I have no doubt that Bury will never play a game again at Gigg Lane and that there will be flats/houses/supermarket on that site in three years.
A friend has worked with Dale, knows him wll and said this was always his game plan.
Another example of the EFL not passing a fit and proper test themselves.
How many clubs has this happened to in recent years though? It seems to be much harder than it was in the 80s and 90s when a number of clubs lost their grounds
Someone will come and save them. It always happens.
That was the reason why Bury are in this mess. They were close to going out of business & Steve Dale came in to rescue them. The EFL said at the time that as time was of the essence then they would defer the "fit & proper" test & Steve Dale could send them the paperwork later. Seems like he never did.
Its no point having rules if you are going to ignore them for expediency. The main ones at fault for all this are the EFL. If they had followed their own rules & regs then Dale wouldnt be in charge now. They might have gone under last year if he hadn't stepped in.....but then again someone else might have stepped in.
In that talksport interview, Steve Dale tries to back up his claim that he has paid players by saying to Jim White "i'll get our company secretary Jill Neville to send you proof".................Neville has today since the interview aired, decided to resign.
Someone will come and save them. It always happens.
No they won't as Steve Dale won't do a deal
Not doubting your source, but it does seem an aweful lot of money, and hassle, to buy what is in effect a reasonable sized brown field site in an old mill town. There must be dozens of other places you could buy cheaper and with less resistance.
As I understand it there are about £8 million in outstanding loans and unpaid tax bills. If the club go in to receivership he can't stop someone else buying it or any of the assets.
If he is doing what you suggest he isn't doing it very well.
Someone will come and save them. It always happens.
No they won't as Steve Dale won't do a deal
Not doubting your source, but it does seem an aweful lot of money, and hassle, to buy what is in effect a reasonable sized brown field site in an old mill town. There must be dozens of other places you could buy cheaper and with less resistance.
As I understand it there are about £8 million in outstanding loans and unpaid tax bills. If the club go in to receivership he can't stop someone else buying it or any of the assets.
If he is doing what you suggest he isn't doing it very well.
Someone will come and save them. It always happens.
No they won't as Steve Dale won't do a deal
Not doubting your source, but it does seem an aweful lot of money, and hassle, to buy what is in effect a reasonable sized brown field site in an old mill town. There must be dozens of other places you could buy cheaper and with less resistance.
As I understand it there are about £8 million in outstanding loans and unpaid tax bills. If the club go in to receivership he can't stop someone else buying it or any of the assets.
If he is doing what you suggest he isn't doing it very well.
Agree unless he's sold off the ground already.
He's as bent as a nine Bob note either way.
If that was his MO, he would have to keep the club solvent, sell the ground (to himself) sort out a ground share then develop the ground. Only when all your ducks are in a row would you ditch the football club. Archer did the text book example of this at Brighton.
Someone will come and save them. It always happens.
No they won't as Steve Dale won't do a deal
Not doubting your source, but it does seem an aweful lot of money, and hassle, to buy what is in effect a reasonable sized brown field site in an old mill town. There must be dozens of other places you could buy cheaper and with less resistance.
As I understand it there are about £8 million in outstanding loans and unpaid tax bills. If the club go in to receivership he can't stop someone else buying it or any of the assets.
If he is doing what you suggest he isn't doing it very well.
Agree unless he's sold off the ground already.
He's as bent as a nine Bob note either way.
Would have to sell the ground at full value though so wouldn't really be worthwhile. If he sold it undervalue and stuck the club into liquidation the liquidators would simply reverse the ground sale transaction
Wow, was I wrong about my comment re the fans being part of the problem with Bury. I apologize. Was totally wrong. This owner is a real piece of work. This is some of the worst stuff I've ever read about.
Wow, was I wrong about my comment re the fans being part of the problem with Bury. I apologize. Was totally wrong. This owner is a real piece of work. This is some of the worst stuff I've ever read about.
And you were wrong regards your comments about Charlton fans.
Wow, was I wrong about my comment re the fans being part of the problem with Bury. I apologize. Was totally wrong. This owner is a real piece of work. This is some of the worst stuff I've ever read about.
And you were wrong regards your comments about Charlton fans.
Bolton Wanderers have postponed Tuesday's League One match against Doncaster Rovers, amid welfare concerns for the young players in their squad. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49399958
Bolton Wanderers have postponed Tuesday's League One match against Doncaster Rovers, amid welfare concerns for the young players in their squad. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49399958
Obviously i have sympathy for Bolton but i don't think this is very fair on Doncaster, and personally i think the game should just be awarded to them.
You can't play a game and then just because you get thumped 5-0, decide to call off your next one. They weren't calling off games because it was detrimental to the welfare of the young players when they got a draw v Coventry. They clearly can fulfill the fixture with kids, they're just choosing not to.
Now (if they get taken over) the game will be played when they have a bunch of new signings.
Obviously i have sympathy for Bolton but i don't think this is very fair on Doncaster, and personally i think the game should just be awarded to them.
You can't play a game and then just because you get thumped 5-0, decide to call off your next one. They weren't calling off games because it was detrimental to the welfare of the young players when they got a draw v Coventry. They clearly can fulfill the fixture with kids, they're just choosing not to.
Now (if they get taken over) the game will be played when they have a bunch of new signings.
Especially as its not their first midweek game of the season (having played in the League Cup last week)
"Euell’s youngsters will be hoping to continue their unbeaten run of form when they host Bolton Wanderers at The Valley on Tuesday, August 27th (2pm)."
How can they field an U23 team if all their kids are playing for the first team?
A minor point in the scheme of things and it doesn't really harm Charlton, although we might want some of our fringe players or new signings who need games, to play.
Comments
Its no point having rules if you are going to ignore them for expediency. The main ones at fault for all this are the EFL. If they had followed their own rules & regs then Dale wouldnt be in charge now. They might have gone under last year if he hadn't stepped in.....but then again someone else might have stepped in.
Dead and Buried.
As I understand it there are about £8 million in outstanding loans and unpaid tax bills. If the club go in to receivership he can't stop someone else buying it or any of the assets.
If he is doing what you suggest he isn't doing it very well.
He's as bent as a nine Bob note either way.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49399958
You can't play a game and then just because you get thumped 5-0, decide to call off your next one. They weren't calling off games because it was detrimental to the welfare of the young players when they got a draw v Coventry. They clearly can fulfill the fixture with kids, they're just choosing not to.
Now (if they get taken over) the game will be played when they have a bunch of new signings.
Not that it will matter anyway as they're certainties for relegation
"Euell’s youngsters will be hoping to continue their unbeaten run of form when they host Bolton Wanderers at The Valley on Tuesday, August 27th (2pm)."
How can they field an U23 team if all their kids are playing for the first team?
A minor point in the scheme of things and it doesn't really harm Charlton, although we might want some of our fringe players or new signings who need games, to play.
Surely, the EFL would have informed another club of what was going on just as they have kept us uptodate on the Hemed transfer...... Oh, hang on.
If Bolton havent communicated with Doncaster then they're surely forfeiting the game?