Jump to content
IGNORED

Derby County

havanatopia

By havanatopia
in Football Chat

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • The title was changed to Derby County
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
11 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

I made clear they hadn't been expelled.

I do believe I've previously seen that their membership rights are severly curtailed once entering administration. They hold a share, but that's about it. For example I don't believe they are able to vote or stand for election on any EFL board or committee, nor may their administrators. The administrators don't take beneficial ownership of the company they administer, they administer on behalf of that owner, their creditors and debtors.  Derby remain entitled to distributions via the EFL but I believe the EFL maintain the right to withhold or distribute should they believe the administrators are not acting in terms of the priorities they should. The statement yesterday and the EFL stepping in as they are suggests they did not believe the administrators are acting as they should.

Ok, I'm not going to argue about what you originally said. The post of yours that I originally quoted is still posted a few pages back, so we can all go and read it if we want to.

But, again you've used the word "believe" several times when describing what Derby County Football Club Limited (in administration) or their Joint Administrators can currently do, or can currently benefit from. You say this in relation to the status of Derby County Football Club Limited (in administration) as a Member Club of The English Football League Ltd.

As an example, you say that you don't think Derby currently has the right to vote as an EFL Member Club. OK, let's test that. Firstly, nowhere in the articles of association of The English Football League Ltd or the EFL Regulations does it say that a Club automatically loses this right upon entering administration. In fact the articles (in particular 10.10, 11.5, 12) suggest, although voting rights are not expressly addressed, that any club that is a Member Club (ie any entity that holds a share from time to time) is entitled to vote. From my reading it looks like the only way this right to vote could possibly have been removed is if it was one of the conditions to suspension contained within the Notice of Withdrawal. Now we haven't seen that document, so we cannot be sure of the exact conditions contained within it.

However, if the right to vote was purported to be removed from Derby under the Notice of Withdrawal then that would amount to an amendment of the rights attaching to a share. As all shares of the same class must have the same rights (otherwise you're deemed to have created a new class of share), then (in the absence of anything in the articles) doing this should require a special resolution of the other shareholders of that class of share (ie 75% of the 71 other clubs) to alter those share rights. We'd also see a filing on Companies House to that effect. No such filing is shown on the Companies House webpage for The English Football League Ltd, and so we can assume this has not happened. Therefore we should assume that Derby are still able to vote as a Member Club.

You are correct that no Derby representative can stand for election to the Board of the EFL. That's in the articles (article 20.1.14). They also cannot put forward anyone to be an EFL rep on the FA's board (article 24.6.12).

Of course the Joint Administrators don't take beneficial ownership of the shares of the company they administer. Is that relevant to Derby County Football Club Limited (in administration)'s membership of the EFL? Membership is determined by ownership of a share - ie ownership of legal title, not beneficial ownership. I agree that the statement yesterday and the EFL stepping in as they are suggests that the EFL do not believe the administrators are acting as they should...but that statement and actions doesn't in anyway suggest that Derby are no longer a Member Club.

11 hours ago, BTRFTG said:

For example, there was nothing in the regulation for the EFL to demand the Administrators run everything past them first, but they have and can. They can amend at will, require no emergency endorsement via other members and that's what they just done.

Yes. That is exactly what article (not regulation) 4.8 says. There is no problem with them doing that at all because it's in the rules - rules that apply to Derby because they are a member of the EFL.

I'm not trying to point score or argue, and I do agree with some aspects of what you say, there are some things that Derby (or its admins and directors etc) cannot do because they are in admin. However, this conversation needs to be held on certain terms. I'm stating the certainty of the articles, the regulations, and corporate law. You are stating occurrences that if true have big consequences, but you're not providing evidence to support your beliefs. Saying they've been expelled, saying they cannot vote anymore, this sort of stuff feeds the fantasy 'EFL vendetta' nonsense that Derby fans are spouting. It undermines confidence in the EFL as a body, and sows seeds of confusion amongst fans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GrahamC

GrahamC

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

So how come Kirchner passed the EFL's owners and directors test? And what sort of proof of funding did he provide them with? What a shambles.

Oh well, never mind. 

If you think that’s bad Lawrence Bassini is supposedly taking over Birmingham…

The whole thing is a total shambles, the direct consequence of letting Wild West capitalism loose on football.

We’re never putting the genie back in the bottle now, but how we got to this place is shameful.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Merrick's Marvels

Merrick's Marvels

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

If you think that’s bad Lawrence Bassini is supposedly taking over Birmingham…

The whole thing is a total shambles, the direct consequence of letting Wild West capitalism loose on football.

We’re never putting the genie back in the bottle now, but how we got to this place is shameful.

Rick Parry's got his work cut out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
sephjnr

sephjnr

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, GrahamC said:

Rumour is it’s as a front for David Sullivan who can’t own 2 clubs..

At least David Sullivan can see a football ground for more than the blocks of flats he can sell it for.

Edited by sephjnr
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Monkeh

Monkeh

Posted
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

So how come Kirchner passed the EFL's owners and directors test? And what sort of proof of funding did he provide them with? What a shambles.

Oh well, never mind. 

He didn't, as he couldn't  provide proof of funds hence the deal collapsing

Edited by Monkeh
Link to comment
Share on other sites
1960maaan

1960maaan

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, GrahamC said:

If you think that’s bad Lawrence Bassini is supposedly taking over Birmingham…

The whole thing is a total shambles, the direct consequence of letting Wild West capitalism loose on football.

We’re never putting the genie back in the bottle now, but how we got to this place is shameful.

They have things in place to stop dodgy people working in football, don't they.

Prior to taking over at Watford Bassini had been made bankrupt in 2007 following the failure of his business 

Bassini's tenure at Watford was marked by allegations of financial impropriety

In November 2012 it was announced the £1.5 million Bassini owed to Watford Football Club for 'cash advances' was unlikely to be repaid

n March 2013 an independent disciplinary commission found Bassini guilty of misconduct and dishonesty over financial dealings on behalf of Watford and banned him from being involved in a position of authority with any Football League club for three years.

In July 2013 Bassini added to his list of business failures when the High Court ordered his company Watford Leisure Limited be placed in liquidation.

In June 2014 Bassini was made bankrupt for the second time. The bankruptcy order was made after Bassini failed to pay the sum of £37,500. During the hearing Bassini claimed not to own any property despite receiving over £1.5 million in cash advances from Watford during his tenure

Bassini seems a thoroughly decent chap, don't he. I can see why the EFL have no problems.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

So how come Kirchner passed the EFL's owners and directors test? And what sort of proof of funding did he provide them with? What a shambles.

Oh well, never mind. 

Because the EFL Owners and Directors test has nothing to do with funding. The test is contained in Appendix 3 of the EFL Regulations and begins with the following phrase:

The intention behind this Appendix 3 is to protect the image and integrity of The League and its competitions, the well-being of the Clubs, and the interests of all of the stakeholders in those Clubs, by preventing anyone who is subject to a 'Disqualifying Condition' being involved in or influencing the management or administration of a Club.

So, you fail or pass the test depending on whether or not you are subject to a 'Disqualifying Condition'. 

In summary a 'Disqualifying Condition' is one of the following:

  • owning, managing, or otherwise controlling more than one EFL or Premier League club;
  • being subject to a 'Disciplinary Matter' including, but not limited to;
    • being banned from involvement in the administration of sport;
    • being barred from a professional body (including, by way of example and without limitation, The Law Society, Bar Council or the Institute of Chartered Accountants);
    • if you were an official at a Club when it was kicked out of the League; or
    • providing false, misleading or inaccurate information.
  • being subject to a 'Criminal Matter' including, but not limited to having an Unspent Conviction by a court of competent jurisdiction in England and Wales in respect of any offence involving;
    • corruption;
    • perverting the course of justice;
    • a serious breach of any requirement under the Companies Acts (1985 and 2006);
    • pirating any UK broadcast - interesting note that it was the equivalent rule in the equivalent PL test that caused Newcastle's new owners a spot of trouble in their attempted takeover;
    • ticket touting; and
    • sex offences.
  • any disqualifications under the Company Directors Disqualification Act 1986 or similar laws in other countries; and
  • Insolvency matters including, but not limited to being in charge of two football clubs that have suffered unconnected insolvency events or one football club that has been subject to or suffered two unconnected insolvency event.

That's it. In brief, that's the test that everyone bangs on about. Basically if you've never been involved in football before, and aren't a convicted criminal or disqualified professional or director, you'll more than likely pass. So when a journalist or someone says a person has "passed the O&D test, all they mean is that they've passed the above criteria.

Yes, this is why some of us want an independent regulator to come in and toughen the O&D test up by including an integrity test and other elements.

Funding is dealt with separately, and in Derby's case even more separately as they are in admin already.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Merrick's Marvels

Merrick's Marvels

Posted
Posted (edited)
41 minutes ago, ExiledAjax said:

Because the EFL Owners and Directors test has nothing to do with funding.

Thanks.

When Lansdown's ready to sell, I'll be sure to let him know I'm interested.

The fact I don't have a brass farthing to my name might put him off but at least the EFL will consider me a fit and proper prospective owner. God help us. 

Edited by Merrick's Marvels
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Monkeh

Monkeh

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Thanks.

When Lansdown's ready to sell, I'll be sure to let him know I'm interested.

The fact I don't have a brass farthing to my name might put him off but at least the EFL will consider me a fit and proper prospective owner. God help us. 

It's not the efl's business to manage its members finances or the finances of people who currently have nothing to do with football,

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Merrick's Marvels

Merrick's Marvels

Posted
Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, Monkeh said:

It's not the efl's business to manage its members finances or the finances of people who currently have nothing to do with football,

If I have no money with which to buy a football club, how can I seriously be considered a fit and proper prospective owner of one? 

Edited by Merrick's Marvels
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ExiledAjax

ExiledAjax

Posted
Posted
30 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Thanks.

When Lansdown's ready to sell, I'll be sure to let him know I'm interested.

The fact I don't have a brass farthing to my name might put him off but at least the EFL will consider me a fit and proper prospective owner. God help us. 

Well yeh, you'd pass the Appendix 3 test.

But you would also still need to provide future financial information, and satisfy the EFL that the club, under you and your financial backing, could fulfil a season in the League. 

You'd also obviously have to meet Steve's asking price. I think you'd need at least 4 farthings, brass or otherwise.

But that's all on top of and in addition to the O&D test rather than a part of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Monkeh

Monkeh

Posted
Posted (edited)
23 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

If I have no money with which to buy a football club, how can I seriously be considered a fit and proper prospective owner of one? 

That's what providing proof of funds is all about,

Or let's put it another way, please provide me your bank statement proving to me that you can afford to go to ashton gate so I can decide if you are worthy of buying a ticket

Edited by Monkeh
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CyderInACan

CyderInACan

Posted
Posted
54 minutes ago, Merrick's Marvels said:

Thanks.

When Lansdown's ready to sell, I'll be sure to let him know I'm interested.

The fact I don't have a brass farthing to my name might put him off but at least the EFL will consider me a fit and proper prospective owner. God help us. 

They might; I wouldn't! 

  • Haha 1
  • Flames 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...