GOOD.

Won't happen, sorry Wetherby.

The judgement is attached to this link from cellinos law firm. Read the last few pages

http://www.mishcon.com/LUFC

I think that would be hard for'em Salonika, he's been given the all clear here.

Wouldn't they need a court order over ruling the QC's verdict for that.

The FL also have to be carefull that they don't publicise their witch hunt to much.

This paragraph seems to carry a lot of weight.

"The Independent Chairman of the Football League's Professional Conduct Committee has today released a decision that Mr Massimo Cellino is not subject to a Disqualifying Condition, overturning the Board of the Football League's earlier decision. Mr Cellino is therefore now entitled to become a director and owner of Leeds United Football Club.

Wetherby terrier get over it we are GFH free.

Leedsluvvr. Read the QC'c report. It says that " Cellino will fail test if 'dishonesty' shown in the report. "

As far as I am aware, FL have the power that a director can be removed if SUBSEQUENTLY fails the test.
Looked at what happened with Birminghams Chan fellow.

The Tribunal’s Ruling 131. Accordingly, for the reasons given above, I determine Mr Cellino’s appeal as follows: (1) (2) (3) the decision of the Cagliari court dated 18 March 2014 is a “conviction” within sub-paragraph e) ix) of the definition of “Disqualifying Condition” in rule 1.1 of Appendix 3 to the rules; but I am satisfied on the evidence that the conviction was not for a “Dishonest Act” as there defined, i.e. for “any act which would reasonably be considered to be dishonest”. Mr Cellino’s appeal accordingly succeeds. He is not, at present, subject to a Disqualifying Condition and is not disqualified from holding office or acting as a Club Director at a Club. Tim Kerr QC, Chairman Dated: 5 April 2014 35

The way I read it is the conviction if it stands is for an offence that isn't counted as making Cellino dishonest and thus not fit to be an owner. Thus even if he is subsequently convicted of this offence he can still be the owner as the offence doesn't go against the FL.

We done the QC and up yours to the FL.

So the QC agrees it's a conviction but not for a dishonest act that would bar him from fit and proper!

Jobs a good un!

QC EXTRACT....
I conclude that it would not be reasonable on the evidence before me to consider Mr Cellino’s conduct to be dishonest and that accordingly he is not subject to a Disqualifying Condition. It follows from my reasoning above that if the reasoned ruling of the court in Cagliari discloses that the conduct of Mr Cellino was such that it would reasonably be considered to be dishonest, he would become subject to a Disqualifying Condition. But that is not a matter that is before me.

Spot on Hunwickwhite

Basically its nailed on he is ours.

And you Stoopo, let's all have a party, great days ahead, fingers crossed

Salonika,

That Chan fella is in jail for money laundering, but he's still the owner I believe as his family are also in the company.

Then there's the convicted rapist who owns whatever club, he's still there, so would a few others I'm betting.

For the FL it was personal, and they screwed it up, he'll be here to stay I'll wager.

Won't happen in a million years

Leedsluvvr,
Actually it was Carson Yeung, but point is, cos of his conviction, he wasn't allowed to stay anywhere near Birmingham. The rapists conviction us spent, so that's different.

What I'm saying is that, however, or whenever, you fail the fit and proper persons test, if you do fail it, I believe FL can kick you out.

Can just see FL licking their lips ....just waiting

No, read the QC statement if upheld the crime isn't a dishonest one and this then doesn't break the FL fit and proper rules. They would have to change the rules to kick him out. The QC is probably a Leeds fan and written in such a way that the FL can't touch him whatever happens with the tax evasion issue of the yacht.

But hunwick the extract that salonika has just contradicts what you are saying

Unfortunately that extract does make t appear this isn't over yet

Hunwick, I have read the report, in depth.

This sentence is crucial...

if the reasoned ruling (which is due out in next 2-3 months) of the court in Cagliari discloses that the conduct of Mr Cellino was such that it would reasonably be considered to be dishonest, he would become subject to a Disqualifying Condition.

CLEARLY, this potential future event would put Cellino back as not qualifying!

I really don't think I am being thick here, surely someone else reads into this the same risk that I do?

I'm sure by the time that happens Cellino will have it covered in some way.

comment by Tony Curry (formerly Tony Dorito , Tony Ebola,Tony Orlando) (U2685)
posted 1 minute ago
I'm sure by the time that happens Cellino will have it covered in some way.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

What's up Salonika ?

I think people must be choosing to ignore your extracts Salonika. Just choosing to live in a deluded world instead. For many ignorance is bliss.

Salonica,

The rapist conviction is NEVER spent because he spent more than 18 months inside.

However he is allowed to stay owner and director because it happened before the new rules came in.

Disgraceful but that's the rule.