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

[mellowmiller]

If fit and proper purely comes down to financial clout then asset strippers will continue to have a field day. In that respect 05 and DC were without doubt not 'fit and proper' to run RUFC but where would we be without them?

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.

[PokerMillersSwinton]

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.

#
He was proper but not fit.. He had a grade 2 hammy pull.

Trying to in inject a bit of humour into proceedings

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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]

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 .