not seen that document before SB, looks like internal minutes of meetings to me, which i have some real concerns about.
But yes I have expressed an opinion on such things in the past based on the accounts published
If these documents are true (and i do not know if they are) then there are questions
- is it clear that the owners/directors knew exactly where the golden share was in 2008 after takeover and due diligence?
- is it clear that the owners knew where the player contracts should be? (ie with the share)
- if they knew that then how could they register players to another company?
- if the FL knew this how can they accept players registered to another company?
- if the administrator has seen this why is he not taking action to redress the situation that exists currently?
- in which case if all the above were wrong is the administration process valid?
Things may have changed but they can not have changed without written permission of the Football League. Has that been given?
if the owners/directors knew where the share was then to try register all players elsewhere was a clear breach of the rules wasnt it?
Cant see the owners/directors of the club being happy these documents are about if they are actual minutes of meetings
2008 was a long time ago in football, only Wood and Bell were here at that time, so it could quite easily be new signing were signed to holdings rather than the sinister movement of assets. We've had a large turnover of players and staff during that time.
Cant see the owners/directors of the club being happy these documents are about if they are actual minutes of meetings
Pandora's Box has just been opened! The FL are crapping it now
Surely if permission was not given by FL then the players should be still with the Golden share.
Why and when did they change over. Before or after administration?
If after, then surely that is illegal and also Ltd could have been bought fairly as it would include a football team
There is no doubt whatsoever that sisu had the plan all along of clearing lots of debt by transferring most assets to holdings and at the very least put ltd in admin. The fact that it will most probably be liquidated is neither here or there to them.The latest submitted accounts show the same information about what ltd is & what holdings are responsible for. At some point after the last accounts were submitted, something dodgy happened with players registrations & holdings. The FL probably cocked up which meant Sisu could bully them & claim to be the club. Hence this mess!
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 4 Beta
The latest submitted accounts show the same information about what ltd is & what holdings are responsible for. At some point after the last accounts were submitted, something dodgy happened with players registrations & holdings. The FL probably cocked up which meant Sisu could bully them & claim to be the club. Hence this mess!
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 4 Beta
Baring in mind the last accounts were 2010/11...how can the entire squad only be worth £400k as an asset value?
Baring in mind the last accounts were 2010/11...how can the entire squad only be worth £400k as an asset value?
If you're saying that not all of the squad were registered to the same company, then some of our players were not eligible for selection. I'm not sure what the penalty is in the FL as no club has been dodgy enough to do it (and get caught), whereas it happens often in non-league. In non-league, the penalty is to forfeit any points gained whilst those players were in the squad (even un-used subs) with the opposition being awarded 3 points (if they didn't win). I see no reason why the FL penalty shouldn't be the same. This would be a bigger can of worms than the FL can handle-it would probably mess up last years relegations and promotions! No wonder they're playing the Officer Barbrady role so desperately... http://www.hark.com/clips/wszpqzwsys-nothing-to-see
How can the FL punish them for that, when they are the ones that allowed it?
a) Did they?
b) If so, quite..
But if they didn't, I'm sure there would be a lot of other clubs up in arms about it. Especially if someone went down thanks to points lost against a team fielding ineligible players.
Third party ownership is against FL rules.
Transfers can only take place during the transfer window. That gave them between 20 June 2012 - the date Fisher signed the accounts and the 31 August to get them all signed accross.
How can the FL punish them for that, when they are the ones that allowed it?
You mean 2011, the last set of accounts were 2010/11
some were probably moved last week
Directors have a responsibility to report any significant changes to trading activity between the year end and the date they sign the accounts off.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?