Mr Popodopolous

Yeah, think they did say that. Didn't sit well with me that he quite likely voted for it, let's hope he votes correctly this time if the takeover etc credible- a vote of the 72 is a must though.

Did Ashton as part of the board not vote for expulsion? I fear he did, but unsure- if it passed unanimously though then sadly he did! However that was a specific event- I am sure if it comes to it we will do the right thing!

Interesting to note, looking online. The fraud investigation reportedly NOT related to Steve Dale's time at the club, currently. The date is interesting. Pretty sure in one of his (many!) rambling rants he claimed something about an investigation a while ago.

Oh and to add to my post yesterday, about other ideas for the badly struggling clubs and collective responsibility of the game. The big clubs in smaller ones for pre season friendlies and regularly ie each pre season. Not a lot to lose a bit of Far East exposure for a giant but potentially huge for a club like Bury, Macclesfield etc. Eg Bury could host one or both of the Manchester clubs. Tranmere could host the Merseyside ones, on a more regular basis. Would be good.

Still maintain that if such a decision of expulsion is taken it should be or should have been ONLY following a full vote by the 72 at an EGM. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49569697

Final bit on it for now. Burges Salmon are a reputable firm correct? Assuming it was an asset transfer: Carrying value, surely means zero profit or loss- the two cancel each other out no? Book value would be whatever it was at the time of transfer, which was undoubtedly <£56m! £56m may well have been double or nearly double the book value which appears to have been around £28m in terms of value minus accumulated depreciation, while factoring in revaluations or similar. Seems to depend on the circs though.

Thanks. Unconvinced they did it in 6 weeks though- they needed to rush it through in order to avoid breaching FFP, would be surprised if it was so long in the planning. Good point- transfers for between group companies. Is a transfer between group companies applicable as a cash/or paper transaction then? Makes perfect sense from a tax POV though I reckon. I really, really really dislike that club though, the last 12 months or so! https://www.astonvillanewsandviews.co.uk/villa-sell-villa-park-to-themselves-for-56-7-million-why-so-cheap/ Selling company Purchasing company Group impact Records the sale and the profit and reduces inventory. Records the purchase and increases inventory. Inventory moves from one company to another but remains in the group so there is no overall change.

Read something quite interesting. Villa Park? Registered as an asset of community value. Didn't realise this. Under the LAW- not FFP, the LAW, such a transaction needs a 6 month window to be purchased by the community before any private buyer can do so. Such a transaction done in the manner it was seems to break both the spirit of FFP and of quite a bit more importance, potentially it may break the law. Amazing. Had a 5 year deal on it as of January 2018...

Unless the rules have changed or there is something very specific here. I note that when I have looked up briefly EFL expulsion with other clubs, it has been an EGM of the 72? Can someone explain the specificity of the law/regulation here which means that Coventry would've had to have a vote of the 72, Barnet too in the past ie early to mid 1990s- but for Bury, the board can decide! Something very odd with that. Edit- Seemingly Brighton in 1997 too! Still- if they can mess about with the regs like this too, I hope to see a vote on current clubs who have done sale and leasebacks with particular emphasis on Aston Villa and Sheffield Wednesday! Vote by the 72.

Sure there's more to add! Good plan, no charge or debt, or at least identical quality. Agreed. Is it always asset stripping though? In the sense of you might get an owner who borrows against the ground to get funding to try to move up the Leagues quickly. Wildly irresponsible of course and shouldn't be allowed, but not necessarily corrupt. Believe that was part of Day's plan and I certainly could envisage a not necessarily cash rich, but ambitious owner doing just that- Dale in fact or someone like him could be a primary candidate for such a stunt- if it wasn't for the aforementioned asset stripping past of course. However whether it's corruption, looking to make a fast buck or simple ambition turned into grossly irresponsible ownership, yeah agree with your post- it would put off those types of owners for sure. On another slightly odd note, I wasn't fully aware but it regards Bury and the suspension of fixtures- they played pre season friendlies with mixed results and performances. It is why I do believe that Shaun Harvey, might have let them have a crack (wholly against good sense) of starting the season! Also the fact that he was a disastrous CEO of the EFL. Would the description of him as an effwit be unfair- to effwits?

According to this post, the vote was 8-0, unanimous. Do hope Mark Ashton didn't vote for it...at least at minimum not without the proper chance for any of those bids to stand or fall. Also worth noting that 2 of those who would've voted for it- Nigel Howe and Stephen Pearce- were at clubs who stretched the FFP Rules. John Nixon- of Carlisle- at a club whose manager openly said Bury and others in their boat should be expelled pre season. Should've been a vote of the 72 IMO! Had there been a unanimous/majority of sufficent numbers voting for expulsion then nobody could complain.

Assuming there is no miraculous saving of Bury, or reinstatement to the EFL to play in League 2 next season with a new owner- probably not so likely, a few things that should IMO happen now. Bottom 2 Divisions: A better distribution of cash/solidarity payments. A beefed up fit and proper person test- an independent body if necessary, maybe preferably. Proper enforcement of the 55%-60% limits to go with the increased/better spread distribution in the respective Leagues 1 and 2, and a stipulation that if extra owner investment is to expand the turnover, then it must be a bond/cash as opposed to loaned or borrowed money at these lower levels. Monthly monitoring of accounts by the EFL. At the FIRST sign of distress, an embargo is imposed as a holding position. They cannot make the issue worse therefore- something automatic e.g. late payment of wages for the first time might trigger say a January embargo. At Championship: A removal of the regulation, or perhaps an amendment- either sale and leaseback of fixed assets no longer count towards FFP or all clubs allowed to do it once. If I had my way, clubs who haven't made efforts in other ways e.g. Aston Villa and mostly Sheffield Wednesday until Joao sold, shouldn't be allowed to have done it. Conditionality would have been interesting, but how enforceable? Total clarity of the regulations and punishment for breaching them. The points tariff is a start but offsetting of losses with stadia sale/leaseback a joke and particularly for those who haven't sold key players- see point one in this. Monthly monitoring for these too, with the soft embargo as a holding position when possible problems arise. Should be automatic e.g. late payment of wages. This would improve a lot of the current issues- but is the will there?

Where do you get the photos from? Very amusing- wherever it is, keep it up!

I'll re-read it then.

I don't know as I can't find the specifics!

Well in that case, any chants of that nature. If in doubt, don't sing! Yet I am fairly convinced that chant is routine at Brighton games or has been recently- if it has now changed to all or nothing then we all know where we are.

Well fair enough, but where do we draw the line for football chants- not specifically referring to homophobia but in general? Are you telling me no other fanbase chants the 2 I stated anymore? Because I find that hard to believe- must've been more to it?

Homophobic chants thing, could someone define and specify? By which I mean, not so long ago I'm sure that 'Does your boyfriend know you're here' plus 'We can see you holding hands' would regularly get a few rounds v Brighton. Guessing it was more offensive/serious than the above to make the news? Or have times changed again in even the last few years.

He's a potential asset stripper, clearly incapable of running a club and I doubt he had the funds to fulfil it either- wholly unfit and improper in short. Useless at best! For all that, he raises some valid points and questions! I fully agree for example that a full vote of the 72 should be the benchmark to expel a side. A decision like that isn't for a board IMO. Could his point/idea of £600k of with held cash being paid to football creditors be a goer? I don't know but it seems an interesting one.

That is good news and yes fair play to them for that. The split off in 1992 though is where it all stems back to, to an extent IMO but much mismanagement by bad owners and the Football League alike too.

One more thing. Read the other day that in the past- and obviously strip out things like payments to grass roots. Anyway in the past, it was 50% for top division, 25% for second tier and 25% to the bottom two- let's say 12.5% each or 15% and 10%. If all of the PL and FL TV deals were pooled, adjusted for aforementioned grass roots etc, and the remainder divided up- well if anyone has the figures to hand it'd be very interesting! I know some gets distributed down in the form of solidarity payments but the PL in a sense drove the inflation, but pooling all that and dividing it in that fashion would be very interesting to see.

Agreed- that "test" is a joke- plus even if his intent was benign, which it clearly was not, I bet he didn't have to provide proper proof of funds either- funds which I doubt he has even if his intent was benign. Football has always attracted some very dubious owners but Dale and Anderson (possibly Day) seem a new breed- mad owners, bad owners- Knighton, Noades, Smith and Vaughan at Chester to name a few. Never really aset strippers though, the last 2 I believe drove them into the ground over time through rank bad management but asset strippers to this extent seems a new, worrying phase. No fan of the Mel Morris ground thing but a good listen nonetheless. https://talksport.com/football/efl/593527/derby-county-mel-morris-bury-expelled-efl/

Looked into it a bit myself Bob. Yep, seems like Dale an asset stripper. Day's motives seem a weird mix- got himself into a financial mess but mortgaged against the ground- David Conn is very good on this, actually very good full stop and actually wrote an article as far back as December 2014 about the charge on Gigg Lane and the subsequent interest payments! Yet overspent and gambled to try and hit his own target, which was Championship in 5 seasons! https://www.theguardian.com/football/david-conn-inside-sport-blog/2014/nov/12/bury-high-interest-loans-shadow-recovery At THAT stage the EFL should have looked into matters, that article the starting point- should have sounded the alarm...actually scratch that the EFL are worse than useless, so dunno who- the FA? I wonder which way our own Mark Ashton voted on the Bury decision- given he's on the board?

I am not sure why I think this and legalities may have superseded it but I have a sneaking suspicion that Shaun Harvey would have let Bury start the season or at least have a crack! Does anyone else agree?

They may as well do this, tbh. https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49526433