Trust seeks takeover clarity from EFL
Read more including our letter to the EFL here: https://castrust.org/2018/08/cast-seeks-takeover-clarity-from-efl/
Comments
-
Well done, exactly one of the things the Trust should be doing imo28
-
Thank God for EFL's fit and proper owner test, or we might get saddled with a totally inappropriate owner.
Good to know they're protecting us from this sort of thing.
On a seriousness note, agreed, this is what CAST should be doing.1 -
This is the start of a long term campaign. We don't expect any clear answer from the EFL. However Blackpool have rattled their cages quite hard and we are working with them. What needs to happen is that the EFL is forced to concede that they are also answerable to fan stakeholders. The scale of that task can be measured by this: the CEO of the EFL, Shaun Harvey is a longtime friend of Karl Oyston. Dwell on that for a moment.
Hopefully now the.reason for the straw poll re the Ombudsman becomes clear. We could not quite believe that we had missed the existence of this guy, but clearly he is almost invisible to all. But Blackpool like him and they believe he is not satisfied with his limited remit. They think he is taking up their case partly as a way to argue that he should have a remit to tackle the issue of bad ownership. So short term the plan is to get him to take us on too, he will start to see a pattern, and then we can bring in Trusts of more distressed clubs. And the pressure on the EFL builds.
It's worth saying that Blackpool approached us with this plan. In their eyes we are a well organised, effective active fan base, which also is appreciated for our fans behaviour at the last away game up there.57 -
Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.
I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.0 -
About a year and a half too late but well done.0
-
The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.Stig said:Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.
I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.
The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.
1 -
But only after a board member has publicly called that message "utterly poisonous".PragueAddick said:
The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.Stig said:Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.
I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.
The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.0 -
Oh stop digging out guys for gawd sake9
-
Where?Henry Irving said:
But only after a board member has publicly called that message "utterly poisonous".PragueAddick said:
The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.Stig said:Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.
I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.
The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.0 -
Credit where it's due. I challenged the Trust on the same thread and could have been more patient. This is absolutely where the Trust should - and probably the only body who could effectively - be pitching. And if the same doggedness and tenacity seen in the Olympic Stadium campaign accompanies this initiative I have no doubt shots will land. Even if a longer term initiative.6
- Sponsored links:
-
CAST need to act threadandynelson said:
Where?Henry Irving said:
But only after a board member has publicly called that message "utterly poisonous".PragueAddick said:
The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.Stig said:Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.
I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.
The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.0 -
No. I praised this letter on the other thread but Stig makes a valid pointAFKABartram said:Oh stop digging out guys for gawd sake
0 -
Prague, has it been established how long an EFL club is allowed to continue with no manager/coach, no CEO and no FD ?PragueAddick said:
The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.Stig said:Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.
I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.
The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.
Especially, with an absent owner in a foreign country who has admitted he gives the club a minimal amount of his time ?
Perhaps, these could be the next questions to put to the EFL ?
Is RD putting this club into disrepute & with it the EFL ?10 -
Good call.Covered End said:
Prague, has it been established how long an EFL club is allowed to continue with no manager/coach, no CEO and no FD ?PragueAddick said:
The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.Stig said:Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.
I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.
The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.
Especially, with an absent owner in a foreign country who has admitted he gives the club a minimal amount of his time ?
Perhaps, these could be the next questions to put to the EFL ?
Is RD putting this club into disrepute & with it the EFL ?0 -
Covered End said:
Prague, has it been established how long an EFL club is allowed to continue with no manager/coach, no CEO and no FD ?PragueAddick said:
The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.Stig said:Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.
I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.
The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.
Especially, with an absent owner in a foreign country who has admitted he gives the club a minimal amount of his time ?
Perhaps, these could be the next questions to put to the EFL ?
Is RD putting this club into disrepute & with it the EFL ?
It is almost certainly beyond doubt that the executive committee of the EFL are useless.
However, what on earth could they possibly do if the club is fulfilling its fixtures - disrepute or otherwise? They can't sanction the legal owner by for example a compulsory purchase of the club - all they could do is either fine the club or expel it from the league, or the realistic option for them to keep whispering 'tut tut' and go then back to complete ineffectiveness.
In legal terms a limited company needs a minimum of one director - there is no statutory requirement to have a CEO, CFO, COO or even a burger boy like Tony Big Bollox.2 -
Well, the overall problem, which @bobmunro alludes to, is that the EFL don't really care about anything so long as it fulfils its fixtures. That's because currently it sees itself as a trade association for its members, much like say the Food and Drink Federation. This is what we have to change overall if we want them to even begin to tackle such questions. Currently once they have passed the Owner and Director Test, that's it, they can do what they like.Covered End said:
Prague, has it been established how long an EFL club is allowed to continue with no manager/coach, no CEO and no FD ?PragueAddick said:
The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.Stig said:Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.
I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.
The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.
Especially, with an absent owner in a foreign country who has admitted he gives the club a minimal amount of his time ?
Perhaps, these could be the next questions to put to the EFL ?
Is RD putting this club into disrepute & with it the EFL ?
There are some small signs that they are starting to feel the pressure in this regard, and we need to make friends of the Ombudsman, who seems to have been so appalled by the Blackpool case that he wants to push for greater powers to demand better governance. Long haul, but we need to be at the front of this, since there are no guarantees that the next owner will be good either.
Short term we want to try and get them to say something that might help shed light on the current takeover status.
9 -
Well done CAST, took your time3
-
Great questions from CAST in that letter - no confidential info needs to be breached to answer them as far as I can see, and there is the potential there (if they deign to answer them) to smoke out any fibs we could have potentially been fed as well - eg they answer that there is no hold up at their end... What a can of worms that would open up!!
Great work.4 -
That thread was started by @Lancashire lad, not @addickupnorth, just to be clear.Stig said:Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.
I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.3 -
A great letter, good work by The Trust.
I have a feeling the reply will be less impressive1 - Sponsored links:
-
Simple mistake to make as both usernames are north of Watford although the former isn't domiciled there any longer. Doesn't make @Stig a bad person.Weegie Addick said:
That thread was started by @Lancashire lad, not @addickupnorth, just to be clear.Stig said:Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.
I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.
2 -
And there ladies and gentlemen, is the bottom line.PragueAddick said:
the EFL don't really care about anything so long as it fulfils its fixtures.Covered End said:
Prague, has it been established how long an EFL club is allowed to continue with no manager/coach, no CEO and no FD ?PragueAddick said:
The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.Stig said:Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.
I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.
The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.
Especially, with an absent owner in a foreign country who has admitted he gives the club a minimal amount of his time ?
Perhaps, these could be the next questions to put to the EFL ?
Is RD putting this club into disrepute & with it the EFL ?
Want to get the EFL involved? It is quite clear what action is required.
And I've got to the stage where I really don't care what sanctions are imposed as a result, as long as the objective is achieved.
4 -
Oops. Sorry. Thanks for putting me straight on that Weegie. I'm claiming RedChasers line of defenceWeegie Addick said:
That thread was started by @Lancashire lad, not @addickupnorth, just to be clear.Stig said:Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.
I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair. 4 -
Then there’s the answer ON THE PITCH and stop the game from taking placeAddickted said:
And there ladies and gentlemen, is the bottom line.PragueAddick said:
the EFL don't really care about anything so long as it fulfils its fixtures.Covered End said:
Prague, has it been established how long an EFL club is allowed to continue with no manager/coach, no CEO and no FD ?PragueAddick said:
The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.Stig said:Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.
I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.
The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.
Especially, with an absent owner in a foreign country who has admitted he gives the club a minimal amount of his time ?
Perhaps, these could be the next questions to put to the EFL ?
Is RD putting this club into disrepute & with it the EFL ?
Want to get the EFL involved? It is quite clear what action is required.
And I've got to the stage where I really don't care what sanctions are imposed as a result, as long as the objective is achieved.
Week in week out6 -
No ifs, no buts, no maybes.nth london addick said:
Then there’s the answer ON THE PITCH and stop the game from taking placeAddickted said:
And there ladies and gentlemen, is the bottom line.PragueAddick said:
the EFL don't really care about anything so long as it fulfils its fixtures.Covered End said:
Prague, has it been established how long an EFL club is allowed to continue with no manager/coach, no CEO and no FD ?PragueAddick said:
The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.Stig said:Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.
I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.
The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.
Especially, with an absent owner in a foreign country who has admitted he gives the club a minimal amount of his time ?
Perhaps, these could be the next questions to put to the EFL ?
Is RD putting this club into disrepute & with it the EFL ?
Want to get the EFL involved? It is quite clear what action is required.
And I've got to the stage where I really don't care what sanctions are imposed as a result, as long as the objective is achieved.
Week in week out
0 -
“ no ifs no buts”nth london addick said:
Then there’s the answer ON THE PITCH and stop the game from taking placeAddickted said:
And there ladies and gentlemen, is the bottom line.PragueAddick said:
the EFL don't really care about anything so long as it fulfils its fixtures.Covered End said:
Prague, has it been established how long an EFL club is allowed to continue with no manager/coach, no CEO and no FD ?PragueAddick said:
The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.Stig said:Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.
I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.
The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.
Especially, with an absent owner in a foreign country who has admitted he gives the club a minimal amount of his time ?
Perhaps, these could be the next questions to put to the EFL ?
Is RD putting this club into disrepute & with it the EFL ?
Want to get the EFL involved? It is quite clear what action is required.
And I've got to the stage where I really don't care what sanctions are imposed as a result, as long as the objective is achieved.
Week in week out0 -
You snooze @se9addick you lose. 2
-
I'm sure there are far more subtle ways than that.nth london addick said:
Then there’s the answer ON THE PITCH and stop the game from taking placeAddickted said:
And there ladies and gentlemen, is the bottom line.PragueAddick said:
the EFL don't really care about anything so long as it fulfils its fixtures.Covered End said:
Prague, has it been established how long an EFL club is allowed to continue with no manager/coach, no CEO and no FD ?PragueAddick said:
The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.Stig said:Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.
I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.
The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.
Especially, with an absent owner in a foreign country who has admitted he gives the club a minimal amount of his time ?
Perhaps, these could be the next questions to put to the EFL ?
Is RD putting this club into disrepute & with it the EFL ?
Want to get the EFL involved? It is quite clear what action is required.
And I've got to the stage where I really don't care what sanctions are imposed as a result, as long as the objective is achieved.
Week in week out
0 -
Break into the ground overnight and turn the bolier on?Addickted said:
I'm sure there are far more subtle ways than that.nth london addick said:
Then there’s the answer ON THE PITCH and stop the game from taking placeAddickted said:
And there ladies and gentlemen, is the bottom line.PragueAddick said:
the EFL don't really care about anything so long as it fulfils its fixtures.Covered End said:
Prague, has it been established how long an EFL club is allowed to continue with no manager/coach, no CEO and no FD ?PragueAddick said:
The difference is that we know for a fact that the EFL refuse to recognize their duty of care to fan stakeholders. There is no reason to believe that a "private" message to the EFL would be welcomed and responded to.Stig said:Well done to the Trust, that's a great bit of work and deserves to be commended.
I do note though that the other day, @AddickUpNorth was criticised for starting a thread on a topic having written to the Trust without giving them a chance to respond first. I'm not sure how different this is to that. I don't mind, I think it's a perfectly valid thing to do, but I do think the criticism of AUN was unfair.
The Trust absolutely recognizes it's duty to carry out its mission, and to inform its members how it's doing it. And here it is. And any further questions about this and what else we could do in similar vein, are very welcome.
Especially, with an absent owner in a foreign country who has admitted he gives the club a minimal amount of his time ?
Perhaps, these could be the next questions to put to the EFL ?
Is RD putting this club into disrepute & with it the EFL ?
Want to get the EFL involved? It is quite clear what action is required.
And I've got to the stage where I really don't care what sanctions are imposed as a result, as long as the objective is achieved.
Week in week out10 -
When CARD was in full swing I attended the Supporters Summit to speak about the ownership struggle at Wembley with @Pico and @PragueAddick.
Before we got our chance to speak Ian Lenegan had a long moment on the mic. At the time I tweeted this: "If I had a pound for every time Ian Lenagan said "possibility", "discussions" or "proposals" I'd be very rich. Fudgy. #SupportersSummit".
Nothing has changed and I have no time for the EFL. I have also kept to myself the feelings of the trust's decison to release the statement after the CARD call for a boycott (even though I had taken a backwards step from CARD "duties" by that point).
While I concede that this post could be construed as bringing up stuff from the past; my main point is that I believe that this is fantastic from the trust, and something they should continue pressing.
I've read the "CAST should act" thread and they have. I've no more ill feeling and I already know that the people currently on the board are some of the nicest, intelligent and most committed to CAFC people that you could wish to meet. (Well done for getting rid of @rikofold ... )
Arguing between ourselves is nonsense, while so easy to get sucked in to. We all want the same thing - the Belgian scrote to sell the club and FUCK OFF. Let's make sure we stick to that as our objective...13
