| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) 22:30 - Aug 10 with 2538 views | RAFCBLUE |
https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/201920/governance-reviews/bury-review..pdf-
One positive from the demise of bury fc was the criticisms in the Bird and Bird review, ordered by the Department of Culture Media and Sport.
It's a good read and if you're interested in doing so make sure you have brew before you start!
The pertinent bit for Dale fans in challenging the EFL and the mockery of a process being enacted is on Page 31 (of 33)
"8.3 This case has highlighted several issues with the EFL Regulations, in particular in relation to:
8.3.1 the OAD Test. There is no doubt that the EFL applied the OAD Test properly in relation to Mr Day and Mr Dale. The question is whether the test as currently written is fit for purpose. In particular,
it only looks at a narrow list of objective criteria, and does not take into account various other factors that speak to whether a new owner or director is a fit and proper person to own/run a member Club.
8.3.2 the regulations that apply to changes of ownership of a Club. Once again, the EFL applied those regulations when Mr Dale acquired Bury FC from Mr Day. However, the regulations do not prevent a new owner acquiring the Club before he or she has provided a business plan for the Club and proof of the funding required to underwrite that plan. I am aware that the EFL is already considering blocking changes in control until the new owner has provided adequate evidence of source and sufficiency of funding. For example, it could require the new owner to provide irrevocable financial guarantees of payment of any funding requirements for at least two seasons.
8.3.3 the regulations relating to ongoing monitoring of a Club's financial health. In particular, the Regulations do not currently require League One and Two clubs to submit annual business plans,
underwritten by adequate proof of funding, or half-yearly management accounts, and the SCMP submissions they are required to file were never intended to be and are not an adequate substitute.
We are a club able to ask the EFL that:
1. Are they applying the narrow criteria or, as recommended, the wider consideration of the Bird and Bird review?
2. Have Morton Rose, Curran, Rose and Jarvis provided their business plan - as opposed to the Club's business plan. Testimony from the fans forum indicates this has not occurred. The Bird and Bird review suggests it should have done.
3. We been told that we have submitted our Annual Business Plan; that includes the recent sales of Rathbone and Humphreys for money which will come directly into the club without the need for any further financing. Our financial position and prudence is good.
4. Have Rose and Curran provided the "irrevocable financial guarantees". My feeling is not.
These are four more good reasons why the EFL should kick out these folks into touch.
The main worry is stated in 8.34
The lack of regulations preventing Clubs pledging capital assets such as the stadium and training ground as security for loans that are used not for capital improvements but to cover operating costs or other short-term purposes. In this case, it has been suggested that the mortgage placed
on Gigg Lane to secure the loan from Capital Bridging was a key factor in C&N Sporting Risk's decision not to buy the club.
Beware any business plan injecting loans. I'm sure the EFL don't need me though to tell them that. |  |
| |  |
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 22:33 - Aug 10 with 2514 views | judd |
Brilliant analysis. Much appreciated. |  |
| |
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 22:41 - Aug 10 with 2460 views | D_Alien |
This is pretty much why we've all been scratching our heads for a few weeks
Yes, we get that the EFL can't set the ball rolling with the OADT until at least 30% ownership has been acquired (not just provisionally); but that's their own criterion and it's a very long way from being satisfactory for the type of hostile takeover that Dale have been fighting off
A brief look at the EFL regulations leaves huge holes in their process; not least in leaving out any sanction against trying to acquire ownership of a club for a period of time (or even indefinitely) should such an attempt fall foul of the pretty lax existing regulations
Surely, their whole process needs to be reviewed, and the Dale case is as good an example of EFL failings as could be imagined, following on from the example of bury
Is there any recourse to referral to the Bird & Bird review itself? (i've not yet read it but will do so) |  |
| |
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 22:49 - Aug 10 with 2408 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 22:41 - Aug 10 by D_Alien |
This is pretty much why we've all been scratching our heads for a few weeks
Yes, we get that the EFL can't set the ball rolling with the OADT until at least 30% ownership has been acquired (not just provisionally); but that's their own criterion and it's a very long way from being satisfactory for the type of hostile takeover that Dale have been fighting off
A brief look at the EFL regulations leaves huge holes in their process; not least in leaving out any sanction against trying to acquire ownership of a club for a period of time (or even indefinitely) should such an attempt fall foul of the pretty lax existing regulations
Surely, their whole process needs to be reviewed, and the Dale case is as good an example of EFL failings as could be imagined, following on from the example of bury
Is there any recourse to referral to the Bird & Bird review itself? (i've not yet read it but will do so) |
Hi DA,
The relevant rule to be scrutinised is Regulation 105:
105.2 A person shall be deemed to be interested in a football club if he, whether directly or indirectly:
105.2.1 holds or deals in (or has made any application to hold or deal in or underwrite any issue of) the securities or shares of that football club: or
105.2.2 is a member of that football club; or
105.2.3 is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of that football club; or
105.2.4 has any power whatsoever to influence the financial, commercial or business affairs or the management or administration of that football club; or
105.2.5 has lent to, gifted money to, or purchased future receivables from or guaranteed the debts or obligations of that football club (or any other arrangement of substantially similar effect) otherwise than in the ordinary course of banking.
105.3 In any case where the person interested in a football club is an individual any of the following shall for the purposes of this Regulation 105 be deemed to be an ‘associate’ of that person:
105.3.1 a close relative of that person; or
105.3.2 anyone else of a close relationship with that person who, in the opinion of The League is or is likely to be acting with or who is financially dependent upon, that person; or
105.3.3 any company:
(a) of which that person (or any individual who is an associate of that person) is a director; or
(b) in which that person (or any individual who is an associate of that person) either directly or indirectly holds shares; or
(c) over which that person (or any individual who is an associate of that person) is able to exercise any influence or control; or
105.3.4 any person who is a shareholder, director or employee of any company referred to in Regulation 105.3.3 or any close relative of any such person; or
105.3.5 any company which is a Group Undertaking, Parent Undertaking or Subsidiary Undertaking of any company referred to in Regulation 105.3.3; or
105.3.6 any person who is a shareholder, director or employee of any company referred to in Regulation 105.3.3 or any close relative of any such shareholder, director or employee; or
105.3.7 any person who is an employee or partner of that person or any close relative of any such employee or partner; or
105.3.8 where any person who is interested in a football club has an agreement or arrangement (whether legally binding or not) with any other person in relation to the exercise of their voting power in a football club or the holding or disposal of their interests in a football club, that other person.
105.4 In any case where the person interested in a football club is a company any of the following shall for the purposes of this Regulation 105 be deemed to be an 'associate' of that person:
105.4.1 any person who is a director, shareholder or employee of that person or any close relative of any such director, shareholder or employee; or
105.4.2 any person who is able to influence the financial, commercial or business affairs or the management or administration of that person or any close relative of any such person; or
105.4.3 any company which is a Group Undertaking, Parent Undertaking or Subsidiary Undertaking of that person; or
105.4.4 any shareholder, director or employee of any company referred to in Regulation 105.4.3 or any close relative of any such director, shareholder or employee; or
105.4.5 any person who is able to influence the financial, commercial or business affairs or the management or administration of any company referred to in Regulation 105.4.3 or any close relative of any such person; or
105.4.6 where any person who is interested in a football club has an agreement or arrangement (whether legally binding or not) with any other person in relation to the exercise of their voting power in a football club or the holding or disposal of their interest in a football club, that other person.
105.5 The holding of not more than 10 per cent of the share capital of any football club shall be disregarded for the purposes of this Regulation 105 provided that those shares are, in the opinion of the Board, held purely for investment purposes only.
In short - only if our Board confirm the holding of Morton House is for investment purposes can it be disregarded.
On the face of it, there are multiple rules breaches by Jarvis, Curran and Rose and Morton House under Regulation 105. | |
| |
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 23:03 - Aug 10 with 2360 views | D_Alien |
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 22:49 - Aug 10 by RAFCBLUE |
Hi DA,
The relevant rule to be scrutinised is Regulation 105:
105.2 A person shall be deemed to be interested in a football club if he, whether directly or indirectly:
105.2.1 holds or deals in (or has made any application to hold or deal in or underwrite any issue of) the securities or shares of that football club: or
105.2.2 is a member of that football club; or
105.2.3 is involved in any capacity whatsoever in the management or administration of that football club; or
105.2.4 has any power whatsoever to influence the financial, commercial or business affairs or the management or administration of that football club; or
105.2.5 has lent to, gifted money to, or purchased future receivables from or guaranteed the debts or obligations of that football club (or any other arrangement of substantially similar effect) otherwise than in the ordinary course of banking.
105.3 In any case where the person interested in a football club is an individual any of the following shall for the purposes of this Regulation 105 be deemed to be an ‘associate’ of that person:
105.3.1 a close relative of that person; or
105.3.2 anyone else of a close relationship with that person who, in the opinion of The League is or is likely to be acting with or who is financially dependent upon, that person; or
105.3.3 any company:
(a) of which that person (or any individual who is an associate of that person) is a director; or
(b) in which that person (or any individual who is an associate of that person) either directly or indirectly holds shares; or
(c) over which that person (or any individual who is an associate of that person) is able to exercise any influence or control; or
105.3.4 any person who is a shareholder, director or employee of any company referred to in Regulation 105.3.3 or any close relative of any such person; or
105.3.5 any company which is a Group Undertaking, Parent Undertaking or Subsidiary Undertaking of any company referred to in Regulation 105.3.3; or
105.3.6 any person who is a shareholder, director or employee of any company referred to in Regulation 105.3.3 or any close relative of any such shareholder, director or employee; or
105.3.7 any person who is an employee or partner of that person or any close relative of any such employee or partner; or
105.3.8 where any person who is interested in a football club has an agreement or arrangement (whether legally binding or not) with any other person in relation to the exercise of their voting power in a football club or the holding or disposal of their interests in a football club, that other person.
105.4 In any case where the person interested in a football club is a company any of the following shall for the purposes of this Regulation 105 be deemed to be an 'associate' of that person:
105.4.1 any person who is a director, shareholder or employee of that person or any close relative of any such director, shareholder or employee; or
105.4.2 any person who is able to influence the financial, commercial or business affairs or the management or administration of that person or any close relative of any such person; or
105.4.3 any company which is a Group Undertaking, Parent Undertaking or Subsidiary Undertaking of that person; or
105.4.4 any shareholder, director or employee of any company referred to in Regulation 105.4.3 or any close relative of any such director, shareholder or employee; or
105.4.5 any person who is able to influence the financial, commercial or business affairs or the management or administration of any company referred to in Regulation 105.4.3 or any close relative of any such person; or
105.4.6 where any person who is interested in a football club has an agreement or arrangement (whether legally binding or not) with any other person in relation to the exercise of their voting power in a football club or the holding or disposal of their interest in a football club, that other person.
105.5 The holding of not more than 10 per cent of the share capital of any football club shall be disregarded for the purposes of this Regulation 105 provided that those shares are, in the opinion of the Board, held purely for investment purposes only.
In short - only if our Board confirm the holding of Morton House is for investment purposes can it be disregarded.
On the face of it, there are multiple rules breaches by Jarvis, Curran and Rose and Morton House under Regulation 105. |
Fantastic, thanks so very much
Yes, clear breaches of regulations, which the EFL has woefully failed to take on board in this whole process, pretty much driven by the Dale Trust and through brilliant analysis and research by yourself and others
This needs publicising at the highest level, and in the national press, to ensure clubs like Dale never find themselves in such a position again
I'd also suggest that heads must roll at the EFL
They fail the Rochdale FC and its fans Fit & Proper Test, the only one with any bottle | |
| |
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 23:14 - Aug 10 with 2311 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 23:03 - Aug 10 by D_Alien |
Fantastic, thanks so very much
Yes, clear breaches of regulations, which the EFL has woefully failed to take on board in this whole process, pretty much driven by the Dale Trust and through brilliant analysis and research by yourself and others
This needs publicising at the highest level, and in the national press, to ensure clubs like Dale never find themselves in such a position again
I'd also suggest that heads must roll at the EFL
They fail the Rochdale FC and its fans Fit & Proper Test, the only one with any bottle |
To be really fair to the EFL, they have not opined yet.
And as a regulator they have a duty to listen, follow their own governance and the law.
Goodness knows what they have uncovered if we can demonstrate via this messageboard the sheer quality and quantity of the amount of things you can put your hands on.
If they have uncovered items of concern they will have a duty to legally liaise with other agencies, such as HMRC, the Police, the National Crime Agency etc. Football clubs are wide reaching businesses.
The EFL has said they are in touch with the club, the club will be reading this information or it will be being passed to them I am sure.
We saw with bury that the EFL can write a stern statement:
https://www.efl.com/news/2019/august/efl-statement-bury-fc2/
The last statement was 5 August 2021 and said "the EFL continue to work".
There is, of course, a point where the EFL's work is complete and they must opine.
https://www.efl.com/news/2021/august/efl-statement-rochdale-afc/ | |
| |
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 23:21 - Aug 10 with 2282 views | D_Alien |
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 23:14 - Aug 10 by RAFCBLUE |
To be really fair to the EFL, they have not opined yet.
And as a regulator they have a duty to listen, follow their own governance and the law.
Goodness knows what they have uncovered if we can demonstrate via this messageboard the sheer quality and quantity of the amount of things you can put your hands on.
If they have uncovered items of concern they will have a duty to legally liaise with other agencies, such as HMRC, the Police, the National Crime Agency etc. Football clubs are wide reaching businesses.
The EFL has said they are in touch with the club, the club will be reading this information or it will be being passed to them I am sure.
We saw with bury that the EFL can write a stern statement:
https://www.efl.com/news/2019/august/efl-statement-bury-fc2/
The last statement was 5 August 2021 and said "the EFL continue to work".
There is, of course, a point where the EFL's work is complete and they must opine.
https://www.efl.com/news/2021/august/efl-statement-rochdale-afc/ |
They haven't yet opined, but have had perfectly good grounds to do so
Of course, no-one wants to push them beyond their capabilities, but in terms of the pressure that's been exerted on our club and its fans these past few months now, this could have been nipped in the bud at an earlier stage
That's my opinion; it's beyond time for them to put their heads above the parapet | |
| |
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 23:56 - Aug 10 with 2186 views | Sandyman |
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 23:21 - Aug 10 by D_Alien |
They haven't yet opined, but have had perfectly good grounds to do so
Of course, no-one wants to push them beyond their capabilities, but in terms of the pressure that's been exerted on our club and its fans these past few months now, this could have been nipped in the bud at an earlier stage
That's my opinion; it's beyond time for them to put their heads above the parapet |
Indeed, and after the release of the superb Al Jazeera documentary exposing how easily the EFL's governance can be breached, the EFL really does need to knuckle down and prove it's worth. Rochdale AFC and a relatively easy denial of a very very poor takeover attempt is a great opportunity for them to show they have some authority, in the face of their usual lily-livered non-committal attempts to resolve issues combined with their fear of legal action. [Post edited 11 Aug 2021 0:00]
|  | | |
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 23:59 - Aug 10 with 2173 views | 49thseason |
Well done! I mentioned last night that we shouldn't take EFL support for granted and you have nailed the exact reason why. If hostile takeovers of their member clubs are not at the top of their agenda, you might wonder what on earth is? Or are they happy to throw clubs to the wolves on the basis that there are others to replace them?
There is too much money in football to run its organisation like a branch of Woolworths, they must get more savvy and quickly for everyones sake. That people like you are having to do their heavy lifting is a scandal in itself, it shouldnt be like this but thankyou, without the determination of fans like you all would be lost by now. |  | | |
Login to get fewer ads
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 09:05 - Aug 11 with 1908 views | electricblue |
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 23:56 - Aug 10 by Sandyman |
Indeed, and after the release of the superb Al Jazeera documentary exposing how easily the EFL's governance can be breached, the EFL really does need to knuckle down and prove it's worth. Rochdale AFC and a relatively easy denial of a very very poor takeover attempt is a great opportunity for them to show they have some authority, in the face of their usual lily-livered non-committal attempts to resolve issues combined with their fear of legal action. [Post edited 11 Aug 2021 0:00]
|
The AL Jazeera docu just showed how easily the system can be manipulated with the minimum of information given with no further questions asked.
Also watching the docu and the how the broker works makes Jarvis sunday league level and well out of his depth in all this.
Infact baby face Jarvis should be looking constantly over his shoulder for being issued with papers.....
Also the AL Jazeera report should have the PREM, FA, EFL tightening up their own goverenence on taking over a football club and it requires doing ASAP.. |  |
| My all time favourite Dale player Mr Lyndon Symmonds |
| |
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 12:39 - Aug 11 with 1756 views | jonahwhereru |
Failing the OAD test is not very easy, so I don’t hold out much hope on that point. That Dale had been involved with 30 companies that had gone into liquidation is shocking but for us also worrying. As for the discriminatory comments, the sharks can argue they are not yet involved with a football club.
This leaves the Future Financing Plan requirement and the sharks not obtaining 50.1% as the main hopes for us. The former we cannot influence. So the latter has to be our main focus. I think Col mentioned that the Trust had received pledges not to sell to the sharks that equated to 50.7% of the shares, which although good is still perilously close to disaster. Especially when there may be big money flying around. The legal wrangle over Andrew Kelly’s shares is key right now, let’s hope that goes Andrew’s way. Additionally the Trust’s attempts to buy shares held by others. I said previously they need to be free to bid above £2 per share, and I stand by that. Yes I know they can’t compete with Rose / Curran, but they just have to make offers appealing enough for shareholders to do the right thing. Everyone has their price but sentiment doesn’t mean it has to be £10 per share.
Great work, keep strong.
Up The Dale - Not For Sale |  | | |
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 19:20 - Aug 11 with 1604 views | NorthernDale |
Hopefully they have learned the lesson from Bury and Macclesfield, did they not reject the people seeking to takeover Derby in the summer, because they were dodgy with little source of income or the financial resources.
So hopefully they are now starting to learn their lessons, but we all know they are at times so incompetent and hopeless, it makes you wonder if they are fit for purpose. | | | |
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 19:55 - Aug 11 with 1538 views | RAFCBLUE |
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 19:20 - Aug 11 by NorthernDale |
Hopefully they have learned the lesson from Bury and Macclesfield, did they not reject the people seeking to takeover Derby in the summer, because they were dodgy with little source of income or the financial resources.
So hopefully they are now starting to learn their lessons, but we all know they are at times so incompetent and hopeless, it makes you wonder if they are fit for purpose. |
I don't think the EFL are incompetent or try to be but they are massively under resourced and those with ill intentions and who want to use any football club for unfair means (Swindon, bury, Macclesfield etc) massively outnumber the resources of the EFL.
It's why the Bird and Bird review noted that the Owners' and Directors' test needed a significant overhaul because in their words:
" The question is whether the test as currently written is fit for purpose. In particular, it only looks at a narrow list of objective criteria, and does not take into account various other factors that speak to whether a new owner or director is a fit and proper person to own/run a member Club."
The big difficult question here is.
Does the EFL, have the evidence to confirm that Andrew Kirk Curran, Morton House Mgt and First Form Construction and Darrell Rose are fit and proper persons to own part of a member club?
The last few years at Swindon Town and "nancy boy" connection works severely against making any form for of positive case for Curran.
The facts of Morton House's dramatic rise to fortune under Denise Valerie Courtnell is questionable and the query of the sudden change of ownership, changed one day AFTER Morton House appeared before the EFL.
And don't mention the Rolls Royce! | |
| |
| Lessons from the past - the demise of bury fc (Bird and Bird review) on 08:52 - Aug 19 with 957 views | UpTheDaleNotForSale |
seems to be a fair amount of press interest this week - lots of queries coming in on social media, so giving these threads a bump. |  |
| Twitter : @DaleNotForSale
Facebook : facebook.com/upthedalenotforsale |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
