Having emailed the EFL on the same subject earlier in the week I have received the reply below;
Thank you for your email, we note your comments.
Generally speaking the EFL works with all its member Clubs in respect to the application of our regulations.
The EFL’s Owners’ and Directors’ Test (OADT) determines the eligibility of individuals that are involved in the ownership, management and administration of a club. The ODT is entirely objective in its approach and action cannot be taken against individuals based on subjective judgement. Instead the OADT criteria is constantly applied in that, should an owner or relevant person fall foul of any of the objective requirements of the test, then this would impact on their ability to retain their position. The OADT can be read in Appendix III http://www.efl.com/global/appendix3.aspx.
In this respect the EFL will act should it be aware of any matter which breaches the regulations defined within the test.
Thank you for contacting the EFL.
Regards,
Jessica Crook
Supporter Services Department
EFL
EFL email signature2016-EFLHouse-HR500
What a load of corporate blks. I fear the trust will get a similar reply.
I wonder if there are any references in any EFL documents about the running of a club & what is accecptable or neccesary even....
ie, No CEO or Management structure. How long can RD continue running it like a cheap hotel ?? I bet you couldn't get into the league without anything in place. seems like once you've been accepted you can do as you please.....as long as you don't buy the players a burger after a match of course.
The fit and proper tests are based on financial integrity, not competence to run a football club.
As long as the club is able to meet it's financial obligations as and when they fall due and can fulfill the fixtures then what on earth do you expect the EFL to do? What sanctions could they hand down to a privately owned company that has not, as far as I know, broken any laws, or indeed any rules of the EFL.
I don’t disagree with you based on the status quo, but the private company’s ability to trade in this case depends on its membership of the EFL, so the EFL could set minimum standards for governance - and in fact does so already. The issue is whether they could usefully be made more robust.
For example the league could set minimum standards for business management as the FA does in respect of academy staffing, which is highly prescriptive. A functioning board of directors and identified and publicly accountable executives ought to be a possible requirement. I’d imagine the Charlton “board” has met once a year, remotely, to approve the accounts since 2014.
Having emailed the EFL on the same subject earlier in the week I have received the reply below;
Thank you for your email, we note your comments.
Generally speaking the EFL works with all its member Clubs in respect to the application of our regulations.
The EFL’s Owners’ and Directors’ Test (OADT) determines the eligibility of individuals that are involved in the ownership, management and administration of a club. The ODT is entirely objective in its approach and action cannot be taken against individuals based on subjective judgement. Instead the OADT criteria is constantly applied in that, should an owner or relevant person fall foul of any of the objective requirements of the test, then this would impact on their ability to retain their position. The OADT can be read in Appendix III http://www.efl.com/global/appendix3.aspx.
In this respect the EFL will act should it be aware of any matter which breaches the regulations defined within the test.
Thank you for contacting the EFL.
Regards,
Jessica Crook
Supporter Services Department
EFL
EFL email signature2016-EFLHouse-HR500
What a load of corporate blks. I fear the trust will get a similar reply.
I wonder if there are any references in any EFL documents about the running of a club & what is accecptable or neccesary even....
ie, No CEO or Management structure. How long can RD continue running it like a cheap hotel ?? I bet you couldn't get into the league without anything in place. seems like once you've been accepted you can do as you please.....as long as you don't buy the players a burger after a match of course.
The fit and proper tests are based on financial integrity, not competence to run a football club.
As long as the club is able to meet it's financial obligations as and when they fall due and can fulfill the fixtures then what on earth do you expect the EFL to do? What sanctions could they hand down to a privately owned company that has not, as far as I know, broken any laws, or indeed any rules of the EFL.
I don’t disagree with you based on the status quo, but the private company’s ability to trade in this case depends on its membership of the EFL, so the EFL could set minimum standards for governance - and in fact does so already. The issue is whether they could usefully be made more robust.
For example the league could set minimum standards for business management as the FA does in respect of academy staffing, which is highly prescriptive. A functioning board of directors and identified and publicly accountable executives ought to be a possible requirement. I’d imagine the Charlton “board” has met once a year, remotely, to approve the accounts since 2014.
Academy staffing is more about securing EPPP and Cat 1 status, and of course education and safeguarding responsibilities. Been there, done it, bought (but don't wear) the t-shirt.
Yes what you suggest would be great, Rick - but it crosses the line into Company law. For a private company the law states, as I'm sure you know, a minimum of one director and no statutory requirement to hold board meetings.
Having emailed the EFL on the same subject earlier in the week I have received the reply below;
Thank you for your email, we note your comments.
Generally speaking the EFL works with all its member Clubs in respect to the application of our regulations.
The EFL’s Owners’ and Directors’ Test (OADT) determines the eligibility of individuals that are involved in the ownership, management and administration of a club. The ODT is entirely objective in its approach and action cannot be taken against individuals based on subjective judgement. Instead the OADT criteria is constantly applied in that, should an owner or relevant person fall foul of any of the objective requirements of the test, then this would impact on their ability to retain their position. The OADT can be read in Appendix III http://www.efl.com/global/appendix3.aspx.
In this respect the EFL will act should it be aware of any matter which breaches the regulations defined within the test.
Thank you for contacting the EFL.
Regards,
Jessica Crook
Supporter Services Department
EFL
EFL email signature2016-EFLHouse-HR500
What a load of corporate blks. I fear the trust will get a similar reply.
I wonder if there are any references in any EFL documents about the running of a club & what is accecptable or neccesary even....
ie, No CEO or Management structure. How long can RD continue running it like a cheap hotel ?? I bet you couldn't get into the league without anything in place. seems like once you've been accepted you can do as you please.....as long as you don't buy the players a burger after a match of course.
The fit and proper tests are based on financial integrity, not competence to run a football club.
As long as the club is able to meet it's financial obligations as and when they fall due and can fulfill the fixtures then what on earth do you expect the EFL to do? What sanctions could they hand down to a privately owned company that has not, as far as I know, broken any laws, or indeed any rules of the EFL.
I don’t disagree with you based on the status quo, but the private company’s ability to trade in this case depends on its membership of the EFL, so the EFL could set minimum standards for governance - and in fact does so already. The issue is whether they could usefully be made more robust.
For example the league could set minimum standards for business management as the FA does in respect of academy staffing, which is highly prescriptive. A functioning board of directors and identified and publicly accountable executives ought to be a possible requirement. I’d imagine the Charlton “board” has met once a year, remotely, to approve the accounts since 2014.
Academy staffing is more about securing EPPP and Cat 1 status, and of course education and safeguarding responsibilities. Been there, done it, bought (but don't wear) the t-shirt.
Yes what you suggest would be great, Rick - but it crosses the line into Company law. For a private company the law states, as I'm sure you know, a minimum of one director and no statutory requirement to hold board meetings.
It might be the law, but the EFL could have in its Articles of Association or "Rules of Being a Member" that any league club should have, at least, 1 board member that is effectively running the business "hands on"....ie, is in the actual country the league is in & is actively dealing with running the business on a day-to-day basis.
As I said in my original post, I doubt whether anything exists..........but I bet there is something if, when Salford got promoted, it was run by a bloke in Belgium with no other significant employee in the UK doing anything.
I agree with you on how it should be. How it is, currently, is that the EFL does not at present recognize any duty to anyone other than its "member" clubs. As an aside, it is not at all clear how exactly the EFL as an org. is funded, and it is something CAST needs to understand as we prepare to address them. Thus far we have learnt that its staffing costs run to £4.2m per year, and its highest paid director, presumably Harvey, earns more than 350k. per year.
It does not seem to me to matter one jot that clubs are private companies. Without a league to play in, they have no business. Therefore a league can set minimum standards of governance as a price of doing business. The EFL in its current form will resist any move to better governance which takes the fan stakeholders into account, because its personnel have been selected by, and owe their excellent living standards to the current 72 owners, including the Oystons, RD, the Venkeys, Sisu, the Hull geezer etc. That is what we are up against. However we have a potential ally in the Ombudsman whom Blackpool believe to have learnt from their case, and, while Damian Collins leads it, the DCMS too.
This is not a quick fix, a short-term scrap. It is about not just getting RD out, but making sure some other twats don't come along and are allowed to be just as bad. We will not win this on our own, but in the fan activist world, we are seen as a fearless and brilliantly creative fan base who were sadly missed in the early years of that activism. We can galvanize the fans of other clubs who start to despair. We can win this. We can change how English football is run.
Could the trust not get the club to agree to at least one meeting with the hierarchy a month to get an understanding of where we are with this takeover? Or what the contingency plan is each month it rumbles on without happening?
I think the problem is they can only update you with details that aren’t covered by their pesky NDAs and confidentially clauses.
But what is the NDA covering ?? We know the club is up for sale & we know its an Australian Consortium thats trying to buy it.
We're not asking about the price or any sensitive information, simply what the fuck is going on. Surely one side or the other (preferably both) can give an update & why its taking so long. We all know about the ex-director loans too....so if they're the problem then say so.Thats why I think theres more to it.
That’s exactly what they can’t discuss. Pain isn’t it.
Could the trust not get the club to agree to at least one meeting with the hierarchy a month to get an understanding of where we are with this takeover? Or what the contingency plan is each month it rumbles on without happening?
I think the problem is they can only update you with details that aren’t covered by their pesky NDAs and confidentially clauses.
But what is the NDA covering ?? We know the club is up for sale & we know its an Australian Consortium thats trying to buy it.
We're not asking about the price or any sensitive information, simply what the fuck is going on. Surely one side or the other (preferably both) can give an update & why its taking so long. We all know about the ex-director loans too....so if they're the problem then say so.Thats why I think theres more to it.
That’s exactly what they can’t discuss. Pain isn’t it.
The problem is a lot of the information you regurgitate on here like 'It's still on' or 'next two weeks will be important' yada yada is misleading. It makes it sound like the two parties are in sync and are desperately thrashing around to get this over the line when it clearly isn't the case anymore,maybe never has been.
The house buying analogy gets used often enough I know. I might be interested in buying a certain house. The owner of the house has it up for sale. I've made a little tentative offer. They have rebuffed it. And that's where its at. No estate agents, solicitors,surveyors standing in the way. Just two groups that have drawn their lines and neither is prepared to cross them.
Gerard Murphy saying 'It's Still on' is a nonsense. What he really should be saying is 'we'll still be here if the old scroat ever changes his mind.'
Could the trust not get the club to agree to at least one meeting with the hierarchy a month to get an understanding of where we are with this takeover? Or what the contingency plan is each month it rumbles on without happening?
I think the problem is they can only update you with details that aren’t covered by their pesky NDAs and confidentially clauses.
But what is the NDA covering ?? We know the club is up for sale & we know its an Australian Consortium thats trying to buy it.
We're not asking about the price or any sensitive information, simply what the fuck is going on. Surely one side or the other (preferably both) can give an update & why its taking so long. We all know about the ex-director loans too....so if they're the problem then say so.Thats why I think theres more to it.
That’s exactly what they can’t discuss. Pain isn’t it.
The problem is a lot of the information you regurgitate on here like 'It's still on' or 'next two weeks will be important' yada yada is misleading. It makes it sound like the two parties are in sync and are desperately thrashing around to get this over the line when it clearly isn't the case anymore,maybe never has been.
The house buying analogy gets used often enough I know. I might be interested in buying a certain house. The owner of the house has it up for sale. I've made a little tentative offer. They have rebuffed it. And that's where its at. No estate agents, solicitors,surveyors standing in the way. Just two groups that have drawn their lines and neither is prepared to cross them.
Gerard Murphy saying 'It's Still on' is a nonsense. What he really should be saying is 'we'll still be here if the old scroat ever changes his mind.'
Regurgitate is a pejorative term in this context.
Regardless, your first two paragraphs don’t really add up. You’re reading too much into it.
Your last sentence I partially agree with, but isn’t it ‘scrote’?
Is there any truth in the rumour that Two Shats was not vetted by the league because the spivs had to go to court for reasons related to ownership that were potentially more embarrassing to the league and they were therefore keen to allow a quick takeover?
I suppose it is possible that in those circumstances vetting might have been less rigorous than normal. After all Duchatelet had already been accepted by the authorities in Belgium (twice) and Germany. But since Roland has not, as far as I'm aware, ever been declared bankrupt, or similar, I'm not sure that under their narrow definition of fit and proper it would have made much difference.
I think they had already cleared him before the third party ownership allegations were made, as outlined in another thread.
I think the Trust has it right, in that there is probably little the EFL can do, even if the will was there, under their present rules, except maybe writing RD a stiff letter asking him to explain the situation. It will take ages, but the thing to get changed is the rules themselves. That may protect us and other clubs in the future.
Could the trust not get the club to agree to at least one meeting with the hierarchy a month to get an understanding of where we are with this takeover? Or what the contingency plan is each month it rumbles on without happening?
I think the problem is they can only update you with details that aren’t covered by their pesky NDAs and confidentially clauses.
But what is the NDA covering ?? We know the club is up for sale & we know its an Australian Consortium thats trying to buy it.
We're not asking about the price or any sensitive information, simply what the fuck is going on. Surely one side or the other (preferably both) can give an update & why its taking so long. We all know about the ex-director loans too....so if they're the problem then say so.Thats why I think theres more to it.
That’s exactly what they can’t discuss. Pain isn’t it.
The problem is a lot of the information you regurgitate on here like 'It's still on' or 'next two weeks will be important' yada yada is misleading. It makes it sound like the two parties are in sync and are desperately thrashing around to get this over the line when it clearly isn't the case anymore,maybe never has been.
The house buying analogy gets used often enough I know. I might be interested in buying a certain house. The owner of the house has it up for sale. I've made a little tentative offer. They have rebuffed it. And that's where its at. No estate agents, solicitors,surveyors standing in the way. Just two groups that have drawn their lines and neither is prepared to cross them.
Gerard Murphy saying 'It's Still on' is a nonsense. What he really should be saying is 'we'll still be here if the old scroat ever changes his mind.'
Thank you for your email, we appreciate you getting in touch.
While we note your comments, unfortunately the EFL’s policy is not to comment on any speculation or any alleged takeovers which may involve any of our 72 member clubs, to protect their interests, nor is there a set duration/timescale in respect of any prospective Club takeover.
I take it that is a reply to you, mate?
Fine, good to know and log.
If anyone else gets replies to emails from them, please share here too.
"Protect their interests".....
Yes. I wrote them when the initial rumour came out. Doubt Trust will get any more.
Thanks
Also good to know how long it took for them to respond
Next day, so perhaps CAST will fare better.
Really, they replied in 24 hours? What about yours, @willieduff , how long did they take?
Thank you for your email, we appreciate you getting in touch.
While we note your comments, unfortunately the EFL’s policy is not to comment on any speculation or any alleged takeovers which may involve any of our 72 member clubs, to protect their interests, nor is there a set duration/timescale in respect of any prospective Club takeover.
I take it that is a reply to you, mate?
Fine, good to know and log.
If anyone else gets replies to emails from them, please share here too.
"Protect their interests".....
Yes. I wrote them when the initial rumour came out. Doubt Trust will get any more.
Thanks
Also good to know how long it took for them to respond
Next day, so perhaps CAST will fare better.
Really, they replied in 24 hours? What about yours, @willieduff , how long did they take?
Thank you for your email, we appreciate you getting in touch.
While we note your comments, unfortunately the EFL’s policy is not to comment on any speculation or any alleged takeovers which may involve any of our 72 member clubs, to protect their interests, nor is there a set duration/timescale in respect of any prospective Club takeover.
I take it that is a reply to you, mate?
Fine, good to know and log.
If anyone else gets replies to emails from them, please share here too.
"Protect their interests".....
Yes. I wrote them when the initial rumour came out. Doubt Trust will get any more.
Thanks
Also good to know how long it took for them to respond
Next day, so perhaps CAST will fare better.
Really, they replied in 24 hours? What about yours, @willieduff , how long did they take?
Comments
For example the league could set minimum standards for business management as the FA does in respect of academy staffing, which is highly prescriptive. A functioning board of directors and identified and publicly accountable executives ought to be a possible requirement. I’d imagine the Charlton “board” has met once a year, remotely, to approve the accounts since 2014.
Yes what you suggest would be great, Rick - but it crosses the line into Company law. For a private company the law states, as I'm sure you know, a minimum of one director and no statutory requirement to hold board meetings.
As I said in my original post, I doubt whether anything exists..........but I bet there is something if, when Salford got promoted, it was run by a bloke in Belgium with no other significant employee in the UK doing anything.
I agree with you on how it should be. How it is, currently, is that the EFL does not at present recognize any duty to anyone other than its "member" clubs. As an aside, it is not at all clear how exactly the EFL as an org. is funded, and it is something CAST needs to understand as we prepare to address them. Thus far we have learnt that its staffing costs run to £4.2m per year, and its highest paid director, presumably Harvey, earns more than 350k. per year.
It does not seem to me to matter one jot that clubs are private companies. Without a league to play in, they have no business. Therefore a league can set minimum standards of governance as a price of doing business. The EFL in its current form will resist any move to better governance which takes the fan stakeholders into account, because its personnel have been selected by, and owe their excellent living standards to the current 72 owners, including the Oystons, RD, the Venkeys, Sisu, the Hull geezer etc. That is what we are up against. However we have a potential ally in the Ombudsman whom Blackpool believe to have learnt from their case, and, while Damian Collins leads it, the DCMS too.
This is not a quick fix, a short-term scrap. It is about not just getting RD out, but making sure some other twats don't come along and are allowed to be just as bad. We will not win this on our own, but in the fan activist world, we are seen as a fearless and brilliantly creative fan base who were sadly missed in the early years of that activism. We can galvanize the fans of other clubs who start to despair. We can win this. We can change how English football is run.
Who's up for the battle, then?
It makes it sound like the two parties are in sync and are desperately thrashing around to get this over the line when it clearly isn't the case anymore,maybe never has been.
The house buying analogy gets used often enough I know.
I might be interested in buying a certain house. The owner of the house has it up for sale. I've made a little tentative offer. They have rebuffed it. And that's where its at. No estate agents, solicitors,surveyors standing in the way. Just two groups that have drawn their lines and neither is prepared to cross them.
Gerard Murphy saying 'It's Still on' is a nonsense. What he really should be saying is 'we'll still be here if the old scroat ever changes his mind.'
Regardless, your first two paragraphs don’t really add up. You’re reading too much into it.
Your last sentence I partially agree with, but isn’t it ‘scrote’?
I think they had already cleared him before the third party ownership allegations were made, as outlined in another thread.
I think the Trust has it right, in that there is probably little the EFL can do, even if the will was there, under their present rules, except maybe writing RD a stiff letter asking him to explain the situation. It will take ages, but the thing to get changed is the rules themselves. That may protect us and other clubs in the future.