, to 'let it go' / 'move on' following the first transfer window debacle when they stated that they under-estimated the league and would learn from their mistakes. It is the fact that the ownership / management never learnt from their mistakes that is the problem. Money wasted on paying off poor purchases. Money wasted on paying off poor managers. If they had bought in a decent manager and given him the backing to create his own squad, and manage within the set budgets it could have all been different.
He isn't hated because of the relegation. He isn't hated because he stays away. He isn't hated because the club is in debt. He is hated because he is incompetent and will not show any humility and accept that he has been wrong with any of it.