|
Post by kenglowhite on Sept 5, 2019 21:58:14 GMT
It appears there is to be some investigation of EFL governance and club ownership after the unfortunate Bury affair and their subsequent ejection by the EFL. I wonder if there may also be some consideration of the way BWFC were treated after Ken Anderson apparently deserted the ship after running out of monies, and the assurances that were given by the EFL that there was still cash available, which led to a too late move into administration and the cancellation of the Brentford game by the EFL. And indeed the initial agreement by the EFL to allow Anderson to take over our club despite his previous financial record.
|
|
|
Post by OohMac on Sept 6, 2019 22:50:30 GMT
It does not take investigation to know that a Londoner banned from running clubs should have ulterior motives for "buying" Bolton. Or that an asset stripper and business killer would be bad news at Bury.
Problem is theres a culture where you have to be presumed innocent if your misdemeanours are over 12 months old.
The EFL are useless. They clearly dont want the legal battle of telling someone they are not suitable and then try the hard line when it hits the fan.
Like everything the millions are being let down by the very few who ought to be do better.
|
|
|
Post by whitesince63 on Sept 7, 2019 7:43:42 GMT
This is a difficult one OM because as you say, the EFL could face legal action if they attempt to ban someone from ownership but certainly there must be more rules with regard to responsibility of running our clubs. Past offenders should never be allowed to repeat their chaos as Anderson has done and as we know, just proof of funds is not an indication that it will be used to run the club properly. It is of course possible for clubs to fall into financial difficulties under genuine owners, again similar to ourselves if results on the field fail and clubs are stuck with players on long, expensive contracts agreed at a higher level. Perhaps the PFA need to accept that if teams are relegated, contract costs must reduce in line with league position but good luck with that one in today’s money grabbing, agent led environment.
Certainly, I believe the EFL have to look at the penalty regime. Penalising new owners, players and fans of clubs damaged by previous owners instead of against the perpetrator is totally ridiculous. Anderson has got away with his spoils entirely penalty free. How can that possibly be right? The EFL seem to have fallen into a culture of just looking to penalise clubs instead of helping them. We don’t know the full details behind Burys expulsion yet but the EFL did seem to act with undue haste and inflexibility over potential new owners. Let’s hope even at this late stage something can be done to save them?
|
|
|
Post by OohMac on Sept 7, 2019 12:00:15 GMT
I dont know the answer but Larry nearly got his foot in the door and i honestly think hed struggle to pass a credit check to buy a TV from Comet on finance.
I dont know how feasible it is but would day that any owner can only own 49% of any club. 51% to a supporters trust.
Or a minimum of board members say 7 of which 4 have to be a representative of supporters, PFA, local business, etc.
I really hope that when the dust settles we dont subside our views. Too many clubs too many staff are too close to the brink.
|
|
|
Post by kenglowhite on Sept 8, 2019 8:48:27 GMT
There are some good suggestions there about ownership, but my worry about the jurisdiction of the EFL as it stands is that for the sins of a crooked or maybe simply impecunious owner the powers that be at the EFL in imposing their sanctions are in fact really punishing a whole town or city and probably not the perpetrtors of the problems, as in the Bury case, and ourselves with points deductions.Added to this the members of the EFL board making such decisions may be members of rival clubs that could have a subjective interest in penalising or demoting a rival club, and at present there is no jurisdiction, and probably no appeal, over such EFL decisions.
|
|
|
Post by whitesince63 on Sept 8, 2019 15:08:00 GMT
You’ve summed it up perfectly in your post Kenglo. There is absolutely no retribution being taken by the EFL against the perpetrator, just the club itself, new owner and the fans. Of course we should also add in the town itself, it’s businesses who profit from the games and of course the local ratepayers and clubs suppliers. The total cost of the demise of a club like Bury, and as would have been with ourselves, would be massive and yet not one ounce of punishment can be taken against the Ken Anderson’s and Steve Dales of this world who have caused all the mayhem and profited from it. Our 12 point penalty is evidence of the totally unsatisfactory procedures of the EFL and the sooner they are amended and they are themselves subject to proper scrutiny, the debacle will continue with the next club to fall foul.
|
|
|
Post by kenglowhite on Nov 6, 2019 17:55:20 GMT
I read in my paper today that MPs have taken a dim view of the EFL's treatment of Bury and that they have asked for certain controls over their powers in the future. At the same time I hear background noises about cancelled meetings with further penalties for us on the EFL agenda, some of them led by Doncaster. I sincerely hope our great new owners FV are taking the best legal advice for anything that may further damage our recovering club, and that the Supporters Trust have the money well in hand that I and others contributed to on Just Giving against the future imposition of any penalties that this useless organisation might see fit to give us. The EFL are surely set up to run a fair competition of over 20 clubs, and if they are not seen to do that by all involved, serious sanctions must be called for. In other words we and the rest of the football world wait to see if KH. DF and the boys can pull off a miracle by pulling back those 12 points somewhat unfairly imposed through our ex-chairman's friend, Shaun Harvey. in the first place and stay in League One......and what a disappountment it would be if there were to be a cancellation of the sequel by the EFL themselves.
|
|
|
Post by whitesince63 on Nov 7, 2019 6:53:28 GMT
I don’t think Doncaster have any right to moan other than they were advised late in the day. After all, Coventry are above them in the table and they couldn’t beat us at home with a full kids team, so who says they would have done any better or possibly worse. If the EFL are in any way influenced by that they are even more of a disgrace than they appear to be. It’s good that the government are looking into this because the EFL have been punishing clubs and new owners unfairly for years, yet unlike the FA are outside government control. They must address the issues with ownership or be stripped of their responsibility and if it takes a government inquiry to force that then we’ll and good as far as I’m concerned. Separately, I think the actions of Shaun Harvey, in our case, should be looked into deeply.
|
|
|
Post by OohMac on Nov 7, 2019 16:06:38 GMT
Maybe its a regional thing Whites but cannot see how you can say Doncaster dont have a case. Firstly communication was so poor. Had we had gone cap in hand and said our medics have said to postpone, can we reschedule. If yes, great of no then your forcing our hand.
I also dont know why we played in the league cup instead of the league.
Im still convinced Parky really didnt want to manage a losing team and expected the FV to be quicker.
I dont see any point of rescheduling the game as think any result bar a large Rovers victory would open a can of worms.
The argument of the draw at Coventry could be used against us. If a squad can play a league fixture then why cant they fill in.
And if we couldnt have kept the schedule then we shouldnt have started. I do wonder what the result would have been if Bury did manage to get a new owner?
|
|
|
Post by whitesince63 on Nov 7, 2019 19:16:12 GMT
I didn’t say Doncaster didn’t have a case OM, they have every right to be angry that they weren’t advised earlier of the postponement and I do think should be financially compensated for the cost and inconvenience. I do not though think they have any right to demand further or harsher punishment and certainly not points deductions. As for the game being rescheduled, of course it should. We had a game postponed by weather at Lincoln and one by international calls at Burton. There’s a technical difference but no genuine reason not to play the game. The simple fact is, that any club, including Doncaster, can find themselves in ours and Burys position under this current EFL, it’s only grace of God they haven’t. There needs to be a little more honesty and acceptance of that by clubs instead of their I’m alright Jack attitude.
|
|
|
Post by kenglowhite on Nov 7, 2019 20:16:00 GMT
I think you are missing the point, OM. In fact I am trying to say that all our problems at the end of last season and the beginning of this seemed to stem from the mismanagement or misunderstanding of our situation by the EFL, and that they should be protecting us from further penalties in the interest of keeping their league together. Because of that they should be controlling the mock anger of competing clubs by announcing an outcome about the Brentford and Doncaster games, and in view of their neglect of our situation and their treatment of us resisting further penalty points. The minus 12 is a challenge enough for any club under the circumstances, and any more minuses will dampen the rallying interest in our support, and maybe some of the Leaugue One fixtures with other clubs. Just think of the problems their treatment of Bury has caused them.
|
|
|
Post by OohMac on Nov 8, 2019 21:32:49 GMT
I dont think theres any doubt on whos to blame for the mess and what should have been done. I do think the 12 points is enough and there is a precedent set that Blackpool waived(waivered)that deduction because of ownership. So again i dont think there is a one size fits all punishment.
For Donny, again i just think they feel hard done by seeing tranmere, gillingham getting easy wins and then the white flag comes out and we say hang on until we muscle up.
Lets face it anyone with half a brain, as mentioned on BN, or gives half a fxuk, uses the structure wisely. Takes the 12 points in March. Gets it sorted and gives the club half a chance. We unfornately found one of the worst people not in football but in business and mankind to run, or not run, the club.
I cant remember what happened when Estonia didnt play the Scotland match many years ago. Seem to remember Ally McCoist kicking off and the ref blowing for an instant 0-3 defeat. (Had Phil Parkinson managed Scotland they would have enjoyed 60% possession that game)
If i was representing Bolton in an appeal i would argue that EFL and Harvey should have stepped in March. Remember that harvey statement? And of the 12 points deduction at least 6 of those should be suspended for 5 years. Games where you do not field a team should be forfieted. A second game then a further deduction. Third time in a season? Cup bans for following season and further deduction. 4th? Relegation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2019 23:08:32 GMT
I couldn't agree more with you Oom. I was one of the people who stated in the BN that the penalties should be deducted in the season that the "offence" took place. Let's say that you were in a financially difficult position, but were second place in the league. Deducting the points would be welcomed by the third place team, but still giving them a chance on the playoffs, , maybe.
This would keep the league intact and new owners wouldn't feel the penalties of the previous.
Let's face it, a promotion to the Prem would give you a cash boost, even if you were there for one year and didn't buy one sodding new player.
I've no idea how much a one year visit to the Prem is worth, but there's plenty throwing money at it in the Championship... look where Derby is now.
|
|
|
Post by westandlower on Nov 20, 2019 15:09:27 GMT
I see that announcement of the "punishment" has been put off again. I suspect EFL are taking legal advice to avoid us winning an appeal.
Not sure it's a rule as such, but EFL recommend youth players do not play more than once a week. We called off a game citing youth players welfare (leaving aside that we should have sought permission). If we are docked points we would appeal as two rules are in conflict.
Again not sure it's a rule as such, but I read somewhere that calling off a game without permission should be dealt with "in season" and now we are post season. If we are docked points again we would appeal citing EFL not complying with rules.
Ideal outcome is clarification from EFL, a "don't do it again warning" and maybe a token fine - say £5K.
|
|
|
Post by kenglowhite on Nov 20, 2019 15:41:38 GMT
I keep reading that a decision is due. First it was last Wednesday, then today, but now according to the BN sometime soon. I wonder where this information is in fact coming from, and, if true, why nothing has so far been announced. I hope the big wheels of Governmenet are in fact after the EFL. I still believe BWFC have no case to answer because they have already been fully punished for the Brentford game, and that the current ownersof BWFC, FV, were not responsible for the calling off of the Doncaster match, that having been the administrators and PP, while the young players excuse prevails. With all eyes on the EFL it does seem they are wary of any real controversy arising from their thinking especially after Bury and Harvey's known collusion with Anderson. Having paid ny £30 to the Supporters Trust against the need for an appeal. I am keeping a watchful eye on events. If there is a really unfavourable outome there is always the supreme sports court in existence. Why should only Chelsea and Mancity use it ?
|
|