Respect to the supporters of all the clubs who have organised themselves in whatever way to bring about this change. The EFL wouldn't do it otherwise. I would like to believe that if Bury stabilize they will be allowed straight back in to the fourth division by some sensible practical means.
In principle this sounds like a good thing, but the EFL will need to upgrade their resources to be able to do this job properly, especially as often there is the need for takeovers to proceed quickly is the club is in financial trouble
I wonder if the Wigan takeover would be covered by this, seeing that their takeover doesn't seem to have gone through yet
Takeovers of English Football League clubs are to be banned on Tuesday unless they have been approved in advance by the governing body, in a rule change to prevent a repeat of the demise of Bury.
Those involved in the expulsion of a club from the professional and semi-professional men’s and women’s games will also be disqualified from running an EFL team, Telegraph Sport can reveal.
The changes to the EFL’s Owners’ and Directors’ Test will be voted on on Tuesday by the league’s 72 members just over a year after Bury’s removal from their number.
It can also be revealed that Premier League clubs adopted the same rule changes last month in order that both they and their EFL counterparts were aligned.
Previously, someone was able to buy an EFL club before being subject to the Owners’ and Directors’ Test, something that saw Bury stuck with Steve Dale at the helm despite him failing to provide the proof of funding that ultimately led to the club’s expulsion.
Tuesday's vote will take place less than 24 hours after the shock resignation of EFL chief executive David Baldwin after less than four months in the role.
The former Burnley and Bradford City chief executive announced he would remain in post for another six months before leaving next year.
Baldwin said: “Clearly, accepting this position pre-Covid-19 means the situation is now very different to the one I originally envisaged coupled with it being a very different environment inside the EFL, when compared to the one I left in 2015-16. Taking those two factors into consideration and balancing the needs of my family, health and well-being, I feel the decision to leave is the right one.”
The EFL said Baldwin’s departure was unrelated to Project Big Picture and that the recruitment process for his replacement would begin with immediate effect.
It's really disappointing it has taken a tumultuous time for Bury, Bolton, Wigan and ourselves before action has been taken and hopefully the resignation of Baldwin is in part due to the lack of action in dealing with this. Unfortunately, looks more like canon fodder to protect Parry, who is a clearly a snake and needs to be outed (just look at his comments to a Wigan fan re: betting syndicates regarding their takeover).
Brilliant. It might feel a bit late for us now, but Sandgaard won't be around forever and when the day comes that someone pops their head up looking to buy us, they can be blocked if they stink like ESI. That's a good thing, and it means that fellow football fans don't have to go through what we did. Fun for Southall and Elliott though; imagine being involved in such a monstrosity of a takeover that they create a rule just to stop anyone else like you appearing again. Wonder if Southall will put that on his LinkedIn.
I’d like to think that our own distressing saga together with Addicks fans input played a significant part in this decision. In fact, I go as far as saying I am sure it did. A huge pat on the back to ‘everyone’ who did their bit no matter how big or small to help bring this about. It was hell at the time but justice was seen to be done in the end.
Takeovers of English Football League clubs are to be banned on Tuesday unless they have been approved in advance by the governing body, in a rule change to prevent a repeat of the demise of Bury.
Those involved in the expulsion of a club from the professional and semi-professional men’s and women’s games will also be disqualified from running an EFL team, Telegraph Sport can reveal.
The changes to the EFL’s Owners’ and Directors’ Test will be voted on on Tuesday by the league’s 72 members just over a year after Bury’s removal from their number.
It can also be revealed that Premier League clubs adopted the same rule changes last month in order that both they and their EFL counterparts were aligned.
Previously, someone was able to buy an EFL club before being subject to the Owners’ and Directors’ Test, something that saw Bury stuck with Steve Dale at the helm despite him failing to provide the proof of funding that ultimately led to the club’s expulsion.
Tuesday's vote will take place less than 24 hours after the shock resignation of EFL chief executive David Baldwin after less than four months in the role.
The former Burnley and Bradford City chief executive announced he would remain in post for another six months before leaving next year.
Baldwin said: “Clearly, accepting this position pre-Covid-19 means the situation is now very different to the one I originally envisaged coupled with it being a very different environment inside the EFL, when compared to the one I left in 2015-16. Taking those two factors into consideration and balancing the needs of my family, health and well-being, I feel the decision to leave is the right one.”
The EFL said Baldwin’s departure was unrelated to Project Big Picture and that the recruitment process for his replacement would begin with immediate effect.
Knowing Farnell, he'll do it on a Monday and get away with it again.
Bit of a dig there at the EFL by Baldwin saying it’s a different environment now than previously. I’m also wondering if Thomas when having dealings with the EFL was impressed with Baldwin and having recently said he expects to appoint a CEO in six months or so that Baldwin may be taking up such a post with us?
A serious question on what grounds would people have accepted the EFL blocking the ESI take over in January? Not in hindsight, at the time.
Go back a read the threeds, if the EFL had said no on the 2nd of January there would have been mini buses to Preston on the 3rd.
The one time anyone has actually blocked a serious takeover, Newcastle, there is a very polarising view on if it was right or not.
Disagree completely.
The EFL's biggest failing was not saying publicly that ESI had not passed the OADT and that we were under a soft embargo.
Had they done so the pressure would have been on Southall and Nimer, not the EFL.
This all day long. If the process was transparent, clearly we would have been chasing down the party that was at fault to prove their worth than the EFL themselves.
A serious question on what grounds would people have accepted the EFL blocking the ESI take over in January? Not in hindsight, at the time.
Go back a read the threeds, if the EFL had said no on the 2nd of January there would have been mini buses to Preston on the 3rd.
The one time anyone has actually blocked a serious takeover, Newcastle, there is a very polarising view on if it was right or not.
Disagree completely.
The EFL's biggest failing was not saying publicly that ESI had not passed the OADT and that we were under a soft embargo.
Had they done so the pressure would have been on Southall and Nimer, not the EFL.
But they had passed the OADT test........
But you can't ignore the 2nd point made. Ok, this was due to not proving source and sufficiency of funding, but there is no need to be pedant.
But my original point was there would have been a melt down, and probably protest against the EFL if they had blocked it.
If they had announced we were under an embargo, which of course would have been the right thing to do, there would have still been a critical mass of people saying the EFL were wrong and "his excellency" has obviously got the money. Remember the EFL never authorised the take over, hence the embargo.
If they had blocked it, as its suggested they could, people would be moaning that the EFL lumbered us with Roland and Southall would have been our saviour. There wouldn't have been 100s of pages of posts digging into the back ground of everyone and his dog.
We would all be here, probably in the championship, shouting at the EFL because we were still stick with Roland.
A serious question on what grounds would people have accepted the EFL blocking the ESI take over in January? Not in hindsight, at the time.
Go back a read the threeds, if the EFL had said no on the 2nd of January there would have been mini buses to Preston on the 3rd.
The one time anyone has actually blocked a serious takeover, Newcastle, there is a very polarising view on if it was right or not.
Disagree completely.
The EFL's biggest failing was not saying publicly that ESI had not passed the OADT and that we were under a soft embargo.
Had they done so the pressure would have been on Southall and Nimer, not the EFL.
But they had passed the OADT test........
But you can't ignore the 2nd point made. Ok, this was due to not proving source and sufficiency of funding, but there is no need to be pedant.
But my original point was there would have been a melt down, and probably protest against the EFL if they had blocked it.
If they had announced we were under an embargo, which of course would have been the right thing to do, there would have still been a critical mass of people saying the EFL were wrong and "his excellency" has obviously got the money. Remember the EFL never authorised the take over, hence the embargo.
If they had blocked it, as its suggested they could, people would be moaning that the EFL lumbered us with Roland and Southall would have been our saviour. There wouldn't have been 100s of pages of posts digging into the back ground of everyone and his dog.
We would all be here, probably in the championship, shouting at the EFL because we were still stick with Roland.
Not if they had been transparent and said "they haven't shown proof or source of funds so until they do the club is under an embargo"
The pressure would then have been on Nimer to show he did have money and it was from a legit source.
And Southall couldn't have lied about the players we were going to sign.
The EFL are not to blame for the vultures that circle around ailing clubs but they are responsible for not doing enough to keep them away or telling fans what the problem is.
all the time Parry is at the helm of the EFL it will be a disaster, his love is for the premier league, Liverpool f c, his wealthy yank mates and charging as much money as he can to anybody that listens to his bullshit.
It's really disappointing it has taken a tumultuous time for Bury, Bolton, Wigan and ourselves before action has been taken and hopefully the resignation of Baldwin is in part due to the lack of action in dealing with this. Unfortunately, looks more like canon fodder to protect Parry, who is a clearly a snake and needs to be outed (just look at his comments to a Wigan fan re: betting syndicates regarding their takeover).
I don't think it would've prevented Wigan's issues.
Their owner had the money, passed all EFL tests.........and then simply withdrew all funding and pulled out a couple of months later sending them into admin.
Comments
Bolted
Stable door
After
Liverpool
Man Utd
Man City
Arsenal
Chelsea
Tottenham
West Ham
Everton
Southampton
They can all vote twice too
If you're an owner like Matt Southall welcome aboard, if there are risks of them breaking into the top six then you get rejected
The EFL wouldn't do it otherwise.
I would like to believe that if Bury stabilize they will be allowed straight back in to the fourth division by some sensible practical means.
I wonder if the Wigan takeover would be covered by this, seeing that their takeover doesn't seem to have gone through yet
Takeovers of English Football League clubs are to be banned on Tuesday unless they have been approved in advance by the governing body, in a rule change to prevent a repeat of the demise of Bury.
Those involved in the expulsion of a club from the professional and semi-professional men’s and women’s games will also be disqualified from running an EFL team, Telegraph Sport can reveal.
The changes to the EFL’s Owners’ and Directors’ Test will be voted on on Tuesday by the league’s 72 members just over a year after Bury’s removal from their number.
It can also be revealed that Premier League clubs adopted the same rule changes last month in order that both they and their EFL counterparts were aligned.
Previously, someone was able to buy an EFL club before being subject to the Owners’ and Directors’ Test, something that saw Bury stuck with Steve Dale at the helm despite him failing to provide the proof of funding that ultimately led to the club’s expulsion.
Tuesday's vote will take place less than 24 hours after the shock resignation of EFL chief executive David Baldwin after less than four months in the role.
The former Burnley and Bradford City chief executive announced he would remain in post for another six months before leaving next year.
Baldwin said: “Clearly, accepting this position pre-Covid-19 means the situation is now very different to the one I originally envisaged coupled with it being a very different environment inside the EFL, when compared to the one I left in 2015-16. Taking those two factors into consideration and balancing the needs of my family, health and well-being, I feel the decision to leave is the right one.”
The EFL said Baldwin’s departure was unrelated to Project Big Picture and that the recruitment process for his replacement would begin with immediate effect.
Shame it took so long.
In fact, I go as far as saying I am sure it did.
A huge pat on the back to ‘everyone’ who did their bit no matter how big or small to help bring this about.
It was hell at the time but justice was seen to be done in the end.
Go back a read the threeds, if the EFL had said no on the 2nd of January there would have been mini buses to Preston on the 3rd.
The one time anyone has actually blocked a serious takeover, Newcastle, there is a very polarising view on if it was right or not.
The EFL's biggest failing was not saying publicly that ESI had not passed the OADT and that we were under a soft embargo.
Had they done so the pressure would have been on Southall and Nimer, not the EFL.
But the EFL didn't tell the fans that.
If they had announced we were under an embargo, which of course would have been the right thing to do, there would have still been a critical mass of people saying the EFL were wrong and "his excellency" has obviously got the money. Remember the EFL never authorised the take over, hence the embargo.
If they had blocked it, as its suggested they could, people would be moaning that the EFL lumbered us with Roland and Southall would have been our saviour. There wouldn't have been 100s of pages of posts digging into the back ground of everyone and his dog.
We would all be here, probably in the championship, shouting at the EFL because we were still stick with Roland.
The pressure would then have been on Nimer to show he did have money and it was from a legit source.
And Southall couldn't have lied about the players we were going to sign.
The EFL are not to blame for the vultures that circle around ailing clubs but they are responsible for not doing enough to keep them away or telling fans what the problem is.
I fear EFL's ingrained culture and Parry's recent duplicity have proved too much for a straight-talking Yorkshireman.
Their owner had the money, passed all EFL tests.........and then simply withdrew all funding and pulled out a couple of months later sending them into admin.