| EFL - One Full Year 07:49 - Jul 12 with 4369 views | HullDale |
Frightening that its been a year since the first EFL statement related to our situation, and we are still unaware of their disciplinary outcome, their views on Morton House, or how they will honour this comment from the statement:
"The EFL will continue to work with the Club to ensure it can meet the necessary criteria with the long-term viability of the Club the primary focus in the interests of all key stakeholders, particularly the staff at the Club, supporters, and the local community."
Fit for purpose?
(the link to the statment is: https://www.efl.com/news/2021/july/efl-statement-rochdale-afc/ for anyone not on social media) |  | | |  |
| EFL - One Full Year on 08:38 - Jul 12 with 4284 views | RAFCBLUE |
How long have the EFL had and how long do they need?
Their investigation was announced in mid-August 2021.
From that charges were made against the club and unknown but “multiple individuals” in March 2022.
We are now mid-July 2022.
I know doing things properly takes time but surely the EFL can reach a conclusion from their own investigation by now? |  |
| |
| EFL - One Full Year on 10:21 - Jul 12 with 4106 views | D_Alien |
It'd be my contention that the EFL have decided not to draw any conclusions to this process, but await the outcome of other processes such as legislation being championed by the Fair Game initiative and possibly the outcome of any court case involving Dale
In the meantime, they've taken steps to strengthen their hand in terms of the takeover process but will be unsure about how this could be applied retrospectively. It's a deliberate policy and reeks of afterthought, lack of planning and sheer cowardice
But we already knew that |  |
| |
| EFL - One Full Year on 10:58 - Jul 12 with 4018 views | DaleiLama |
| EFL - One Full Year on 10:21 - Jul 12 by D_Alien |
It'd be my contention that the EFL have decided not to draw any conclusions to this process, but await the outcome of other processes such as legislation being championed by the Fair Game initiative and possibly the outcome of any court case involving Dale
In the meantime, they've taken steps to strengthen their hand in terms of the takeover process but will be unsure about how this could be applied retrospectively. It's a deliberate policy and reeks of afterthought, lack of planning and sheer cowardice
But we already knew that |
If it ever gets to court and by the time the evidence had been heard and a ruling made, the season will be half over.
Stable door meet bolting horse. |  |
| |
| EFL - One Full Year on 11:52 - Jul 12 with 3910 views | wozzrafc |
| EFL - One Full Year on 10:21 - Jul 12 by D_Alien |
It'd be my contention that the EFL have decided not to draw any conclusions to this process, but await the outcome of other processes such as legislation being championed by the Fair Game initiative and possibly the outcome of any court case involving Dale
In the meantime, they've taken steps to strengthen their hand in terms of the takeover process but will be unsure about how this could be applied retrospectively. It's a deliberate policy and reeks of afterthought, lack of planning and sheer cowardice
But we already knew that |
Why should the EFL await the outcome of a private court case being brought by one of the parties that has been charged by their processes.
I find it incredible that the EFL can take seven months carrying out its investigations before passing their finding to an independent body to review and it then take a further four months without comment.
In the mean time fans are facing having to raise 100’s k of funds to fight a case against the people who tried to take over their club against its wishes and seemingly breaking EFL rules in the process.
The EFL need to either publish its findings and level punishment against the guilty parties (if that is the club then so be it) OR give an update on progress of the case.
In the past the EFL have been accused of sitting on their hands and left clubs to fail. Here is a chance to stop the issues before they happen.
The EFL couldn’t wait to charge the club and slap an embargo when it first heard about the supposed take over, but as the facts started to Coe out they have dragged their heals and left the club and it’s fans in limbo.
Other individuals have been investigated and charged. Surely they have had sufficient time to know if those charges should lead to sanctions.
It’s no wonder that people like Southall can do what they do when the body supposedly there to regulate are seen to be more than willing to sit back and let it happen. [Post edited 12 Jul 2022 11:56]
|  | | |
| EFL - One Full Year on 12:39 - Jul 12 with 3798 views | D_Alien |
| EFL - One Full Year on 11:52 - Jul 12 by wozzrafc |
Why should the EFL await the outcome of a private court case being brought by one of the parties that has been charged by their processes.
I find it incredible that the EFL can take seven months carrying out its investigations before passing their finding to an independent body to review and it then take a further four months without comment.
In the mean time fans are facing having to raise 100’s k of funds to fight a case against the people who tried to take over their club against its wishes and seemingly breaking EFL rules in the process.
The EFL need to either publish its findings and level punishment against the guilty parties (if that is the club then so be it) OR give an update on progress of the case.
In the past the EFL have been accused of sitting on their hands and left clubs to fail. Here is a chance to stop the issues before they happen.
The EFL couldn’t wait to charge the club and slap an embargo when it first heard about the supposed take over, but as the facts started to Coe out they have dragged their heals and left the club and it’s fans in limbo.
Other individuals have been investigated and charged. Surely they have had sufficient time to know if those charges should lead to sanctions.
It’s no wonder that people like Southall can do what they do when the body supposedly there to regulate are seen to be more than willing to sit back and let it happen. [Post edited 12 Jul 2022 11:56]
|
"Why should the EFL await the outcome of a private court case being brought by one of the parties that has been charged by their processes."
Why indeed
It's the line of least resistance - part of their approach. A spokesperson for the EFL said "The EFL cannot make an adjudication or otherwise comment whilst a legal process is ongoing"
That's not a real quote, i just made it up, but it's a common enough response used in the media when awkward questions are being asked | |
| |
| EFL - One Full Year on 14:49 - Jul 12 with 3643 views | wozzrafc |
| EFL - One Full Year on 12:39 - Jul 12 by D_Alien |
"Why should the EFL await the outcome of a private court case being brought by one of the parties that has been charged by their processes."
Why indeed
It's the line of least resistance - part of their approach. A spokesperson for the EFL said "The EFL cannot make an adjudication or otherwise comment whilst a legal process is ongoing"
That's not a real quote, i just made it up, but it's a common enough response used in the media when awkward questions are being asked |
Agreed the the EFL my say that but this is not a public prosecution, it’s a private action that should have no bearing on the EFL process. If that’s the case then it’s a great opportunity to be used as a delaying Tactic.
If for instance the HMRC were investigating then absolutely the EFL would be in their rights to wait. But in that instance then the EFL should state that fact.
What is an acceptable time period for the independent panel to respond to EFL findings? Was this set? Are their guidelines on this.
The silence from the EFL is excruciating. There responsibility is first and foremost to their members. | | | |
| EFL - One Full Year on 15:16 - Jul 12 with 3558 views | D_Alien |
| EFL - One Full Year on 14:49 - Jul 12 by wozzrafc |
Agreed the the EFL my say that but this is not a public prosecution, it’s a private action that should have no bearing on the EFL process. If that’s the case then it’s a great opportunity to be used as a delaying Tactic.
If for instance the HMRC were investigating then absolutely the EFL would be in their rights to wait. But in that instance then the EFL should state that fact.
What is an acceptable time period for the independent panel to respond to EFL findings? Was this set? Are their guidelines on this.
The silence from the EFL is excruciating. There responsibility is first and foremost to their members. |
I don't disagree
https://www.efl.com/-more/all-about-the-efl/efl-brand--values/
It's the sort of rubbish ("EFL brand"? FFS!) that might've been written by Bottomley; and indeed, i believe it was his aspiration to inveigle his way into a position within the EFL
In sending him packing, Dale are owed a debt of gratitude by the rest of the clubs in the football league | |
| |
| EFL - One Full Year on 16:25 - Jul 12 with 3397 views | SuddenLad |
| EFL - One Full Year on 12:39 - Jul 12 by D_Alien |
"Why should the EFL await the outcome of a private court case being brought by one of the parties that has been charged by their processes."
Why indeed
It's the line of least resistance - part of their approach. A spokesperson for the EFL said "The EFL cannot make an adjudication or otherwise comment whilst a legal process is ongoing"
That's not a real quote, i just made it up, but it's a common enough response used in the media when awkward questions are being asked |
There is also the possibility that further evidence may come to light during the course any other proceeding which will take place, which in turn, could lead to further EFL enquiries/charges. Until that civil case is finalised, the EFL won't be showing their hand. |  |
| “It is easier to fool people, than to convince them that they have been fooled†|
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| EFL - One Full Year on 12:36 - Jul 13 with 3089 views | wozzrafc |
| EFL - One Full Year on 16:25 - Jul 12 by SuddenLad |
There is also the possibility that further evidence may come to light during the course any other proceeding which will take place, which in turn, could lead to further EFL enquiries/charges. Until that civil case is finalised, the EFL won't be showing their hand. |
I may be wrong but isn’t the civil case relating to the second EGM with regards to the share offer. If that’s the case imho then that should have no bearing to the EFL charges that relate to the initial purchase of shares in an attempt to get a controlling interest and the subsequent failure to transfer said shares.
If anything the findings of the EFL investigation may have use as evidence in the civil case.
Either way the EFL should surely updating parties on progress. [Post edited 13 Jul 2022 12:38]
| | | |
| EFL - One Full Year on 09:27 - Jul 15 with 2627 views | HullDale |
The season starts 2 weeks tomorrow... this whole saga started in the '20-'21 season.
You would think the EFL wouldn't want an investigation into little old Rochdale, and multiple individuals, to span over 3 competitive seasons, so we should hear in the next couple of weeks.
If Bottomley is getting the band back together, and could potentially get his mits onto another club through his new company, its important they publish their findings ASAP to formally warn others off. | | | |
| EFL - One Full Year on 12:33 - Jul 15 with 2446 views | wozzrafc |
| EFL - One Full Year on 09:27 - Jul 15 by HullDale |
The season starts 2 weeks tomorrow... this whole saga started in the '20-'21 season.
You would think the EFL wouldn't want an investigation into little old Rochdale, and multiple individuals, to span over 3 competitive seasons, so we should hear in the next couple of weeks.
If Bottomley is getting the band back together, and could potentially get his mits onto another club through his new company, its important they publish their findings ASAP to formally warn others off. |
Or ban him from football altogether | | | |
| EFL - One Full Year on 16:41 - Jul 15 with 2233 views | DaleiLama |
Don't know about splinters, they're in danger of getting a whole fence-post up their @rse they've been sat on it so long. | |
| |
| EFL - One Full Year on 13:57 - Jul 17 with 1948 views | RAFCBLUE |
Probably nothing to report but old news Sandyman.
In the FA Commission which opined on Andrew Curran using the homophobic term "nancy boys" on 10th January 2022, the Written Reasons said:
https://www.thefa.com/-/media/files/thefaportal/governance-docs/discipline-cases
"As a preliminary matter, the Commission has considered AC’s challenge that he is not a ‘Participant’ as defined by the FA Disciplinary Regulations. The Commission found unanimously that AC is a participant by virtue of the FA Disciplinary Regulations. This is by virtue of the declaration that AC signed within the EFL Owner’s and Directors’ Test that AC
signed on 15 July 2021 and is replicated as follows:
“I, the undersigned, understand that by signing and dating this Declaration I acknowledge and agree to be bound by the Regulations of the English Football League. I further acknowledge that as a Relevant Person I am / will become a “Participant” as that term is defined in the Football Association Rules and, as such will be bound by them. (emphasis added)"
"The witnesses comment that they heard the comment ‘nancy boys’ clearly and the comment was identifiable to AC and was said flippantly in the context of AC owning 43% of Rochdale AFC through an intermediary whilst failing to comply with the EFL procedure for the acquisition of football clubs, through completion of the mandatory OADT."
The FA appear to have concluded in January 2022.
The EFL will get there in their own time I am sure, but in the meantime let's enjoy the Summer.
I heard at Darlo yesterday that @upthedalenotforsale is going to do a #prayforJarvo update.
Poor lad; I don't think he will ever recover from this failure which is why he is grassing up all the participants to save himself. | |
| |
| EFL - One Full Year on 09:08 - Jul 18 with 1653 views | HullDale |
Only 12 days to go until the new season... surely we will hear something from the EFL before the Crewe game.
I've had a look this weekend, using bury as a reference point, at the sort of details that get into the public domain when the EFL publish a disciplinary outcome - its safe to say a LOT of detail gets shared:
https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/201920/governance-reviews/bury-review..pdf-
Couple any evidence the EFL publish with the documents released by the FA relating to Curran, and there might well be some twitchy bums for some of the key players. If even SOME of the stuff shared by RAFCBLUE, UTDNFS & others is formalised in EFL documentation, its going to be a career ender for a few of the guilty parties I think... not to mention it hopefully torpedoing the Morton House court claims! | | | |
| EFL - One Full Year on 20:26 - Jul 18 with 1312 views | RAFCBLUE |
| EFL - One Full Year on 09:08 - Jul 18 by HullDale |
Only 12 days to go until the new season... surely we will hear something from the EFL before the Crewe game.
I've had a look this weekend, using bury as a reference point, at the sort of details that get into the public domain when the EFL publish a disciplinary outcome - its safe to say a LOT of detail gets shared:
https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/201920/governance-reviews/bury-review..pdf-
Couple any evidence the EFL publish with the documents released by the FA relating to Curran, and there might well be some twitchy bums for some of the key players. If even SOME of the stuff shared by RAFCBLUE, UTDNFS & others is formalised in EFL documentation, its going to be a career ender for a few of the guilty parties I think... not to mention it hopefully torpedoing the Morton House court claims! |
I'm no so sure HullDale - what motivation have the EFL got to rush any outcome here?
If you take that review into bury's demise - Page 20:
https://www.efl.com/siteassets/image/201920/governance-reviews/bury-review..pdf-
7A. Mr Dale passes the OAD Test
7B. Mr Dale’s failure to provide proof of funds
Dale passed the fit and proper test - didn't bother with proving funds.
Then read 8.3 on Page 31:
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.
8.3.4 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.
Given the demise of bury cause the EFL a lot of embarrassment you'd think that they can't be in a rush to consider:
1) Whether multiple individuals can pass the fit and proper test
2) Seeing proof of a business plan
3) Proof of funding needed to underwrite that business plan
4) Any proposed letting of mortgaging assets - not that can be done in our case without shareholders voting for it because of the Morris Resolution.
The latest EFL regulations now give the EFL complete authority on deciding if a takeover happens.
It could take years! | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
