By this decision the Football league know there's something going seriously wrong but choose to ignore. Is it that they just can't do anything or they just don't want to?
Neither, they would not know what to do. if the decision involves anything other than "normal or slimline" in their G&T they are stumped. Old boys in suits nicking a living.
What can they realistically do? Duchatelet bought the club!
Agreed, I'm not sure what the Football League or FA can and should realistically do, in the case of a craply run football club. There's no fraud here or illegality.
I'd welcome the trophy to be yet again awarded to the visitors to the Valley. It would be a great reminder to our owner and management team what a club can achieve when it is run by capable human beings and not by a cabal of incompetents, failed lawyers, senile cretins and Judases.
I honestly think it's a sensible decision, and can understand it.
HOWEVER, I do think it's nonsense about doing it for us due to our relegation. I think the more obvious risks that the club are aiming to mitigate are:
(a) TV footage of Burnley celebrating to an empty stadium; or (b) TV footage of Burnley celebrating to protests in the background and anti-regime chants; or (c) The risk of TV footage of celebrations being unavailable due to a pitch invasion or similar.
From a policing point of view, it could be a safety nightmare vs Burnley as it is. If Burnley are champions then they're likely to attempt a Pitch Invasion, IF that happens then I think it's fair to say a lot of home fans would invade the pitch for their own reasons. This means we'd have two sets of opposition fans on the pitch and that particular situation would be very difficult to deal with. Emotions would be high with one set attempting to celebrate and the other full of - let's be blunt - absolute fucking rage at the shambles that is CAFC right now.
I think this also adds a lot of credibility to the apparent rumour that Katrien is advocating the match to be played behind closed doors.
I do agree though, that this is pretty telling that absolutely everyone right now is aware of how dire our plight is - The Club, The Police, The League, The Press.. and so on. Yet nothing is being done because it doesn't really affect the league until times like this, and that's a one off that they can mitigate by trying to silence us for 90 minutes. Well we wont be silenced.
By this decision the Football league know there's something going seriously wrong but choose to ignore. Is it that they just can't do anything or they just don't want to?
A combination of the both perhaps?
Arguably Roland is a "Fit and Proper" owner by their standards: a successful businessman and previous politician, with a clean background who is attempting to run the club using his own ideas of economical stability. When you phrase Roland's ownership like that he sounds like one of the greatest owners in the football league!
In reality we all know that isn't really the case, but I would surmise that even if The Football League could investigate him and take action.. they wouldn't want too. Why do it? Why set the precedent that fans can be listened too and that action will be taken when that's money and effort? Not to mention, if little ol' Charlton can manage it against a respected Belgian businessman, what could the likes of Leeds and Blackpool do against owners who - to be quite blunt - are more overtly devious and shady?
We all know the truth about Roland, but if you wanted to write a paragraph about him objectively then you could paint him out to be the honest grandfather figure who has your best interests at heart.
It's nonsense really. I don't really care that Burnley win the league, have a trophy celebration on our pitch or whatever. It's nothing to do with being 'considerate' to a relegated side at all, it's complete codswallop!
I'm very disappointed by this. I think it has more to do with the protests than being sensitive to our relegation.
On the basis that many football fans will never witness the League Title being awarded I would have thought that it was a nice thing to see it done at The Valley. Obviously this would not apply if it were a local rival but I, personally, was looking forward to the possibility of seeing the Football League Trophy at The Valley again.
It is a nonsense having it presented away from a football stadium and/or being presented after the season has finished. In this case they might as well not bother. just do it behind closed doors and put it on YouTube.
Terrible, terrible decision!
We saw it a year ago!
An awful lot more Burnley fans would see the presentation if they did it the next day back at their ground
Yes we did but that's not the point. If it had been at MK Dons would they have cancelled it just I case the Dons were too upset at going down? What about Bolton?
What about if the Premier League was won at a stadium where their club had been relegated?
It's the point that this is what they've always done, they are setting a terrible precident.
My only issue with the trophy being presented at the Valley is the trophy represents the highest award of an organisation that so far has made no attempt to address the concerns of Charlton fans or the fact that those running the club are clearly not fit to do so. Similar to how Man City fans boo the Champions League anthem, although admittedly their reasons for doing so are less sympathetic.
The point is the FL would be massively taking the piss if it was happy to use a club it has taken zero interest in assisting for the ceremony of its most important trophy.
What can they realistically do? Duchatelet bought the club!
Thinks there's plenty they could do. He's not doing anything against the rules technically but that doesn't mean they can't impose new rules. They already changed the rules on the number of loans a team can have from one club after Watford had about 40 from Udinese, for example. They should ban transfers between clubs with the same owner in my opinion especially where fees are involved. Owners should have to justify their actions when they sack managers and replace them with underqualfied idiots from the Belgian third division when there's plenty of good, qualified coaches here currently out of work. The whole offsetting losses and charging interest on the loans needs looking at. Maybe owners should have to provide the football league with a business plan and then be held to account when everything goes tits up.
What can they realistically do? Duchatelet bought the club!
Agreed, I'm not sure what the Football League or FA can and should realistically do, in the case of a craply run football club. There's no fraud here or illegality.
You're right, but it's not about what they should be doing now about Duchatelet, it's about what they should have been doing all along about the fitness of him and his like to have control of our clubs. As far as they are concerned, he's not a criminal and he's not a bankrupt so that makes him acceptable. For me things are very different. He does not care whether we win or not. That makes him unacceptable in a competitive league. He does not have a viable plan for managing the club. That makes him unacceptable. He does not attend matches. That indicates that he's unacceptable. His administration does not care about the fans, nor even understand the concept of fandom. That is unacceptable.
What can they realistically do? Duchatelet bought the club!
Agreed, I'm not sure what the Football League or FA can and should realistically do, in the case of a craply run football club. There's no fraud here or illegality.
You're right, but it's not about what they should be doing now about Duchatelet, it's about what they should have been doing all along about the fitness of him and his like to have control of our clubs. As far as they are concerned, he's not a criminal and he's not a bankrupt so that makes him acceptable. For me things are very different. He does not care whether we win or not. That makes him unacceptable in a competitive league. He does not have a viable plan for managing the club. That makes him unacceptable. He does not attend matches. That indicates that he's unacceptable. His administration does not care about the fans, nor even understand the concept of fandom. That is unacceptable.
I don't necessarily agree with all of your sub-points, but agree with your larger point. Lucky, Killer, and Mutley all bring up good points that at this point, what can the do? But the problem is that the standard to be an owner is that someone is not a criminal*, and that they're not bankrupt**.
On top of all this, Roland is putting a certain amount of capital into the club (in the form of loans, but still) that keeps it running. He could make the argument that he is the difference between us being in business and us not were he to turn off the faucet. And this is how surreal things have become. The entirety of the structure of club ownership in England desperately needs to be re-evaluated.
*ish, that one is negotiable
**But you can't be bankrupt if you never had the money in the first place (Notts County) or you don't exist (Portsmouth)
What can they realistically do? Duchatelet bought the club!
Agreed, I'm not sure what the Football League or FA can and should realistically do, in the case of a craply run football club. There's no fraud here or illegality.
You're right, but it's not about what they should be doing now about Duchatelet, it's about what they should have been doing all along about the fitness of him and his like to have control of our clubs. As far as they are concerned, he's not a criminal and he's not a bankrupt so that makes him acceptable. For me things are very different. He does not care whether we win or not. That makes him unacceptable in a competitive league. He does not have a viable plan for managing the club. That makes him unacceptable. He does not attend matches. That indicates that he's unacceptable. His administration does not care about the fans, nor even understand the concept of fandom. That is unacceptable.
I don't necessarily agree with all of your sub-points, but agree with your larger point. Lucky, Killer, and Mutley all bring up good points that at this point, what can the do? But the problem is that the standard to be an owner is that someone is not a criminal*, and that they're not bankrupt**.
On top of all this, Roland is putting a certain amount of capital into the club (in the form of loans, but still) that keeps it running. He could make the argument that he is the difference between us being in business and us not were he to turn off the faucet. And this is how surreal things have become. The entirety of the structure of club ownership in England desperately needs to be re-evaluated.
*ish, that one is negotiable
**But you can't be bankrupt if you never had the money in the first place (Notts County) or you don't exist (Portsmouth)
From the point of view of the FA (and I'm not saying I agree with the following)
We have a decent ground and pitch (no postponements unlike the shambles before RD took over) RD is financing our losses (which aren't a worry for FFP) He's not threatening to relocate us to another town, or rename us (e.g. Hull Tigers) RD isn't a criminal, or someone always in the media attacking referees or opponents We put out a full team every week - we've never had gaps on the bench We were poor this season, but not embarrassingly poor - 3 teams get relegated, shit happens We've had a succession of managers, and network players in the team - so have Watford, and they're in the PL We play lots of youth team players, and hope to sell them at a profit - that is a perfectly acceptable strategy if a club chooses to go down that path Terrible transfer deals - that happens, the PL is full of disastrous transfers
i.e. RD and KM being grossly incompetent or weird or pig headedly stubborn isn't in itself enough for the FA to get involved.
What can they realistically do? Duchatelet bought the club!
Agreed, I'm not sure what the Football League or FA can and should realistically do, in the case of a craply run football club. There's no fraud here or illegality.
You're right, but it's not about what they should be doing now about Duchatelet, it's about what they should have been doing all along about the fitness of him and his like to have control of our clubs. As far as they are concerned, he's not a criminal and he's not a bankrupt so that makes him acceptable. For me things are very different. He does not care whether we win or not. That makes him unacceptable in a competitive league. He does not have a viable plan for managing the club. That makes him unacceptable. He does not attend matches. That indicates that he's unacceptable. His administration does not care about the fans, nor even understand the concept of fandom. That is unacceptable.
I don't necessarily agree with all of your sub-points, but agree with your larger point. Lucky, Killer, and Mutley all bring up good points that at this point, what can the do? But the problem is that the standard to be an owner is that someone is not a criminal*, and that they're not bankrupt**.
On top of all this, Roland is putting a certain amount of capital into the club (in the form of loans, but still) that keeps it running. He could make the argument that he is the difference between us being in business and us not were he to turn off the faucet. And this is how surreal things have become. The entirety of the structure of club ownership in England desperately needs to be re-evaluated.
*ish, that one is negotiable
**But you can't be bankrupt if you never had the money in the first place (Notts County) or you don't exist (Portsmouth)
From the point of view of the FA (and I'm not saying I agree with the following)
We have a decent ground and pitch (no postponements unlike the shambles before RD took over) RD is financing our losses (which aren't a worry for FFP) He's not threatening to relocate us to another town, or rename us (e.g. Hull Tigers) RD isn't a criminal, or someone always in the media attacking referees or opponents We put out a full team every week - we've never had gaps on the bench We were poor this season, but not embarrassingly poor - 3 teams get relegated, shit happens We've had a succession of managers, and network players in the team - so have Watford, and they're in the PL We play lots of youth team players, and hope to sell them at a profit - that is a perfectly acceptable strategy if a club chooses to go down that path Terrible transfer deals - that happens, the PL is full of disastrous transfers
i.e. RD and KM being grossly incompetent or weird or pig headedly stubborn isn't in itself enough for the FA to get involved.
Agree with that.
A lot of rubbish gets spouted about the "fit and proper person" test like its some sort of silver bullet. It's not. It's just designed to stop criminal types laundering money and the like. Football has long been full of unsuccessful owners and fools and always will be. If the FA got rid of one they'd have to get rid of loads, and then who picks up the tab to keep the clubs afloat.
The FA won't be coming to our rescue, so just forget that.
What can they realistically do? Duchatelet bought the club!
Agreed, I'm not sure what the Football League or FA can and should realistically do, in the case of a craply run football club. There's no fraud here or illegality.
You're right, but it's not about what they should be doing now about Duchatelet, it's about what they should have been doing all along about the fitness of him and his like to have control of our clubs. As far as they are concerned, he's not a criminal and he's not a bankrupt so that makes him acceptable. For me things are very different. He does not care whether we win or not. That makes him unacceptable in a competitive league. He does not have a viable plan for managing the club. That makes him unacceptable. He does not attend matches. That indicates that he's unacceptable. His administration does not care about the fans, nor even understand the concept of fandom. That is unacceptable.
I don't necessarily agree with all of your sub-points, but agree with your larger point. Lucky, Killer, and Mutley all bring up good points that at this point, what can the do? But the problem is that the standard to be an owner is that someone is not a criminal*, and that they're not bankrupt**.
On top of all this, Roland is putting a certain amount of capital into the club (in the form of loans, but still) that keeps it running. He could make the argument that he is the difference between us being in business and us not were he to turn off the faucet. And this is how surreal things have become. The entirety of the structure of club ownership in England desperately needs to be re-evaluated.
*ish, that one is negotiable
**But you can't be bankrupt if you never had the money in the first place (Notts County) or you don't exist (Portsmouth)
From the point of view of the FA (and I'm not saying I agree with the following)
We have a decent ground and pitch (no postponements unlike the shambles before RD took over) RD is financing our losses (which aren't a worry for FFP) He's not threatening to relocate us to another town, or rename us (e.g. Hull Tigers) RD isn't a criminal, or someone always in the media attacking referees or opponents We put out a full team every week - we've never had gaps on the bench We were poor this season, but not embarrassingly poor - 3 teams get relegated, shit happens We've had a succession of managers, and network players in the team - so have Watford, and they're in the PL We play lots of youth team players, and hope to sell them at a profit - that is a perfectly acceptable strategy if a club chooses to go down that path Terrible transfer deals - that happens, the PL is full of disastrous transfers
i.e. RD and KM being grossly incompetent or weird or pig headedly stubborn isn't in itself enough for the FA to get involved.
Agree with that.
A lot of rubbish gets spouted about the "fit and proper person" test like its some sort of silver bullet. It's not. It's just designed to stop criminal types laundering money and the like. Football has long been full of unsuccessful owners and fools and always will be. If the FA got rid of one they'd have to get rid of loads, and then who picks up the tab to keep the clubs afloat.
The FA won't be coming to our rescue, so just forget that.
Sadly Mark Hulyer falls into this category, and his actions literally nearly killed the club
What can they realistically do? Duchatelet bought the club!
Agreed, I'm not sure what the Football League or FA can and should realistically do, in the case of a craply run football club. There's no fraud here or illegality.
You're right, but it's not about what they should be doing now about Duchatelet, it's about what they should have been doing all along about the fitness of him and his like to have control of our clubs. As far as they are concerned, he's not a criminal and he's not a bankrupt so that makes him acceptable. For me things are very different. He does not care whether we win or not. That makes him unacceptable in a competitive league. He does not have a viable plan for managing the club. That makes him unacceptable. He does not attend matches. That indicates that he's unacceptable. His administration does not care about the fans, nor even understand the concept of fandom. That is unacceptable.
I don't necessarily agree with all of your sub-points, but agree with your larger point. Lucky, Killer, and Mutley all bring up good points that at this point, what can the do? But the problem is that the standard to be an owner is that someone is not a criminal*, and that they're not bankrupt**.
On top of all this, Roland is putting a certain amount of capital into the club (in the form of loans, but still) that keeps it running. He could make the argument that he is the difference between us being in business and us not were he to turn off the faucet. And this is how surreal things have become. The entirety of the structure of club ownership in England desperately needs to be re-evaluated.
*ish, that one is negotiable
**But you can't be bankrupt if you never had the money in the first place (Notts County) or you don't exist (Portsmouth)
From the point of view of the FA (and I'm not saying I agree with the following)
We have a decent ground and pitch (no postponements unlike the shambles before RD took over) RD is financing our losses (which aren't a worry for FFP) He's not threatening to relocate us to another town, or rename us (e.g. Hull Tigers) RD isn't a criminal, or someone always in the media attacking referees or opponents We put out a full team every week - we've never had gaps on the bench We were poor this season, but not embarrassingly poor - 3 teams get relegated, shit happens We've had a succession of managers, and network players in the team - so have Watford, and they're in the PL We play lots of youth team players, and hope to sell them at a profit - that is a perfectly acceptable strategy if a club chooses to go down that path Terrible transfer deals - that happens, the PL is full of disastrous transfers
i.e. RD and KM being grossly incompetent or weird or pig headedly stubborn isn't in itself enough for the FA to get involved.
Agree with that.
A lot of rubbish gets spouted about the "fit and proper person" test like its some sort of silver bullet. It's not. It's just designed to stop criminal types laundering money and the like. Football has long been full of unsuccessful owners and fools and always will be. If the FA got rid of one they'd have to get rid of loads, and then who picks up the tab to keep the clubs afloat.
The FA won't be coming to our rescue, so just forget that.
But there is a world of difference between someone being unsuccessful at running a club because they just aren't as good at it as others (that's life), and someone being unsuccessful because they are not concerned with producing a winning team. How can anyone be fit to operate a football club, when they have no intention of taking competition seriously?
What can they realistically do? Duchatelet bought the club!
Agreed, I'm not sure what the Football League or FA can and should realistically do, in the case of a craply run football club. There's no fraud here or illegality.
You're right, but it's not about what they should be doing now about Duchatelet, it's about what they should have been doing all along about the fitness of him and his like to have control of our clubs. As far as they are concerned, he's not a criminal and he's not a bankrupt so that makes him acceptable. For me things are very different. He does not care whether we win or not. That makes him unacceptable in a competitive league. He does not have a viable plan for managing the club. That makes him unacceptable. He does not attend matches. That indicates that he's unacceptable. His administration does not care about the fans, nor even understand the concept of fandom. That is unacceptable.
I don't necessarily agree with all of your sub-points, but agree with your larger point. Lucky, Killer, and Mutley all bring up good points that at this point, what can the do? But the problem is that the standard to be an owner is that someone is not a criminal*, and that they're not bankrupt**.
On top of all this, Roland is putting a certain amount of capital into the club (in the form of loans, but still) that keeps it running. He could make the argument that he is the difference between us being in business and us not were he to turn off the faucet. And this is how surreal things have become. The entirety of the structure of club ownership in England desperately needs to be re-evaluated.
*ish, that one is negotiable
**But you can't be bankrupt if you never had the money in the first place (Notts County) or you don't exist (Portsmouth)
From the point of view of the FA (and I'm not saying I agree with the following)
We have a decent ground and pitch (no postponements unlike the shambles before RD took over) RD is financing our losses (which aren't a worry for FFP) He's not threatening to relocate us to another town, or rename us (e.g. Hull Tigers) RD isn't a criminal, or someone always in the media attacking referees or opponents We put out a full team every week - we've never had gaps on the bench We were poor this season, but not embarrassingly poor - 3 teams get relegated, shit happens We've had a succession of managers, and network players in the team - so have Watford, and they're in the PL We play lots of youth team players, and hope to sell them at a profit - that is a perfectly acceptable strategy if a club chooses to go down that path Terrible transfer deals - that happens, the PL is full of disastrous transfers
i.e. RD and KM being grossly incompetent or weird or pig headedly stubborn isn't in itself enough for the FA to get involved.
Agree with that.
A lot of rubbish gets spouted about the "fit and proper person" test like its some sort of silver bullet. It's not. It's just designed to stop criminal types laundering money and the like. Football has long been full of unsuccessful owners and fools and always will be. If the FA got rid of one they'd have to get rid of loads, and then who picks up the tab to keep the clubs afloat.
The FA won't be coming to our rescue, so just forget that.
But there is a world of difference between someone being unsuccessful at running a club because they just aren't as good at it as others (that's life), and someone being unsuccessful because they are not concerned with producing a winning team. How can anyone be fit to operate a football club, when they have no intention of taking competition seriously?
Absolutely. Whilst the FA may not care (after all U8 football is non-competitive), surely the FL can see they are taking the pi55 out of the league when its a matter of public record that (and I paraphrase) "Don't care about winning" RD "Not a club that is going to beat teams" KF "Reason people come to watch is to see stars before we sell them" KM
Surely this behaviour is akin to fielding a weakened team in a cup competition? To be part of a league, shouldn't we be trying to be competitive?
What can they realistically do? Duchatelet bought the club!
Agreed, I'm not sure what the Football League or FA can and should realistically do, in the case of a craply run football club. There's no fraud here or illegality.
You're right, but it's not about what they should be doing now about Duchatelet, it's about what they should have been doing all along about the fitness of him and his like to have control of our clubs. As far as they are concerned, he's not a criminal and he's not a bankrupt so that makes him acceptable. For me things are very different. He does not care whether we win or not. That makes him unacceptable in a competitive league. He does not have a viable plan for managing the club. That makes him unacceptable. He does not attend matches. That indicates that he's unacceptable. His administration does not care about the fans, nor even understand the concept of fandom. That is unacceptable.
I don't necessarily agree with all of your sub-points, but agree with your larger point. Lucky, Killer, and Mutley all bring up good points that at this point, what can the do? But the problem is that the standard to be an owner is that someone is not a criminal*, and that they're not bankrupt**.
On top of all this, Roland is putting a certain amount of capital into the club (in the form of loans, but still) that keeps it running. He could make the argument that he is the difference between us being in business and us not were he to turn off the faucet. And this is how surreal things have become. The entirety of the structure of club ownership in England desperately needs to be re-evaluated.
*ish, that one is negotiable
**But you can't be bankrupt if you never had the money in the first place (Notts County) or you don't exist (Portsmouth)
From the point of view of the FA (and I'm not saying I agree with the following)
We have a decent ground and pitch (no postponements unlike the shambles before RD took over) RD is financing our losses (which aren't a worry for FFP) He's not threatening to relocate us to another town, or rename us (e.g. Hull Tigers) RD isn't a criminal, or someone always in the media attacking referees or opponents We put out a full team every week - we've never had gaps on the bench We were poor this season, but not embarrassingly poor - 3 teams get relegated, shit happens We've had a succession of managers, and network players in the team - so have Watford, and they're in the PL We play lots of youth team players, and hope to sell them at a profit - that is a perfectly acceptable strategy if a club chooses to go down that path Terrible transfer deals - that happens, the PL is full of disastrous transfers
i.e. RD and KM being grossly incompetent or weird or pig headedly stubborn isn't in itself enough for the FA to get involved.
Agree with that.
A lot of rubbish gets spouted about the "fit and proper person" test like its some sort of silver bullet. It's not. It's just designed to stop criminal types laundering money and the like. Football has long been full of unsuccessful owners and fools and always will be. If the FA got rid of one they'd have to get rid of loads, and then who picks up the tab to keep the clubs afloat.
The FA won't be coming to our rescue, so just forget that.
But there is a world of difference between someone being unsuccessful at running a club because they just aren't as good at it as others (that's life), and someone being unsuccessful because they are not concerned with producing a winning team. How can anyone be fit to operate a football club, when they have no intention of taking competition seriously?
Absolutely. Whilst the FA may not care (after all U8 football is non-competitive), surely the FL can see they are taking the pi55 out of the league when its a matter of public record that (and I paraphrase) "Don't care about winning" RD "Not a club that is going to beat teams" KF "Reason people come to watch is to see stars before we sell them" KM
Surely this behaviour is akin to fielding a weakened team in a cup competition? To be part of a league, shouldn't we be trying to be competitive?
But then we have won games, and the panic transfers in February show that they want to team to win more matches. You wouldn't bring in the likes of Sanogo, Motta, Yun and Fanni if you had no interest in a winning team. That's what the FA will see
Comments
HOWEVER, I do think it's nonsense about doing it for us due to our relegation. I think the more obvious risks that the club are aiming to mitigate are:
(a) TV footage of Burnley celebrating to an empty stadium; or
(b) TV footage of Burnley celebrating to protests in the background and anti-regime chants; or
(c) The risk of TV footage of celebrations being unavailable due to a pitch invasion or similar.
From a policing point of view, it could be a safety nightmare vs Burnley as it is. If Burnley are champions then they're likely to attempt a Pitch Invasion, IF that happens then I think it's fair to say a lot of home fans would invade the pitch for their own reasons. This means we'd have two sets of opposition fans on the pitch and that particular situation would be very difficult to deal with. Emotions would be high with one set attempting to celebrate and the other full of - let's be blunt - absolute fucking rage at the shambles that is CAFC right now.
I think this also adds a lot of credibility to the apparent rumour that Katrien is advocating the match to be played behind closed doors.
I do agree though, that this is pretty telling that absolutely everyone right now is aware of how dire our plight is - The Club, The Police, The League, The Press.. and so on. Yet nothing is being done because it doesn't really affect the league until times like this, and that's a one off that they can mitigate by trying to silence us for 90 minutes. Well we wont be silenced.
Arguably Roland is a "Fit and Proper" owner by their standards: a successful businessman and previous politician, with a clean background who is attempting to run the club using his own ideas of economical stability. When you phrase Roland's ownership like that he sounds like one of the greatest owners in the football league!
In reality we all know that isn't really the case, but I would surmise that even if The Football League could investigate him and take action.. they wouldn't want too. Why do it? Why set the precedent that fans can be listened too and that action will be taken when that's money and effort? Not to mention, if little ol' Charlton can manage it against a respected Belgian businessman, what could the likes of Leeds and Blackpool do against owners who - to be quite blunt - are more overtly devious and shady?
We all know the truth about Roland, but if you wanted to write a paragraph about him objectively then you could paint him out to be the honest grandfather figure who has your best interests at heart.
Especially as it would last 45 minutes
What about if the Premier League was won at a stadium where their club had been relegated?
It's the point that this is what they've always done, they are setting a terrible precident.
The point is the FL would be massively taking the piss if it was happy to use a club it has taken zero interest in assisting for the ceremony of its most important trophy.
Maybe owners should have to provide the football league with a business plan and then be held to account when everything goes tits up.
On top of all this, Roland is putting a certain amount of capital into the club (in the form of loans, but still) that keeps it running. He could make the argument that he is the difference between us being in business and us not were he to turn off the faucet. And this is how surreal things have become. The entirety of the structure of club ownership in England desperately needs to be re-evaluated.
*ish, that one is negotiable
**But you can't be bankrupt if you never had the money in the first place (Notts County) or you don't exist (Portsmouth)
We have a decent ground and pitch (no postponements unlike the shambles before RD took over)
RD is financing our losses (which aren't a worry for FFP)
He's not threatening to relocate us to another town, or rename us (e.g. Hull Tigers)
RD isn't a criminal, or someone always in the media attacking referees or opponents
We put out a full team every week - we've never had gaps on the bench
We were poor this season, but not embarrassingly poor - 3 teams get relegated, shit happens
We've had a succession of managers, and network players in the team - so have Watford, and they're in the PL
We play lots of youth team players, and hope to sell them at a profit - that is a perfectly acceptable strategy if a club chooses to go down that path
Terrible transfer deals - that happens, the PL is full of disastrous transfers
i.e. RD and KM being grossly incompetent or weird or pig headedly stubborn isn't in itself enough for the FA to get involved.
A lot of rubbish gets spouted about the "fit and proper person" test like its some sort of silver bullet. It's not. It's just designed to stop criminal types laundering money and the like. Football has long been full of unsuccessful owners and fools and always will be. If the FA got rid of one they'd have to get rid of loads, and then who picks up the tab to keep the clubs afloat.
The FA won't be coming to our rescue, so just forget that.
"Don't care about winning" RD
"Not a club that is going to beat teams" KF
"Reason people come to watch is to see stars before we sell them" KM
Surely this behaviour is akin to fielding a weakened team in a cup competition? To be part of a league, shouldn't we be trying to be competitive?
That's what the FA will see