Given that the FL is supposed to safeguard the interests of its member clubs when assessing suitability of prospective owners by using its own test to establish if the applicant is fit and proper to run a football club, and ensure that the applicant has sufficient funds to sustain the club during its ownership, how does the FL explain the negligence and naivety employed in rubber-stamping GFL's takeover in light of the appalling accounts now being posted by LUFC, the vast majority of which GFL are responsible for?
I would argue that the FL has miserably failed in its duty of care to one of its member clubs. And now they want to disqualify the one person who has put money up and is trying to sort the mess out???
Shame on the fat, corrupt, self-serving shysters that make up the FL.
Who's fit and proper now?
posted on 11/12/14
Oh..Jonty...You need a judge to tell you Yeung is dishonest,and he's OK to take control of a club because they haven't....And you cannot reasonably work that out for yourself?....The simple fact he was found guilty says it all....It's just a play on words by FL,and you are now playing on them Jonty.....It's simple when you use common sense,Yeung has done wrong and escaped their so called Fit and Proper test......Maybe they would be better off changing it to a Fair and Proper test....It's like talking to politicians,they don't tell lies like us,they are liberal with the truth,and that makes it being honest with integrity in their eyes...It's B******T.Just like what the FL are doing.
posted on 11/12/14
He wouldn't have failed as it was deemed he did not have the equivalent of a criminal conviction under UK law.
posted on 11/12/14
Jonty, we will have to agree to disagree.
There is no requirement for it to be a criminal act, just an act of dishonesty. If there was a criminal element, then why did the Appeal QC not disqualify Cellino immediately - as he had already ruled that Cellino had been found guilty of a criminal offence. Why did he insist that the FL wait for the detailed ruling to see if it was a dishonest act?
posted on 11/12/14
middlesex, FL rules are quite clear on this:
http://www.football-league.co.uk/global/appendix3.aspx
They had to wait as the judge's written ruling was not available at the time and Cellino played on that trying to claim that tax evasion was not dishonest!
posted on 11/12/14
I agree - had to wait to see if the act was dishonest - not criminal.
Under Rule (e) of ‘Disqualifying Condition’, it states "or where the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not apply for any reason" - this, to me, precludes it being a criminal conviction.
posted on 11/12/14
It's not either or, it's and.
The rules talk about criminal convictions or other disqualifying conditions.
You cannot read the rules and have any doubt that when the FL talks about a conviction it is a criminal conviction.
posted on 11/12/14
middlesex, am logging off for night, so don't think me rude, but happy to continue tomorrow, thanks for contributing to civilised debate on the subject.
posted on 11/12/14
It states "unspent conviction" - it never mentions criminal.
And in Section 6.4 (a), it states "in the case of the Disqualifying Condition being a criminal conviction" - so again it clearly implies it does not have to be criminal.
As I said, we will just have to agree to disagree.
posted on 11/12/14
Jonty,
The forum is for debating and there will always be differing opinions.
Happy to continue tomorrow but will probably be late in the evening.
posted on 12/12/14
They should have got Yeung on this alone:
Dishonest Act’ means any act which would reasonably be considered to be dishonest.
Read more at http://www.football-league.co.uk/global/appendix3.aspx#lXae1bxX1uEffAUP.99