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

Trust seeks takeover clarity from EFL

124»

Comments

  • bobmunro said:

    Having emailed the EFL on the same subject earlier in the week I have received the reply below;

    Thank you for your email, we note your comments.

    Generally speaking the EFL works with all its member Clubs in respect to the application of our regulations.

    The EFL’s Owners’ and Directors’ Test (OADT) determines the eligibility of individuals that are involved in the ownership, management and administration of a club. The ODT is entirely objective in its approach and action cannot be taken against individuals based on subjective judgement. Instead the OADT criteria is constantly applied in that, should an owner or relevant person fall foul of any of the objective requirements of the test, then this would impact on their ability to retain their position. The OADT can be read in Appendix III http://www.efl.com/global/appendix3.aspx.

    In this respect the EFL will act should it be aware of any matter which breaches the regulations defined within the test.



    Thank you for contacting the EFL.



    Regards,



    Jessica Crook

    Supporter Services Department

    EFL

    EFL email signature2016-EFLHouse-HR500


    What a load of corporate blks.
    I fear the trust will get a similar reply.

    I wonder if there are any references in any EFL documents about the running of a club & what is accecptable or neccesary even....

    ie, No CEO or Management structure. How long can RD continue running it like a cheap hotel ?? I bet you couldn't get into the league without anything in place. seems like once you've been accepted you can do as you please.....as long as you don't buy the players a burger after a match of course.
    The fit and proper tests are based on financial integrity, not competence to run a football club.

    As long as the club is able to meet it's financial obligations as and when they fall due and can fulfill the fixtures then what on earth do you expect the EFL to do? What sanctions could they hand down to a privately owned company that has not, as far as I know, broken any laws, or indeed any rules of the EFL.



    I don’t disagree with you based on the status quo, but the private company’s ability to trade in this case depends on its membership of the EFL, so the EFL could set minimum standards for governance - and in fact does so already. The issue is whether they could usefully be made more robust.

    For example the league could set minimum standards for business management as the FA does in respect of academy staffing, which is highly prescriptive. A functioning board of directors and identified and publicly accountable executives ought to be a possible requirement. I’d imagine the Charlton “board” has met once a year, remotely, to approve the accounts since 2014.

  • bobmunro said:

    Having emailed the EFL on the same subject earlier in the week I have received the reply below;

    Thank you for your email, we note your comments.

    Generally speaking the EFL works with all its member Clubs in respect to the application of our regulations.

    The EFL’s Owners’ and Directors’ Test (OADT) determines the eligibility of individuals that are involved in the ownership, management and administration of a club. The ODT is entirely objective in its approach and action cannot be taken against individuals based on subjective judgement. Instead the OADT criteria is constantly applied in that, should an owner or relevant person fall foul of any of the objective requirements of the test, then this would impact on their ability to retain their position. The OADT can be read in Appendix III http://www.efl.com/global/appendix3.aspx.

    In this respect the EFL will act should it be aware of any matter which breaches the regulations defined within the test.



    Thank you for contacting the EFL.



    Regards,



    Jessica Crook

    Supporter Services Department

    EFL

    EFL email signature2016-EFLHouse-HR500


    What a load of corporate blks.
    I fear the trust will get a similar reply.

    I wonder if there are any references in any EFL documents about the running of a club & what is accecptable or neccesary even....

    ie, No CEO or Management structure. How long can RD continue running it like a cheap hotel ?? I bet you couldn't get into the league without anything in place. seems like once you've been accepted you can do as you please.....as long as you don't buy the players a burger after a match of course.
    The fit and proper tests are based on financial integrity, not competence to run a football club.

    As long as the club is able to meet it's financial obligations as and when they fall due and can fulfill the fixtures then what on earth do you expect the EFL to do? What sanctions could they hand down to a privately owned company that has not, as far as I know, broken any laws, or indeed any rules of the EFL.



    I don’t disagree with you based on the status quo, but the private company’s ability to trade in this case depends on its membership of the EFL, so the EFL could set minimum standards for governance - and in fact does so already. The issue is whether they could usefully be made more robust.

    For example the league could set minimum standards for business management as the FA does in respect of academy staffing, which is highly prescriptive. A functioning board of directors and identified and publicly accountable executives ought to be a possible requirement. I’d imagine the Charlton “board” has met once a year, remotely, to approve the accounts since 2014.

    Academy staffing is more about securing EPPP and Cat 1 status, and of course education and safeguarding responsibilities. Been there, done it, bought (but don't wear) the t-shirt.

    Yes what you suggest would be great, Rick - but it crosses the line into Company law. For a private company the law states, as I'm sure you know, a minimum of one director and no statutory requirement to hold board meetings.
  • bobmunro said:

    bobmunro said:

    Having emailed the EFL on the same subject earlier in the week I have received the reply below;

    Thank you for your email, we note your comments.

    Generally speaking the EFL works with all its member Clubs in respect to the application of our regulations.

    The EFL’s Owners’ and Directors’ Test (OADT) determines the eligibility of individuals that are involved in the ownership, management and administration of a club. The ODT is entirely objective in its approach and action cannot be taken against individuals based on subjective judgement. Instead the OADT criteria is constantly applied in that, should an owner or relevant person fall foul of any of the objective requirements of the test, then this would impact on their ability to retain their position. The OADT can be read in Appendix III http://www.efl.com/global/appendix3.aspx.

    In this respect the EFL will act should it be aware of any matter which breaches the regulations defined within the test.



    Thank you for contacting the EFL.



    Regards,



    Jessica Crook

    Supporter Services Department

    EFL

    EFL email signature2016-EFLHouse-HR500


    What a load of corporate blks.
    I fear the trust will get a similar reply.

    I wonder if there are any references in any EFL documents about the running of a club & what is accecptable or neccesary even....

    ie, No CEO or Management structure. How long can RD continue running it like a cheap hotel ?? I bet you couldn't get into the league without anything in place. seems like once you've been accepted you can do as you please.....as long as you don't buy the players a burger after a match of course.
    The fit and proper tests are based on financial integrity, not competence to run a football club.

    As long as the club is able to meet it's financial obligations as and when they fall due and can fulfill the fixtures then what on earth do you expect the EFL to do? What sanctions could they hand down to a privately owned company that has not, as far as I know, broken any laws, or indeed any rules of the EFL.



    I don’t disagree with you based on the status quo, but the private company’s ability to trade in this case depends on its membership of the EFL, so the EFL could set minimum standards for governance - and in fact does so already. The issue is whether they could usefully be made more robust.

    For example the league could set minimum standards for business management as the FA does in respect of academy staffing, which is highly prescriptive. A functioning board of directors and identified and publicly accountable executives ought to be a possible requirement. I’d imagine the Charlton “board” has met once a year, remotely, to approve the accounts since 2014.

    Academy staffing is more about securing EPPP and Cat 1 status, and of course education and safeguarding responsibilities. Been there, done it, bought (but don't wear) the t-shirt.

    Yes what you suggest would be great, Rick - but it crosses the line into Company law. For a private company the law states, as I'm sure you know, a minimum of one director and no statutory requirement to hold board meetings.
    It might be the law, but the EFL could have in its Articles of Association or "Rules of Being a Member" that any league club should have, at least, 1 board member that is effectively running the business "hands on"....ie, is in the actual country the league is in & is actively dealing with running the business on a day-to-day basis.

    As I said in my original post, I doubt whether anything exists..........but I bet there is something if, when Salford got promoted, it was run by a bloke in Belgium with no other significant employee in the UK doing anything.
  • The first small step may be made evident at Accrington.
  • edited August 2018

    JamesSeed said:

    What's happening now then?

    Could the trust not get the club to agree to at least one meeting with the hierarchy a month to get an understanding of where we are with this takeover? Or what the contingency plan is each month it rumbles on without happening?

    I think the problem is they can only update you with details that aren’t covered by their pesky NDAs and confidentially clauses.
    But what is the NDA covering ?? We know the club is up for sale & we know its an Australian Consortium thats trying to buy it.

    We're not asking about the price or any sensitive information, simply what the fuck is going on. Surely one side or the other (preferably both) can give an update & why its taking so long. We all know about the ex-director loans too....so if they're the problem then say so.Thats why I think theres more to it.
    That’s exactly what they can’t discuss. Pain isn’t it.
  • JamesSeed said:

    JamesSeed said:

    What's happening now then?

    Could the trust not get the club to agree to at least one meeting with the hierarchy a month to get an understanding of where we are with this takeover? Or what the contingency plan is each month it rumbles on without happening?

    I think the problem is they can only update you with details that aren’t covered by their pesky NDAs and confidentially clauses.
    But what is the NDA covering ?? We know the club is up for sale & we know its an Australian Consortium thats trying to buy it.

    We're not asking about the price or any sensitive information, simply what the fuck is going on. Surely one side or the other (preferably both) can give an update & why its taking so long. We all know about the ex-director loans too....so if they're the problem then say so.Thats why I think theres more to it.
    That’s exactly what they can’t discuss. Pain isn’t it.
    The problem is a lot of the information you regurgitate on here like 'It's still on' or 'next two weeks will be important' yada yada is misleading.
    It makes it sound like the two parties are in sync and are desperately thrashing around to get this over the line when it clearly isn't the case anymore,maybe never has been.

    The house buying analogy gets used often enough I know.
    I might be interested in buying a certain house. The owner of the house has it up for sale. I've made a little tentative offer. They have rebuffed it. And that's where its at. No estate agents, solicitors,surveyors standing in the way. Just two groups that have drawn their lines and neither is prepared to cross them.

    Gerard Murphy saying 'It's Still on' is a nonsense. What he really should be saying is 'we'll still be here if the old scroat ever changes his mind.'

  • edited August 2018

    JamesSeed said:

    JamesSeed said:

    What's happening now then?

    Could the trust not get the club to agree to at least one meeting with the hierarchy a month to get an understanding of where we are with this takeover? Or what the contingency plan is each month it rumbles on without happening?

    I think the problem is they can only update you with details that aren’t covered by their pesky NDAs and confidentially clauses.
    But what is the NDA covering ?? We know the club is up for sale & we know its an Australian Consortium thats trying to buy it.

    We're not asking about the price or any sensitive information, simply what the fuck is going on. Surely one side or the other (preferably both) can give an update & why its taking so long. We all know about the ex-director loans too....so if they're the problem then say so.Thats why I think theres more to it.
    That’s exactly what they can’t discuss. Pain isn’t it.
    The problem is a lot of the information you regurgitate on here like 'It's still on' or 'next two weeks will be important' yada yada is misleading.
    It makes it sound like the two parties are in sync and are desperately thrashing around to get this over the line when it clearly isn't the case anymore,maybe never has been.

    The house buying analogy gets used often enough I know.
    I might be interested in buying a certain house. The owner of the house has it up for sale. I've made a little tentative offer. They have rebuffed it. And that's where its at. No estate agents, solicitors,surveyors standing in the way. Just two groups that have drawn their lines and neither is prepared to cross them.

    Gerard Murphy saying 'It's Still on' is a nonsense. What he really should be saying is 'we'll still be here if the old scroat ever changes his mind.'

    Regurgitate is a pejorative term in this context.

    Regardless, your first two paragraphs don’t really add up. You’re reading too much into it.

    Your last sentence I partially agree with, but isn’t it ‘scrote’?
  • Stig said:

    Is there any truth in the rumour that Two Shats was not vetted by the league because the spivs had to go to court for reasons related to ownership that were potentially more embarrassing to the league and they were therefore keen to allow a quick takeover?

    I suppose it is possible that in those circumstances vetting might have been less rigorous than normal. After all Duchatelet had already been accepted by the authorities in Belgium (twice) and Germany. But since Roland has not, as far as I'm aware, ever been declared bankrupt, or similar, I'm not sure that under their narrow definition of fit and proper it would have made much difference.

    I think they had already cleared him before the third party ownership allegations were made, as outlined in another thread.

    I think the Trust has it right, in that there is probably little the EFL can do, even if the will was there, under their present rules, except maybe writing RD a stiff letter asking him to explain the situation. It will take ages, but the thing to get changed is the rules themselves. That may protect us and other clubs in the future.
  • JamesSeed said:

    JamesSeed said:

    What's happening now then?

    Could the trust not get the club to agree to at least one meeting with the hierarchy a month to get an understanding of where we are with this takeover? Or what the contingency plan is each month it rumbles on without happening?

    I think the problem is they can only update you with details that aren’t covered by their pesky NDAs and confidentially clauses.
    But what is the NDA covering ?? We know the club is up for sale & we know its an Australian Consortium thats trying to buy it.

    We're not asking about the price or any sensitive information, simply what the fuck is going on. Surely one side or the other (preferably both) can give an update & why its taking so long. We all know about the ex-director loans too....so if they're the problem then say so.Thats why I think theres more to it.
    That’s exactly what they can’t discuss. Pain isn’t it.
    The problem is a lot of the information you regurgitate on here like 'It's still on' or 'next two weeks will be important' yada yada is misleading.
    It makes it sound like the two parties are in sync and are desperately thrashing around to get this over the line when it clearly isn't the case anymore,maybe never has been.

    The house buying analogy gets used often enough I know.
    I might be interested in buying a certain house. The owner of the house has it up for sale. I've made a little tentative offer. They have rebuffed it. And that's where its at. No estate agents, solicitors,surveyors standing in the way. Just two groups that have drawn their lines and neither is prepared to cross them.

    Gerard Murphy saying 'It's Still on' is a nonsense. What he really should be saying is 'we'll still be here if the old scroat ever changes his mind.'

    What are your sources saying then?
  • Sponsored links:


  • Thank you for your email, we appreciate you getting in touch.

    While we note your comments, unfortunately the EFL’s policy is not to comment on any speculation or any alleged takeovers which may involve any of our 72 member clubs, to protect their interests, nor is there a set duration/timescale in respect of any prospective Club takeover.

    I take it that is a reply to you, mate?

    Fine, good to know and log.

    If anyone else gets replies to emails from them, please share here too.

    "Protect their interests".....

    Yes. I wrote them when the initial rumour came out. Doubt Trust will get any more.
    Thanks

    Also good to know how long it took for them to respond
    Next day, so perhaps CAST will fare better.
    Really, they replied in 24 hours? What about yours, @willieduff , how long did they take?

    Thanks

    Thank you for your email, we appreciate you getting in touch.

    While we note your comments, unfortunately the EFL’s policy is not to comment on any speculation or any alleged takeovers which may involve any of our 72 member clubs, to protect their interests, nor is there a set duration/timescale in respect of any prospective Club takeover.

    I take it that is a reply to you, mate?

    Fine, good to know and log.

    If anyone else gets replies to emails from them, please share here too.

    "Protect their interests".....

    Yes. I wrote them when the initial rumour came out. Doubt Trust will get any more.
    Thanks

    Also good to know how long it took for them to respond
    Next day, so perhaps CAST will fare better.
    Really, they replied in 24 hours? What about yours, @willieduff , how long did they take?

    Thanks

    Thank you for your email, we appreciate you getting in touch.

    While we note your comments, unfortunately the EFL’s policy is not to comment on any speculation or any alleged takeovers which may involve any of our 72 member clubs, to protect their interests, nor is there a set duration/timescale in respect of any prospective Club takeover.

    I take it that is a reply to you, mate?

    Fine, good to know and log.

    If anyone else gets replies to emails from them, please share here too.

    "Protect their interests".....

    Yes. I wrote them when the initial rumour came out. Doubt Trust will get any more.
    Thanks

    Also good to know how long it took for them to respond
    Next day, so perhaps CAST will fare better.
    Really, they replied in 24 hours? What about yours, @willieduff , how long did they take?

    Thanks

    Three days
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!