Not quite sure i understand the Bury situation. They obviously have players and can play the fixture, as they've been playing pre-season friendlies. They won at Port Vale at the weekend.
But the EFL call the game off.
Meanwhile owner Steve Dale has still not satisfied the League, according to its rules, that he has the money to run the club, which he bought for £1 in December.
So from that we can safely assume that the EFL didn't do any proper checks.
Now the EFL announce that Bury will face a disciplinary committee for failing to fulfil a fixture.
Another job well done by the EFL.
It's alright though because MK Dons will have their full name in the programme at Wimbledon this year. Shambles.
Whats the point you're trying to make here? making a club respect the name of an opponent is a shambles?
The point is instead of focussing on important matters like poor ownership, they EFL are more bothered by trivial matters
They are aren't they? looks like they are trying everything they can to help these 2 clubs. What is it they aren't doing you think they should do?
Preventing this in the 1st place.
Its not just these is it.
Look at us, Coventry, Blackpool, Hull and Notts County plus others.
The fit and proper person test is not fit for business.
The EFL should be preventing this kind of thing before it happens, not wait till it happens then say oh maybe we should try and help, because chances are its to late by then
Not quite sure i understand the Bury situation. They obviously have players and can play the fixture, as they've been playing pre-season friendlies. They won at Port Vale at the weekend.
But the EFL call the game off.
Meanwhile owner Steve Dale has still not satisfied the League, according to its rules, that he has the money to run the club, which he bought for £1 in December.
So from that we can safely assume that the EFL didn't do any proper checks.
Now the EFL announce that Bury will face a disciplinary committee for failing to fulfil a fixture.
Another job well done by the EFL.
It's alright though because MK Dons will have their full name in the programme at Wimbledon this year. Shambles.
Whats the point you're trying to make here? making a club respect the name of an opponent is a shambles?
The point is instead of focussing on important matters like poor ownership, they EFL are more bothered by trivial matters
They are aren't they? looks like they are trying everything they can to help these 2 clubs. What is it they aren't doing you think they should do?
Paulie has answered perfectly, but you knew that was the point I was trying to make anyway.
They allowed this chancer to buy Bury in the first place, letting him bypass the Fit and Proper person test in the process. They're now punishing the club for their oversight, it's a disgrace.
Not quite sure i understand the Bury situation. They obviously have players and can play the fixture, as they've been playing pre-season friendlies. They won at Port Vale at the weekend.
But the EFL call the game off.
Meanwhile owner Steve Dale has still not satisfied the League, according to its rules, that he has the money to run the club, which he bought for £1 in December.
So from that we can safely assume that the EFL didn't do any proper checks.
Now the EFL announce that Bury will face a disciplinary committee for failing to fulfil a fixture.
Another job well done by the EFL.
It's alright though because MK Dons will have their full name in the programme at Wimbledon this year. Shambles.
Whats the point you're trying to make here? making a club respect the name of an opponent is a shambles?
The point is instead of focussing on important matters like poor ownership, they EFL are more bothered by trivial matters
They are aren't they? looks like they are trying everything they can to help these 2 clubs. What is it they aren't doing you think they should do?
Paulie has answered perfectly, but you knew that was the point I was trying to make anyway.
They allowed this chancer to buy Bury in the first place, letting him bypass the Fit and Proper person test in the process. They're now punishing the club for their oversight, it's a disgrace.
Aren't Bolton's problems due to Premiership legacy?
Bit harsh to lay all their problems on the FL's doorstep
Not quite sure i understand the Bury situation. They obviously have players and can play the fixture, as they've been playing pre-season friendlies. They won at Port Vale at the weekend.
But the EFL call the game off.
Meanwhile owner Steve Dale has still not satisfied the League, according to its rules, that he has the money to run the club, which he bought for £1 in December.
So from that we can safely assume that the EFL didn't do any proper checks.
Now the EFL announce that Bury will face a disciplinary committee for failing to fulfil a fixture.
Another job well done by the EFL.
It's alright though because MK Dons will have their full name in the programme at Wimbledon this year. Shambles.
Whats the point you're trying to make here? making a club respect the name of an opponent is a shambles?
The point is instead of focussing on important matters like poor ownership, they EFL are more bothered by trivial matters
They are aren't they? looks like they are trying everything they can to help these 2 clubs. What is it they aren't doing you think they should do?
Paulie has answered perfectly, but you knew that was the point I was trying to make anyway.
They allowed this chancer to buy Bury in the first place, letting him bypass the Fit and Proper person test in the process. They're now punishing the club for their oversight, it's a disgrace.
Aren't Bolton's problems due to Premiership legacy?
Bit harsh to lay all their problems on the FL's doorstep
Might as well say some of our problems are part of our Premier League legacy though what with the wasted money Richard Murray gave Dowie / Pardew
Had he not done that and spent wiser for our first spell in the Championship then you could argue that we'd never have been relegated after the second season etc.
It was the EFL who approved Ken Anderson enabling him to get involved though
If they had more secure tests against owners like Anderson and Duchatalet then it would stop these owners from getting involved who are purely out to make a bit of money for themselves
Not quite sure i understand the Bury situation. They obviously have players and can play the fixture, as they've been playing pre-season friendlies. They won at Port Vale at the weekend.
But the EFL call the game off.
Meanwhile owner Steve Dale has still not satisfied the League, according to its rules, that he has the money to run the club, which he bought for £1 in December.
So from that we can safely assume that the EFL didn't do any proper checks.
Now the EFL announce that Bury will face a disciplinary committee for failing to fulfil a fixture.
Another job well done by the EFL.
It's alright though because MK Dons will have their full name in the programme at Wimbledon this year. Shambles.
Whats the point you're trying to make here? making a club respect the name of an opponent is a shambles?
The point is instead of focussing on important matters like poor ownership, they EFL are more bothered by trivial matters
They are aren't they? looks like they are trying everything they can to help these 2 clubs. What is it they aren't doing you think they should do?
Paulie has answered perfectly, but you knew that was the point I was trying to make anyway.
They allowed this chancer to buy Bury in the first place, letting him bypass the Fit and Proper person test in the process. They're now punishing the club for their oversight, it's a disgrace.
Aren't Bolton's problems due to Premiership legacy?
Bit harsh to lay all their problems on the FL's doorstep
Might as well say some of our problems are part of our Premier League legacy though what with the wasted money Richard Murray gave Dowie / Pardew
Had he not done that and spent wiser for our first spell in the Championship then you could argue that we'd never have been relegated after the second season etc.
It was the EFL who approved Ken Anderson enabling him to get involved though
If they had more secure tests against owners like Anderson and Duchatalet then it would stop these owners from getting involved who are purely out to make a bit of money for themselves
Yes, even if we didn't go back up we at least could have stabilised in the Championship, with a bigger ground and fanbase as a legacy of the PL times.
The problem though isn't necessarily owners making money for themselves, as that's quite rare. The Oystons probably, and maybe whoever at Northampton was siphoning off the money for the stand, but elsewhere it's been more financial mismanagement. Roland unnecessarily lost money and got us relegated due to a rubbish recruitment policy (and adviser) for example
So people want the EFL to introduce rules that will somehow miraculously stop people making bad decisions and running businesses that lose money? If there was such a rule that did this then I'm sure the Chancellor would be interested in learning more - imagine having an economy with no losers, just winners.
And what rules would they be exactly? And how would they be enforced? And what happens if the rules are broken? Do you also want rules that make a sale of shares in a private business compulsory? And who do they sell to? And at what price?
It's easy to just say, "Blame the EFL", but unfortunately it's a lot more complex than that. Football finances are fucked and they have been for years. But there's no obvious "quick fix".
So people want the EFL to introduce rules that will somehow miraculously stop people making bad decisions and running businesses that lose money? If there was such a rule that did this then I'm sure the Chancellor would be interested in learning more - imagine having an economy with no losers, just winners.
And what rules would they be exactly? And how would they be enforced? And what happens if the rules are broken? Do you also want rules that make a sale of shares in a private business compulsory? And who do they sell to? And at what price?
It's easy to just say, "Blame the EFL", but unfortunately it's a lot more complex than that. Football finances are fucked and they have been for years. But there's no obvious "quick fix".
Simple solutions normally only satisfy simple people.
One thing that might really help is forcing clubs to lose less money. RD is a broken clock, but he has a point about how league rules that allowed clubs to double losses was a very bad idea. I think jettisoning the whole profit/loss requirement and instead not allowing clubs to exceed 70% of wages as a percent of turnover, including amortized transfers and agent fees, would automatically make clubs better run, by force. Especially if like the SCMT rules in L1/L2, you have to prove compliance IN ADVANCE, instead of over three years after the fact, which allows clubs to throw caution to the wind. Because one would know if they were cheating ahead of time, points deduction for exceeding it in the same year, instead of progressive fines 3 years later, would keep clubs in-line. If this was done up and down all the league, the state of English football would be much better for all involved, imho.
I think it is only right and proper for the EFL to fully enforce the rules on Bury.
Can’t have them picking on any club with any financial clout to fight back for Gods sake.
I would expect Bolton to be fined for being unable to fulfill a match season. Sadly, I have a feeling they will get away with it.
Fine who? The club haven't got any money thats the whole problem. There was, quite rightly outrage that the admin staff were using food banks and your solution is to fine the club?
Owners losing money isn't a problem, it's the loading of those losses on to the club's as debt. The NFL disbars bad owners. It's complex and there are, as Stu says, no simple solutions but currently the EFL doesn't even enforce the weak rules it has.
In Bury's case the new owner never even passed the EFLs fit and proper test but was still allowed to buy and run the club, spend money he didn't have, get promotion at the expense of other teams and now possibly destroy a club.
That is Steve Dale's fault but the EFL failed in its duty of care to Bury, Bury fans and the other clubs.
People seem to confuse the EFL with the NFL. Football clubs in this country are, essentially, privately owned businesses - not franchises - and as such the amount of control and influence the EFL has over their affairs is limited. In reality the EFL basically only organises a competition (two of you include the League Cup), it’s not even footballs governing body in this country. I think people expecting the EFL to be out and about solving/stopping the problems of a private business are barking up the same tree Roland was when he demanded the same EFL take over Charlton.
People seem to confuse the EFL with the NFL. Football clubs in this country are, essentially, privately owned businesses - not franchises - and as such the amount of control and influence the EFL has over their affairs is limited. In reality the EFL basically only organises a competition (two of you include the League Cup), it’s not even footballs governing body in this country. I think people expecting the EFL to be out and about solving/stopping the problems of a private business are barking up the same tree Roland was when he demanded the same EFL take over Charlton.
They can exclude people from their competitions quite easily though.
People seem to confuse the EFL with the NFL. Football clubs in this country are, essentially, privately owned businesses - not franchises - and as such the amount of control and influence the EFL has over their affairs is limited. In reality the EFL basically only organises a competition (two of you include the League Cup), it’s not even footballs governing body in this country. I think people expecting the EFL to be out and about solving/stopping the problems of a private business are barking up the same tree Roland was when he demanded the same EFL take over Charlton.
They can exclude people from their competitions quite easily though.
You can but that hurts the fans, employees etc much more than the owner (on the basis they will loose most, if not all their investment if the club goes into administration). If you start kicking clubs out the league don't you actually open the door for a worse kind of owner? One that actually wants that to happen so they can liquidate the land assets, it would be a lot easier if there wasn't a pesky league club playing at the ground.
People seem to confuse the EFL with the NFL. Football clubs in this country are, essentially, privately owned businesses - not franchises - and as such the amount of control and influence the EFL has over their affairs is limited. In reality the EFL basically only organises a competition (two of you include the League Cup), it’s not even footballs governing body in this country. I think people expecting the EFL to be out and about solving/stopping the problems of a private business are barking up the same tree Roland was when he demanded the same EFL take over Charlton.
They can exclude people from their competitions quite easily though.
Football is a financial house of cards. The moment the EFL starts getting tough with teams it effectively pulls away a card and we all know what happens then.
People seem to confuse the EFL with the NFL. Football clubs in this country are, essentially, privately owned businesses - not franchises - and as such the amount of control and influence the EFL has over their affairs is limited. In reality the EFL basically only organises a competition (two of you include the League Cup), it’s not even footballs governing body in this country. I think people expecting the EFL to be out and about solving/stopping the problems of a private business are barking up the same tree Roland was when he demanded the same EFL take over Charlton.
They can exclude people from their competitions quite easily though.
What criteria would you suggest? I only ask, because Charlton have been making relatively very significant losses for years.
My solution is more radical, it involves government intervention. There should be legislation brought in which brings closer ties between local authorities and football clubs. Local authority invests in the football club which helps pay for stadia and facilities, in return clubs have to develop closer ties with local schools and youth programs. This way local councils have much more of a vested interest in their football clubs rather than turn a blind eye to it's problems. Also, bring in legislation which forces clubs to sell a minimum of 10% of the shareholding to a fan consortium, so fans get a say on how the club is run, takeovers would need approval from the board, of which fans would have representation. This would mirror the German system.
My solution is more radical, it involves government intervention. There should be legislation brought in which brings closer ties between local authorities and football clubs. Local authority invests in the football club which helps pay for stadia and facilities, in return clubs have to develop closer ties with local schools and youth programs. This way local councils have much more of a vested interest in their football clubs rather than turn a blind eye to it's problems. Also, bring in legislation which forces clubs to sell a minimum of 10% of the shareholding to a fan consortium, so fans get a say on how the club is run, takeovers would need approval from the board, of which fans would have representation. This would mirror the German system.
But if you own 10% of the benifits should you also be liable for 10% of the liability? Also 10% of Bury probably isn't much money, 10% of United or City is, how will you compensate their owners, for 100s of millions of pounds?
People seem to confuse the EFL with the NFL. Football clubs in this country are, essentially, privately owned businesses - not franchises - and as such the amount of control and influence the EFL has over their affairs is limited. In reality the EFL basically only organises a competition (two of you include the League Cup), it’s not even footballs governing body in this country. I think people expecting the EFL to be out and about solving/stopping the problems of a private business are barking up the same tree Roland was when he demanded the same EFL take over Charlton.
NFL teams are privately owned businesses apart from Green Bay Packers who are owned by 361,060 individuals
People seem to confuse the EFL with the NFL. Football clubs in this country are, essentially, privately owned businesses - not franchises - and as such the amount of control and influence the EFL has over their affairs is limited. In reality the EFL basically only organises a competition (two of you include the League Cup), it’s not even footballs governing body in this country. I think people expecting the EFL to be out and about solving/stopping the problems of a private business are barking up the same tree Roland was when he demanded the same EFL take over Charlton.
NFL teams are privately owned businesses apart from Green Bay Packers who are owned by 361,060 individuals
Right, but they hold a franchise, don’t they? Which is different in terms of the structure of the EFL?
My solution is more radical, it involves government intervention. There should be legislation brought in which brings closer ties between local authorities and football clubs. Local authority invests in the football club which helps pay for stadia and facilities, in return clubs have to develop closer ties with local schools and youth programs. This way local councils have much more of a vested interest in their football clubs rather than turn a blind eye to it's problems. Also, bring in legislation which forces clubs to sell a minimum of 10% of the shareholding to a fan consortium, so fans get a say on how the club is run, takeovers would need approval from the board, of which fans would have representation. This would mirror the German system.
But if you own 10% of the benifits should you also be liable for 10% of the liability? Also 10% of Bury probably isn't much money, 10% of United or City is, how will you compensate their owners, for 100s of millions of pounds?
If they can make it work in the Bundesliga I don't see why it can't work in the FL, over there they don't allow clubs to be more than 49% owned for exactly this reason. Something's got to give because it's so commonplace in our game now.
Government does have a vested interest anyway, if a club goes to the wall it's a loss to the taxpayer mostly and many people lose jobs and local businesses lose trade.
I think it's reflective of British society, lack of regulation and rampant free market economy only for the interests of the rich rather than the people it serves
People seem to confuse the EFL with the NFL. Football clubs in this country are, essentially, privately owned businesses - not franchises - and as such the amount of control and influence the EFL has over their affairs is limited. In reality the EFL basically only organises a competition (two of you include the League Cup), it’s not even footballs governing body in this country. I think people expecting the EFL to be out and about solving/stopping the problems of a private business are barking up the same tree Roland was when he demanded the same EFL take over Charlton.
NFL teams are privately owned businesses apart from Green Bay Packers who are owned by 361,060 individuals
Right, but they hold a franchise, don’t they? Which is different in terms of the structure of the EFL?
So maybe there should be similar in the EFL.
League clubs hold a share in the EFL, the EFL imposes rules is FFP and punishes clubs that break them is transfer embargoes.
So there is regulation and control beyond ordinary company law.
In France clubs have to submit a fully coated business plan every year. The punishment for not doing so is Draconian.
I'm not saying that is the way to go but there are examples that go beyond the "we just draw up the fixtures" stance of the EFL currently.
People seem to confuse the EFL with the NFL. Football clubs in this country are, essentially, privately owned businesses - not franchises - and as such the amount of control and influence the EFL has over their affairs is limited. In reality the EFL basically only organises a competition (two of you include the League Cup), it’s not even footballs governing body in this country. I think people expecting the EFL to be out and about solving/stopping the problems of a private business are barking up the same tree Roland was when he demanded the same EFL take over Charlton.
They can exclude people from their competitions quite easily though.
What criteria would you suggest? I only ask, because Charlton have been making relatively very significant losses for years.
But would they have made such losses if the punishment was league expulsion? I'd suggest no.
I don't know what the correct answer is, I just know the current situation is totally wrong.
My solution is more radical, it involves government intervention. There should be legislation brought in which brings closer ties between local authorities and football clubs. Local authority invests in the football club which helps pay for stadia and facilities, in return clubs have to develop closer ties with local schools and youth programs. This way local councils have much more of a vested interest in their football clubs rather than turn a blind eye to it's problems. Also, bring in legislation which forces clubs to sell a minimum of 10% of the shareholding to a fan consortium, so fans get a say on how the club is run, takeovers would need approval from the board, of which fans would have representation. This would mirror the German system.
But if you own 10% of the benifits should you also be liable for 10% of the liability? Also 10% of Bury probably isn't much money, 10% of United or City is, how will you compensate their owners, for 100s of millions of pounds?
If they can make it work in the Bundesliga I don't see why it can't work in the FL, over there they don't allow clubs to be more than 49% owned for exactly this reason. Something's got to give because it's so commonplace in our game now.
Government does have a vested interest anyway, if a club goes to the wall it's a loss to the taxpayer mostly and many people lose jobs and local businesses lose trade.
I think it's reflective of British society, lack of regulation and rampant free market economy only for the interests of the rich rather than the people it serves
Germany had no national professional football until the 1960s, add in the way that the big business in diffrent German cities have close ties to the cities sports teams and its a very diffrent back ground to how the professional game in this country developed.
Taking what ever % from private individuals with out proper compensation isn't something I am comfortable with, regardless of how unsavoury they maybe, if no law has been broken.
My solution is more radical, it involves government intervention. There should be legislation brought in which brings closer ties between local authorities and football clubs. Local authority invests in the football club which helps pay for stadia and facilities, in return clubs have to develop closer ties with local schools and youth programs. This way local councils have much more of a vested interest in their football clubs rather than turn a blind eye to it's problems. Also, bring in legislation which forces clubs to sell a minimum of 10% of the shareholding to a fan consortium, so fans get a say on how the club is run, takeovers would need approval from the board, of which fans would have representation. This would mirror the German system.
I don't think government wants to start running what essentially are private businesses. They have enough on their hands than to have a new fan complaining about transfer budgets at their offices everyday. Also, since most clubs lose money, any kind of partnership means that every year the taxpayer must come up with money to cover the losses, as the public, through the government, is part owner. I don't see any support for such a scheme once all the consequences become known.
Comments
Its not just these is it.
Look at us, Coventry, Blackpool, Hull and Notts County plus others.
The fit and proper person test is not fit for business.
The EFL should be preventing this kind of thing before it happens, not wait till it happens then say oh maybe we should try and help, because chances are its to late by then
They allowed this chancer to buy Bury in the first place, letting him bypass the Fit and Proper person test in the process. They're now punishing the club for their oversight, it's a disgrace.
Bit harsh to lay all their problems on the FL's doorstep
Had he not done that and spent wiser for our first spell in the Championship then you could argue that we'd never have been relegated after the second season etc.
It was the EFL who approved Ken Anderson enabling him to get involved though
https://talksport.com/football/efl/514480/ken-anderson-bolton-simon-jordan-talksport/
If they had more secure tests against owners like Anderson and Duchatalet then it would stop these owners from getting involved who are purely out to make a bit of money for themselves
Can’t have them picking on any club with any financial clout to fight back for Gods sake.
The problem though isn't necessarily owners making money for themselves, as that's quite rare. The Oystons probably, and maybe whoever at Northampton was siphoning off the money for the stand, but elsewhere it's been more financial mismanagement. Roland unnecessarily lost money and got us relegated due to a rubbish recruitment policy (and adviser) for example
So people want the EFL to introduce rules that will somehow miraculously stop people making bad decisions and running businesses that lose money? If there was such a rule that did this then I'm sure the Chancellor would be interested in learning more - imagine having an economy with no losers, just winners.
And what rules would they be exactly? And how would they be enforced? And what happens if the rules are broken? Do you also want rules that make a sale of shares in a private business compulsory? And who do they sell to? And at what price?
It's easy to just say, "Blame the EFL", but unfortunately it's a lot more complex than that. Football finances are fucked and they have been for years. But there's no obvious "quick fix".
In Bury's case the new owner never even passed the EFLs fit and proper test but was still allowed to buy and run the club, spend money he didn't have, get promotion at the expense of other teams and now possibly destroy a club.
That is Steve Dale's fault but the EFL failed in its duty of care to Bury, Bury fans and the other clubs.
Government does have a vested interest anyway, if a club goes to the wall it's a loss to the taxpayer mostly and many people lose jobs and local businesses lose trade.
I think it's reflective of British society, lack of regulation and rampant free market economy only for the interests of the rich rather than the people it serves
League clubs hold a share in the EFL, the EFL imposes rules is FFP and punishes clubs that break them is transfer embargoes.
So there is regulation and control beyond ordinary company law.
In France clubs have to submit a fully coated business plan every year. The punishment for not doing so is Draconian.
I'm not saying that is the way to go but there are examples that go beyond the "we just draw up the fixtures" stance of the EFL currently.
I don't know what the correct answer is, I just know the current situation is totally wrong.
A winding-up petition issued against Bury over an unpaid tax bill has been dismissed by the High Court.
Creditors approved a company voluntary arrangement (CVA) on 18 July, which was proposed to help settle some of the League One club's debts.
Previously, the case had been adjourned three times before Wednesday's hearing.
Prior to their court appearance, Saturday's game at MK Dons was called offas the EFL said Bury failed to show evidence of their financial viability.
The court case was originally brought by former head coach Chris Brass and later taken over by HM Revenue & Customs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49178564
Taking what ever % from private individuals with out proper compensation isn't something I am comfortable with, regardless of how unsavoury they maybe, if no law has been broken.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49186418
https://www.theguardian.com/football/blog/2019/aug/02/bury-plight-efl-fans-boredom-pain-for-granted