Wigan Athletic.

[WanChaiMiller]

EFL have to ensure that the new owners have the financials to not only buy the club but also run a club
If this hasn’t happened Then EFL have failed another club and failed to do their job

Reading through the EFL Owners and Directors Test, the regulation doesnt cover a requirement to demonstrate 'financials' (although I may have missed it). The main thrust is to do with the legitimacy of the individual (their record in business, criminal conviction, involvecies, disqualifications, fraud, criminal convictions, etc).

The EFL cannot be accused of failing in a duty that isnt part of their remit.

You may feel it needs to be added. I think it would be pretty hollow.* Even if a prospective owner demonstrates an ability to finance the club, nobody can compel them to spend their money or continue in ownership after the choose to sell.* Adding this as a requirement could serve to kill off more than it saves.

Bury: Steve Day would have passed any requirement. He increased levels of spending to what he felt his buisiness could support. His Business went bust that brought the club down. If new owner Dale could not pass the fit and proper the club would have folded then. Non of it is the fault of the EFL. What if the EFL had blocked tje sale to Dale, the club couldnt find another buyer and folded?

Millers: Booth would pass any test. Yet no regulation could compel him to spend his money or prevent him from selling when he did. Millers 05 and, later, Dino and Dennis would not have passed your 'proof of financials' regulation. In theory we could have folded at the point Booth sold.

At the end of the day its the football community thats killing these clubs not the EFL.* But lets blame a convenient scapegoat.

[millertop]

Reading through the EFL Owners and Directors Test, the regulation doesnt cover a requirement to demonstrate 'financials' (although I may have missed it). The main thrust is to do with the legitimacy of the individual (their record in business, criminal conviction, involvecies, disqualifications, fraud, criminal convictions, etc).

The EFL cannot be accused of failing in a duty that isnt part of their remit.

You may feel it needs to be added. I think it would be pretty hollow.* Even if a prospective owner demonstrates an ability to finance the club, nobody can compel them to spend their money or continue in ownership after the choose to sell.* Adding this as a requirement could serve to kill off more than it saves.

Bury: Steve Day would have passed any requirement. He increased levels of spending to what he felt his buisiness could support. His Business went bust that brought the club down. If new owner Dale could not pass the fit and proper the club would have folded then. Non of it is the fault of the EFL. What if the EFL had blocked tje sale to Dale, the club couldnt find another buyer and folded?

Millers: Booth would pass any test. Yet no regulation could compel him to spend his money or prevent him from selling when he did. Millers 05 and, later, Dino and Dennis would not have passed your 'proof of financials' regulation. In theory we could have folded at the point Booth sold.

At the end of the day its the football community thats killing these clubs not the EFL.* But lets blame a convenient scapegoat.

So your saying that EFL can take anyone off the streets to run a club because they’ve passed the tests but don’t have any money? Yeah ok then the EFL are definitely looking after its clubs.

good sarcastic debate from you as usual, just disappointed it took so long