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

[KerrAvon]

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?

Do the EFL put a lot of faith in the fit and proper person test? I would think that they are mindful of the limitations on their powers and of the value of the test, which turns, to a significant extent upon the good faith of the prospective director. They can’t turn someone down because ‘they appear a bit shifty’ or similar.

It's not at all puzzling that the EFL are asking Dale for evidence. If he can’t show that he has the means to run the club as a going concern then that would be a fairly strong indicator that he doesn’t. If he can produce the evidence then it goes back to the good faith point.

As for what is to be done, I would have thought that is a question for those who think the EFL can somehow improve on what they do now. I suppose the rules could be changed so that new owners have to put money into a bond to be held by the EFL against footballing debts – so that they have skin in the game so to speak - but that would discourage many good prospective owners and would be meaningless to others who have money to burn.

[Ronners]

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.

I also don't want either Bolton or Bury to go under WanChai, but whilst, as you keep pointing out, it took us around 7 years to get straight, we never either had a game called off by the football league, nor did we unilaterly call a match off ourselves and thus undermining the integrity of the football league so at some point a decision has to be made to preserve the fairness of said division.

[KerrAvon]

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.

Neither you nor I know whether Dale has the money to pay the bills. He may be taking the view that they belong to a separate legal entity – the club – and so has no intention of paying them. He may have an ulterior motive for becoming involved in the club, but, again, we don’t know.

The EFL will speak with lawyers and accountants. The former will remind them of the limits upon the extent of their powers whilst the latter will say 'yup, they are a set of accounts'. Neither can see into the minds of the prospective directors. The Fraud Squad would simply ask what the hell it is to do with them, unless there is evidence of fraud.

Realistically, the Bury situation will be sorted within days. If the club keeps its place in the league, just a handful of clubs will face an additional midweek fixture. That is nothing compared to those that will be made necessary by cup competitions and bad weather. I take the point about matchday revenue, but that is peanuts for most clubs. I wouldn’t be greatly surprised if the EFL compensates affected clubs and clubs compensate season ticket holders if one or both of the clubs fold.

[KerrAvon]

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?

With respect, hat's just a repeat of your earlier argument. Any team can sign out of contract players - shopping in the Dexter Blackstock market - at any time. In January, a club can sign an entirely new team, if it has the means and the inclination to do so.

As I said yours is an argument for banning the signing of any new players after the first kick of the ball of a season. If that's what you think should happen then fair enough. It won't eliminate 'unfairness' however, as injuries and suspensions mean that every team will face restrictions upon who they can field during the course of a season.

I get the point you are making. I simply don't think it is a very good one and that the 'risk' you describe is so unrealistic that it isn't worth getting as agitated about as some posters seem to be.

[millertop]

I can only think a certain poster is on a wind up But then again....

Anyway hopefully they clubs will know what’s happening before the week is out
Bury are that sure that they have been selling tickets for Saturday so maybe their season will finally kick off with two games a week to catch up

[flourbasher]

Neither you nor I know whether Dale has the money to pay the bills. He may be taking the view that they belong to a separate legal entity – the club – and so has no intention of paying them. He may have an ulterior motive for becoming involved in the club, but, again, we don’t know.

The EFL will speak with lawyers and accountants. The former will remind them of the limits upon the extent of their powers whilst the latter will say 'yup, they are a set of accounts'. Neither can see into the minds of the prospective directors. The Fraud Squad would simply ask what the hell it is to do with them, unless there is evidence of fraud.

Realistically, the Bury situation will be sorted within days. If the club keeps its place in the league, just a handful of clubs will face an additional midweek fixture. That is nothing compared to those that will be made necessary by cup competitions and bad weather. I take the point about matchday revenue, but that is peanuts for most clubs. I wouldn’t be greatly surprised if the EFL compensates affected clubs and clubs compensate season ticket holders if one or both of the clubs fold.

It's the EFL,s competition so if they have problems with recent owners then they need to tighten things up not just maintain the status quo.
If the EFL,s powers are limited then that needs to change. As far as I'm aware each club has to reapply or receive an invite to play in their competition each year and it's within the EFL,s gift to make the change. They should be holding more power to control and manage these problems
If someone's just saying yes that's some accounts then that isn't good anough. Do the accounts show that the owners could sustain a football club by paying the bills would be useful.

With regard to fixture rescheduling I don't think it will be that simple. We had a fixture postponed in late July / early August vs Portsmouth and it still hasn't been able to be rescheduled. This was just one fixture in the entire division well before Bolton and Bury started their postponements. Bury will have to play Tuesdays and Thursdays to catch up and their opposition will then want their next Sat game delayed because they had to play Bury on a Thursday and so it goes on.

I agree that it's highly unlikely that either RUFC or the supporters will be compensated so our club and others will lose matchday income and that's not acceptable. I would suggest that the owner of Accrington would not agree that the lost income from two local derbies vs Bolton and Bury is insignificant

[flourbasher]

From today's Guardian.....

This just about sums up why the fit and proper person test in inadequate and the alarm bells should have been ringing

S Dale has presided over failed and liquidated companies but the efl endorsed him.
I can only assume the efl wanted him to liquidate Bury as well to get a problem club off their desk.

https://amp.theguardian.com/commenti...gg-lane-brexit

[crashbang]

After today's deadline.
Both clubs will have time to resurrect a deal during the 14 day notice period.
And so it goes on .

[mellowmiller]

Do the EFL put a lot of faith in the fit and proper person test? I would think that they are mindful of the limitations on their powers and of the value of the test, which turns, to a significant extent upon the good faith of the prospective director. They can’t turn someone down because ‘they appear a bit shifty’ or similar.

It's not at all puzzling that the EFL are asking Dale for evidence. If he can’t show that he has the means to run the club as a going concern then that would be a fairly strong indicator that he doesn’t. If he can produce the evidence then it goes back to the good faith point.

As for what is to be done, I would have thought that is a question for those who think the EFL can somehow improve on what they do now. I suppose the rules could be changed so that new owners have to put money into a bond to be held by the EFL against footballing debts – so that they have skin in the game so to speak - but that would discourage many good prospective owners and would be meaningless to others who have money to burn.

Apparently Dale has presided over failed companies in the past yet the EFL thought he was a fit and proper person to take over Bury.
Similarly Bassini's financial dealings were so bad that he was banned from football for a number of years and yet the EFL allowed him to get involved in the Bolton fiasco.
This isn't about whether someone looks "shifty" as you put it. The EFL has a test and neither of these two characters should have got as far as opening the exam paper.
As for the suggestion of a bond, well that seems like a reasonable idea. I don't necessarily agree with your point that it may put off good prospective owners as it may, in fact, have the opposite effect and would certainly help to bring about some financial stability within the game.
If memory serves me right I seem to recall that Tony Stewart was required to deposit a bond of £1/2 million with the EFL when we moved to Don Valley which would only be refunded if we moved back to Rotherham within 4 years.
That didn't work out too badly did it?

[Ronners]

With respect, hat's just a repeat of your earlier argument. Any team can sign out of contract players - shopping in the Dexter Blackstock market - at any time. In January, a club can sign an entirely new team, if it has the means and the inclination to do so.

As I said yours is an argument for banning the signing of any new players after the first kick of the ball of a season. If that's what you think should happen then fair enough. It won't eliminate 'unfairness' however, as injuries and suspensions mean that every team will face restrictions upon who they can field during the course of a season.

I get the point you are making. I simply don't think it is a very good one and that the 'risk' you describe is so unrealistic that it isn't worth getting as agitated about as some posters seem to be.

With respect, if Bolton can sign out of contract players from the Blackstock market, then why haven't they done that instead of unilaterally calling games off citing they are looking after their young players wellbeing? or as things stand are they even allowed to sign anyone at the moment? even someone out of contract?