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

EFL Owners and Directors Test

North Lower NeilNorth Lower Neil
edited May 2017 in Other Football and Sports
What a joke that test is, Forest's new owner has past despite currently being investigated for match fixing in Greece.

He was previously accused of being involved in the bombing of a referee's bakery.

What do people have to do to fail the check?

What hope have clubs like us, Blackburn, Blackpool, Coventry, Orient got of getting help against poor owners when they are letting new owners like this?

Comments

  • Options
    cafcfancafcfan
    The clue is in how you have described him. Obviously, phrases like "investigated" or "accused" mean nothing. The test clearly says what the criteria are and that's the issue. It would be impossible to turn people down based on innuendo, rumour, or complaints without risking never-ending action in the civil courts. I could accuse you of bumming Donald Trump's dog. Wouldn't make it true and that's the dilemma.
  • Options
    cfgscfgs
    cafcfan said:

    The clue is in how you have described him. Obviously, phrases like "investigated" or "accused" mean nothing. The test clearly says what the criteria are and that's the issue. It would be impossible to turn people down based on innuendo, rumour, or complaints without risking never-ending action in the civil courts. I could accuse you of bumming Donald Trump's dog. Wouldn't make it true and that's the dilemma.

    True but the fact he is currently being investigated should exclude him from passing, if only for the embarrassment it would cause the idiots running the League if he is found guilty.
  • Options
    Kap10Kap10
    cafcfan said:

    The clue is in how you have described him. Obviously, phrases like "investigated" or "accused" mean nothing. The test clearly says what the criteria are and that's the issue. It would be impossible to turn people down based on innuendo, rumour, or complaints without risking never-ending action in the civil courts. I could accuse you of bumming Donald Trump's dog. Wouldn't make it true and that's the dilemma.

    Did he?
  • Options
    cafcfancafcfan
    cfgs said:

    cafcfan said:

    The clue is in how you have described him. Obviously, phrases like "investigated" or "accused" mean nothing. The test clearly says what the criteria are and that's the issue. It would be impossible to turn people down based on innuendo, rumour, or complaints without risking never-ending action in the civil courts. I could accuse you of bumming Donald Trump's dog. Wouldn't make it true and that's the dilemma.

    True but the fact he is currently being investigated should exclude him from passing, if only for the embarrassment it would cause the idiots running the League if he is found guilty.
    True. At the least, you'd have thought his consideration as an owner could have been suspended pending the outcome of the Greek investigations. I wonder whether the EFL have some info that we don't?
    Kap10 said:

    cafcfan said:

    The clue is in how you have described him. Obviously, phrases like "investigated" or "accused" mean nothing. The test clearly says what the criteria are and that's the issue. It would be impossible to turn people down based on innuendo, rumour, or complaints without risking never-ending action in the civil courts. I could accuse you of bumming Donald Trump's dog. Wouldn't make it true and that's the dilemma.

    Did he?
    No, not least because the dog in my hypothetical example doesn't exist. Trump's long-time friend* selected a "First Dog", a puppy Goldendoodle called Patton for him. Unfortunately, the deal fell through (like so much of what Donald attempts) because the puppy's owner couldn't bear to part with him. (And you can see why.)

    image

    Since, it seems The Donut has decided not to have a dog and is therefore the first president for 150 years without a pet.

    For some reason, I am reminded of the bit from The Simpsons Movie when Homer asks "Why Does Everything I Whip Leave Me?"

    *It is perhaps of note, in the light of all the fake news claims that the friend in question is the widow of the guy that founded The National Enquirer. This salacious rag was a strong supporter of Trump during the election campaign and ran various stories about his opponents while paying for the rights for but not running a story about Trump....

    Sorry, I know I've gone way off topic but it would be interesting to see what the EFL would have to say about his "insolvency matters" should the Trumpster ever apply to become an owner or director of a football club!
Sign In or Register to comment.

Roland Out Forever!