Bolton and Bury games likely to be suspended....latest update, what a mess.

[Ronners]

That's an argument for saying that every club should be requied to stick with the squad that it has on the opening day of the season.

I agree that if Bury and Bolton survive, they could bolster their squads with what they can find in the out of contract market. I wish them luck with that. In January, they would be able to sign any player that they could persuade to join them, given that they are likely to be so far adrift that they are likely to be recruiting for League 2. I wish them luck wth that too.

Their being an argument for it and them legally having to do it Kerr are entirely different things. As far as I'm aware , the club if they survive , would be able to sign any out of contract player who was available, and if they got some experienced older players together as a team, then surely this team would be more challenging to play against than the youngsters that the earlier teams had to play against, thus enhancing the argument millertop put forward?

[rolymiller]

Don't be like what, Roly? You posted and I responded by saying what I think. It's what I try to do.

Why should I enjoy the sun? Excessive heat and ionising radiation isn't my thing.

Brilliant reply Kerr. And you are probably doing the right thing.

I kinda like you Kerr, you do what it says on the tin....

[mellowmiller]

What can the test come down to?

You can interview people and ask their intentions, but that won't guard against people who have an unrealistic idea of what they can achieve or people who - God forbid - tell porkies.

Fair enough and that's one of the reasons why the test is not fit for purpose despite the EFL putting a lot of faith in it.
It makes it even more puzzling that they are now insisting Bury prove they have the financial wherewithal to see the season out. The club may be able to show they have the funds but there is no guarantee they will use them in the way the EFL would like.
So what should be done?

[millertop]

Sometimes it’s like banging your head against a brick wall with certain posters (yes I know some might think the same about myself) and that’s why I didn’t reply but thanks Ronners

[flourbasher]

Millers 05 were not finacially viable.

Under Millers 05 and Denis Coleman we were allowed to play in a stadium that was unfit, with no facilities and porta cabins for changing rooms.

The test, introduced in 2004, is mandated by the Premier League, the Football League, the National League and the Scottish Premier League. Anybody who takes over a club, runs one, or owns over 30% of its shares must be assessed. The first director known to have failed the test was Dennis Coleman, director of Rotherham United when they went into administration in 2006 and 2008.

[millertop]

Brilliant reply Kerr. And you are probably doing the right thing.

I kinda like you Kerr, you do what it says on the tin....

Think you need less time in sun

[mikemiller]

"Mr Logic" is admired by Paul Warning though...

[flourbasher]

[QUOTE=KerrAvon;39309076]How would you assess 'fit and proper' person? How would you tell what someone’s intention was when they were buying a club? Crystal ball?

How is League 1 in a mess? Plenty of posters seem to think that, but why still escapes me.

How much money Dale has is irrelevant to a point given that the key point is how much he is willing to use to support the club.

Buying a club for £1 should not be seen as unusual or revealing. You are forgetting that he was taking on a business which, like most football clubs, had substantial debts. The average club really isn't worth very much at all.[/QUOTE





The Bury owner can't even pay the bills after a CVA which isn't just about him not wanting to spend his money on the club. If he wasn't investing in players then fair enough but he can't even pay office staff. Inability to pay the bills started only a few months after taking over.

If I were the efl I'd be speaking to lawyers, accountants, financial advisors and the fraud squad to improve my tick list.

You think perpetually having fixtures postponed from two different clubs isn't a mess? This affects all clubs not just them. If Bury survive then other teams will be asked to play on Thursday's or a Monday to catch up. If they don't survive there's matchday income lost, disgruntled season ticket holders, breaks in the fixture list. Deadlines keep getting extended with no definite end in sight. What bit of that do you think is acceptable?

Strange that Dale bought the club for £1 but only a few months later want s £2m or other large sums of money depending on the source we read from. This is after not paying the bills. EFL need to do a whole lot better and not just say we didn't have a crystal ball.

[WanChaiMiller]

If you have read my reply fully WanChai, I said "
either the rules were different back when we were in trouble, or we gave solid assurances to the football league that we were capable of fulfilling our fixtures and also financially viable." so I assume that the rules were different back then? I'm not trying to be clever with you as I post and read MM most days and respect your opinion, so I assume back then that we were allowed to play in a stadium that was unfit , with no facilities and porto cabins for changing rooms?

All Im trying to say Ronners is that I hope what the EFL is doing if to give these clubs every chance to pull through what is a short term crisis. The alternative is extinction. I also trying the say I think they gave us a fair crack of the whip through our troubles that ultimately led us to the safety net of the Stewarts. But, bare in mind, it took us 7 years to regroup and get back to playing in Rotherham.

[CASPER-64-FRANK]

I think Dennis Coleman was found to be not "a fit and proper person" in the early days of the test but I can't remember what the reasons were.

Dennis Coleman would have failed the “ fit and proper persons “ test because at that time no-one could become a Director or own 30% of a club if the club had had two insolvency events, which unfortunately happened to us.