Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.

Trust seeks takeover clarity from EFL

In the ongoing saga of Roland Duchatelet’s supposed sale of the Club, the role of the English Football League (EFL) has come under increasing scrutiny by frustrated fans.

Read more including our letter to the EFL here: https://castrust.org/2018/08/cast-seeks-takeover-clarity-from-efl/
«134

Comments

  • Thank God for EFL's fit and proper owner test, or we might get saddled with a totally inappropriate owner.

    Good to know they're protecting us from this sort of thing.

    On a seriousness note, agreed, this is what CAST should be doing.
  • Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.

    I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.
  • About a year and a half too late but well done.
  • Stig said:

    Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.

    I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.

    The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.

    The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.

  • Stig said:

    Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.

    I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.

    The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.

    The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.

    But only after a board member has publicly called that message "utterly poisonous".
  • Stig said:

    Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.

    I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.

    The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.

    The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.

    But only after a board member has publicly called that message "utterly poisonous".
    Where?
  • Sponsored links:


  • Stig said:

    Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.

    I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.

    The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.

    The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.

    But only after a board member has publicly called that message "utterly poisonous".
    Where?
    CAST need to act thread
  • Oh stop digging out guys for gawd sake

    No. I praised this letter on the other thread but Stig makes a valid point
  • Stig said:

    Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.

    I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.

    The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.

    The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.

    Prague, has it been established how long an EFL club is allowed to continue with no manager/coach, no CEO and no FD ?
    Especially, with an absent owner in a foreign country who has admitted he gives the club a minimal amount of his time ?

    Perhaps, these could be the next questions to put to the EFL ?

    Is RD putting this club into disrepute & with it the EFL ?
    Good call.
  • edited August 9

    Stig said:

    Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.

    I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.

    The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.

    The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.

    Prague, has it been established how long an EFL club is allowed to continue with no manager/coach, no CEO and no FD ?
    Especially, with an absent owner in a foreign country who has admitted he gives the club a minimal amount of his time ?

    Perhaps, these could be the next questions to put to the EFL ?

    Is RD putting this club into disrepute & with it the EFL ?

    It is almost certainly beyond doubt that the executive committee of the EFL are useless.

    However, what on earth could they possibly do if the club is fulfilling its fixtures - disrepute or otherwise? They can't sanction the legal owner by for example a compulsory purchase of the club - all they could do is either fine the club or expel it from the league, or the realistic option for them to keep whispering 'tut tut' and go then back to complete ineffectiveness.

    In legal terms a limited company needs a minimum of one director - there is no statutory requirement to have a CEO, CFO, COO or even a burger boy like Tony Big Bollox.
  • Well done CAST, took your time
  • Great questions from CAST in that letter - no confidential info needs to be breached to answer them as far as I can see, and there is the potential there (if they deign to answer them) to smoke out any fibs we could have potentially been fed as well - eg they answer that there is no hold up at their end... What a can of worms that would open up!!

    Great work.
  • Stig said:

    Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.

    I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.

    That thread was started by @Lancashire lad, not @addickupnorth, just to be clear.
  • A great letter, good work by The Trust.

    I have a feeling the reply will be less impressive
  • Sponsored links:


  • Stig said:

    Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.

    I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.

    That thread was started by @Lancashire lad, not @addickupnorth, just to be clear.
    Simple mistake to make as both usernames are north of Watford although the former isn't domiciled there any longer. Doesn't make @Stig a bad person. :wink:
  • Stig said:

    Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.

    I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.

    The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.

    The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.

    Prague, has it been established how long an EFL club is allowed to continue with no manager/coach, no CEO and no FD ?
    Especially, with an absent owner in a foreign country who has admitted he gives the club a minimal amount of his time ?

    Perhaps, these could be the next questions to put to the EFL ?

    Is RD putting this club into disrepute & with it the EFL ?
    the EFL don't really care about anything so long as it fulfils its fixtures.
    And there ladies and gentlemen, is the bottom line.

    Want to get the EFL involved? It is quite clear what action is required.

    And I've got to the stage where I really don't care what sanctions are imposed as a result, as long as the objective is achieved.

  • Stig said:

    Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.

    I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.

    That thread was started by @Lancashire lad, not @addickupnorth, just to be clear.
    Oops. Sorry. Thanks for putting me straight on that Weegie. I'm claiming RedChasers line of defence :wink:
  • Addickted said:

    Stig said:

    Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.

    I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.

    The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.

    The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.

    Prague, has it been established how long an EFL club is allowed to continue with no manager/coach, no CEO and no FD ?
    Especially, with an absent owner in a foreign country who has admitted he gives the club a minimal amount of his time ?

    Perhaps, these could be the next questions to put to the EFL ?

    Is RD putting this club into disrepute & with it the EFL ?
    the EFL don't really care about anything so long as it fulfils its fixtures.
    And there ladies and gentlemen, is the bottom line.

    Want to get the EFL involved? It is quite clear what action is required.

    And I've got to the stage where I really don't care what sanctions are imposed as a result, as long as the objective is achieved.

    Then there’s the answer ON THE PITCH and stop the game from taking place

    Week in week out
    No ifs, no buts, no maybes. :open_mouth:
  • Addickted said:

    Stig said:

    Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.

    I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.

    The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.

    The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.

    Prague, has it been established how long an EFL club is allowed to continue with no manager/coach, no CEO and no FD ?
    Especially, with an absent owner in a foreign country who has admitted he gives the club a minimal amount of his time ?

    Perhaps, these could be the next questions to put to the EFL ?

    Is RD putting this club into disrepute & with it the EFL ?
    the EFL don't really care about anything so long as it fulfils its fixtures.
    And there ladies and gentlemen, is the bottom line.

    Want to get the EFL involved? It is quite clear what action is required.

    And I've got to the stage where I really don't care what sanctions are imposed as a result, as long as the objective is achieved.

    Then there’s the answer ON THE PITCH and stop the game from taking place

    Week in week out
    “ no ifs no buts”
  • You snooze @se9addick you lose. :wink:
  • Addickted said:

    Stig said:

    Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.

    I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.

    The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.

    The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.

    Prague, has it been established how long an EFL club is allowed to continue with no manager/coach, no CEO and no FD ?
    Especially, with an absent owner in a foreign country who has admitted he gives the club a minimal amount of his time ?

    Perhaps, these could be the next questions to put to the EFL ?

    Is RD putting this club into disrepute & with it the EFL ?
    the EFL don't really care about anything so long as it fulfils its fixtures.
    And there ladies and gentlemen, is the bottom line.

    Want to get the EFL involved? It is quite clear what action is required.

    And I've got to the stage where I really don't care what sanctions are imposed as a result, as long as the objective is achieved.

    Then there’s the answer ON THE PITCH and stop the game from taking place

    Week in week out
    I'm sure there are far more subtle ways than that.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out!