Like What This Fan Said

I agree Batty. To think he was party to the tax situation on his yacht is utter nonsense. A man of his wealth would have had nothing to do with this. My Dad acted for many people like Mr Cellino and he used to save them millions in tax without the clients even knowing about it.

Yes lads,some peanuts in tax on a yacht,
Fit and proper person? Well seems hes paying the wages not the jokers we have at the moment.
Maybe the FL should change their criteria,does he have the cash will he pay?
And stop all this pc squeaky cleay bo,llox.

.....and the witch hunt continues by the FL

If you've studied what the QC has said you have reached a different conclusion than most.

The QC said he can be classed as guilty in respect of English law. So fact he is challenging the decision is irrelevant.
As he can be classed as guilty the QC said the FL could therefore judge if it was a dishonest act as part of their Ownership rules. This is where the FL went and said it was without the full Italian judgement. The QC has actually said they coudl have waited for the written judgement in 2-3 months time before making a ruling but decided not to. Therefore he can look at the information available. On the basis of some of the wording used by the judge in Italy and the fact the fine was actually less the the set minimum, the QC viewed he hadn't been dishonest.

He therefore has given the FL a get out of waiting to see if the judgement by the italian judge includes something that allows them to call the act dishonest. So I'd say in 2-3 months time we coudl have this all over again.

Think you are spot on with your assessment JA.

I do think all the signs point to the judge given a verdict similar to an honest mistake though, and if this happens Cellino should be safe (unless there are other cases on the horizon which I have heard there is) but thats for another day.

Excellent thread.

Basically the FL didn't apply their own rules correctly. They were made make a decision based on the fact they thought we were going into admin if it wasn't sorted quickly.

The fact they refused Cellino based on the dishonesty clause was wrong. The judge hasn't said that (yet).

Now - he will carry on, buy the ground, by TA and get his feet very firmly under the table. They will find it very hard to remove him as owner but I'm under no illusion that they will try their best.

Maybe it's time some of the hacks turned their attention to the make up of the FL board and what influence SH has had on proceedings in this case?

JA,

Like some, I'm confident the FL won't bother going after him.I'm also confident the Judges documents will include the words Mitigating Circumstances, which means, depending on perception that Cellino was not involved, or only partly involved and was ignorant to what was going on.

With the fine being less than half of the normal Italian fine system, I suspect it puts it outside the criminal offence category and into the personal or minor offence category, or whatever they call it in Italy.

At the moment, everything looks in favour of Cellino at the appeal however, the judges transcript is going to be the difference between Cellino paying the fine cos he is not judged as being dishonest and cancelling the appeal, or, Cellino going to the appeal and probably winning, only time will tell.

The boat was bought in the USA and registered in the USA, not Italy..

So, will the FL wait for the Judges transcript and look for the word guilty and dishonest with a magnifying glass, or will they realise the continual witch hunt may well be picked up by the media, plus,

Cellino will have bought ER and TA back, plus a few chairs along the way, what has Harvey got to go after then, he'll have lost his share / cut.

Should the FL believe they found the wording, then chances are Cellino will appeal again and probably take it to the court of arbitration if he has to.

He has LUFC now, he's not going to give it up without a big scrap, and the FL know this. The FL don't have Cellinos money.

I'm going to say I'm confident the FL won't act, or, Cellino will appeal and cost the FL a lot of money along the way.

My interpretation is largely similar to jawhite's with one caveat.

The qc took the mitigating circumstances and low fine to presume no dishonesty proved. It probably is a decent indicator, why else would the fine be low... So I think the judgement when it comes in 3 months is unlikely to reveal proof of dishonesty.

However, the league chose to make a decision a couple of weeks ago. At that time, the qc is saying they were wrong. Consequently, I don't see they had much choice but to accept him. They could have chosen to wait but didn't, and can't now do so retrospectively. So they issued a statement accepting cellino and ratifying the takeover.

What options are open to them? Well if the judgement shows he was dishonest they can then move to disqualify him under their rules but, Once the takeover is ratified can they then force Eleonora sport out... Or only make cellino himself stand down? Is there a difference in how they treat a disqualified person of influence - compared to how they treat disqualified directors of existing owners?

Essentially, if they go after him in a few months, they are just disqualifying a director of a club (like any other club) or are they disqualifying any vehicle he has influence over? The distinction is the difference difference between further mayhem and a simple shuffling of shares within his family or through a friendly face of some description.

Anyone know for sure?

As others have said, I don't think it will come to this regardless.

Look no further than Birmingham for you answer milky.