Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

  • Participation within this subforum is only available to members who have had 5+ posts approved elsewhere.

Bury FC: 1885 to 2019 inc. petition

Status
Not open for further replies.
Genuinely infuriates me what this Dale bloke has been allowed to do to Bury

Football as a whole needs to come together to keep snakes like this man out of football

You never know when the next Dale could rock up at your club

Backing Newcastle supporters in their fight with Mike Ashley would be a good start
 
Mikey_Fitzgerald said:
Genuinely infuriates me what this Dale bloke has been allowed to do to Bury

Football as a whole needs to come together to keep snakes like this man out of football

You never know when the next Dale could rock up at your club

Backing Newcastle supporters in their fight with Mike Ashley would be a good start
Click to expand...


Mike Ashely is the exact opposite of Steve Dale in that he is actually caring for his asset in ensuring it's solvent and sustainable. Not investing his personal wealth and running a football club as a business is not a crime.
 
Disgruntledgoat said:
Mike Ashely is the exact opposite of Steve Dale in that he is actually caring for his asset in ensuring it's solvent and sustainable. Not investing his personal wealth and running a football club as a business is not a crime.
Click to expand...

It might be legal, but that doesn't make it morally right

What Dale has done is technically legal also, the fact he's been allowed to do it to over 40 companies would suggest that
 
Andy Holt from Accy Stanley is good this morning as to why anybody would have been mad to buy Bury and a little glimpse at how Dale used the club to line his pockets (Click the tweet to read the rest of the thread)

@Mikey_Fitzgerald this should show you why Newcastle fans could do a lot worse than Ashley.

 

Disgruntledgoat said:
It was done. He failed to provide proof of funds. The penalty for which is a points deduction. That was applied. The next level is suspension of matches. That was applied. The ultimate sanction was expulsion from the league. That was also applied.
Click to expand...
The EFL have admitted this morning that they didn’t complete the full due diligence because the perilous situation the club was in before Dale purchased it.

Basically, they rushed it through to save the club but have ultimately allowed the charlatan in who has rinsed it. Surely that raises some legal questions?
 
PhilM said:
The EFL have admitted this morning that they didn’t complete the full due diligence because the perilous situation the club was in before Dale purchased it.

Basically, they rushed it through to save the club but have ultimately allowed the charlatan in who has rinsed it. Surely that raises some legal questions?
Click to expand...

I think everyone is right that the league has probably covered their tracks from a legal perspective, which is a shame
 
PhilM said:
The EFL have admitted this morning that they didn’t complete the full due diligence because the perilous situation the club was in before Dale purchased it.

Basically, they rushed it through to save the club but have ultimately allowed the charlatan in who has rinsed it. Surely that raises some legal questions?
Click to expand...


The problem here is that any failure to provide proof of funds only impacts on the football side of the business. The owner is free to carry on as he sees fit. The rules assume that owners want to run a successful football club.
 
Mikey_Fitzgerald said:
"Could do worse" is hardly a ringing endorsement in all honesty
Click to expand...

Well, Newcastle United play in the Premier League and just spent 40m on a striker of dubious quality. Their owner funds the business like any other... via it's revenue streams.

Bury, as of this morning, don't exist. Their owner bilked them for everything he could, hasn't paid the players since February and will still profit from the sale of the land ground sits on.

Basically the only thing Newcastle fans have to moan about is that their owner's ambition is limited to staying in the top flight and refuses to invest his own fortune in the club. He is also a massive tool. I know who's shoes I'd rather be in.
 

Disgruntledgoat said:
Well, Newcastle United play in the Premier League and just spent 40m on a striker of dubious quality. Their owner funds the business like any other... via it's revenue streams.

Bury, as of this morning, don't exist. Their owner bilked them for everything he could, hasn't paid the players since February and will still profit from the sale of the land ground sits on.

Basically the only thing Newcastle fans have to moan about is that their owner's ambition is limited to staying in the top flight and refuses to invest his own fortune in the club. He is also a massive tool. I know who's shoes I'd rather be in.
Click to expand...

It doesn't and shouldn't have to be a case of either or

Just because one person has it worse doesn't make someone else's concern any less valid
 
Disgruntledgoat said:
The problem here is that any failure to provide proof of funds only impacts on the football side of the business. The owner is free to carry on as he sees fit. The rules assume that owners want to run a successful football club.
Click to expand...
I understand all that. I also admit that I am not an expert in football ownership and financing, yet I can't help relate and question it to against other circumstances.

If I want to own a house and need a mortgage to support my ownership, then the mortgage provider has a duty of care to ensure that ultimately I can afford it.

They do due diligence and many financial checks; if they didn't do checks and I couldn't afford it, then yes I would lose my home akin to Bury getting expelled.

Yet, the mortgage lender itself would face legal questions and in some cases compensation. How is the EFL not completing the due diligence any different?

They have allowed someone to purchase the club without proof they can fund it, regardless of whether he was a charlatan who wanted to asset strip them.

When you add that into the equation, well it is even more damming. It might not have stopped him anyway - if he did show funds - but there's legal responsibilities.

Did the EFL meet them? How many other clubs have they not correctly scrutinised ownership? That's my question.
 
Disgruntledgoat said:
What is their concern, exactly?
Click to expand...

They want him out of their club and he won't sell up because he wants to line his own pockets before he leaves

He's not holding on to make sure the club gets the right sort of custodian it needs. He's holding out for a pay day and the club is stuck in limbo as a result

Nothing illegal with that of course, but it's perfectly understandable why they want rid of him and, as you say, he's a massive tit to top it all off

So yeah, what happened at Bury was undoubtedly worse, but Newcastle fans have every right to hate Ashley and football would be better if jerks like him weren't involved in it in my opinion

I know you hate the club and it's fans, but come on, we're all here for the love of this game at the end of the day and some empathy wouldn't go amiss
 
Will be the first of many sadly. Charlatans are often allowed into these clubs because of the perilous positions the clubs get into and then predators sniff an opportunity and pounce to try and make a quick buck.

What is needed is for the leagues to implement wage controls and transfer fee caps. Hard as it might be to do other sports have done it. Football clubs are supposed to compete. Given the Newcastle example Ashley is faced with either gambling in the clubs long term future for success (hello Leeds) or selling the club which he obviously hasn’t found a suitable buyer for. In the meantime he takes the fan anger at not being able to compete.

The leagues will not be interested in this though because the entirety of football now evolves around 2 clubs that stretches to occasionally 6 and of your name isn’t Liverpool or Man United then no one is bothered about you whatsoever and if you haven’t found yourself a billionaire owner then tough luck is basically the authorities message.
 

Status
Not open for further replies.

Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Register
Back
Top