Leicester City set to unveil third members in the consortium

[bocadillo]

Well as I understand it only stakeholders with a a substantial stakeholding are scrutinised by the FA - I can't recall the precise figure - but it may be 10%.

As always, I stand to be corrected on this but I think that the Foxes Trust is getting a bit over-excited by this and the strong likelihood as Homer points out is that the club is operating within FA rules on its reporting of matters.

Mandaric has already admitted that things were not done according to Football League (not FA) rules, but claimed that it was just a technicality.

 

[Ian Marshall]

Well today's the day the foxes trust said they would report the club if no new info had been reported!

Probably the one instance in which I'm actually rooting for Goliath...

 

[Scotfox]

Sorry boca I think your wrong the Football League would not have approved the deal unless ALL matters where absolutley spot on, a 'technicality', would have to have been dealt with at that time NOT after the approval.

 

[Jeff]

Sorry boca I think your wrong the Football League would not have approved the deal unless ALL matters where absolutley spot on, a 'technicality', would have to have been dealt with at that time NOT after the approval.

The technicality was sorted out weeks ago.

 

[Redditch Fox]

Sorry - I meant to say Football League rather than the FA.

Whoever is involved I doubt whether:

Sven will be around in 18 months time;

the new owners will be involved in five years time.

This is not a criticism - but a comment where football is to-day in terms of short-termism and the detachment of ownership from any connection with community and the club's history. The club like many others has become a vehicle for show casing investors and commercial interests whose main focus is not football.

Still it's better for the supporters than where we were a few years ago when we hadn't got a bean.

 

[bocadillo]

Sorry boca I think your wrong the Football League would not have approved the deal unless ALL matters where absolutley spot on, a 'technicality', would have to have been dealt with at that time NOT after the approval.

The technicality was sorted out weeks ago.

Yes, the technicality has been sorted out and the deal has been approved. But the deal was not submitted to the FL at the appropriate stage. Things were not done as the new regulations require; the approval was delayed because of it and the club was at that time in breach. This was clear from MM's responses to questions put to him, although at all times he was sure that approval would be obtained.

 

[Mawsley]

I bet it's Gary Glitter, he has connections in the Far East and a wedge of money to invest. I bet it is.

 

[drummindefender]

Ok Ok. Its me

 

[Mawsley]

Ok Ok. Its me

Well you can forget about babysitting my kids

 

[Blue Maniac]

It is 10% but it's the Football League doing the scrutinising not the FA.

Thank you.

 

[Scotfox]

But since the approval M&M has declined to answer any questions about the third member(s) of the consortium, WHY? Surely its not a state secret, the Football League know who it is or are, so does Sven or he wouldn't have come to the club, so again why are the fans being left in the dark ? Don't tell me the bulbs gone out or the switch is faulty!! I think its a terrible way to treat all the fans, as I said earlier 'mushrooms and shite'.

 

[Jeff]

But since the approval M&M has declined to answer any questions about the third member(s) of the consortium, WHY? Surely its not a state secret, the Football League know who it is

The football league won't necessarily know who it is, if the third member only owns a small percentage.

 

[Blue Maniac]

The football league won't necessarily know who it is, if the third member only owns a small percentage.

Interesting. So a person could, hypothetically, own 9.9% of several clubs and not reveal their identity to anyone, yet still be within Football League rules.

 

[Jeff]

Interesting. So a person could, hypothetically, own 9.9% of several clubs and not reveal their identity to anyone, yet still be within Football League rules.

There have been a lot of cases where clubs have been owned (or part owned) by companies based abroad and it's been impossible to find out who the people are behind those companies. Leeds, Notts County and Derby are examples.

But what I said earlier is bollocks. Even if the information isn't published, the Football League now has to be told who is ultimately the owner of the club, even if the information has not been made public.

 

[Miles Away]

I bet it's Gary Glitter, he has connections in the Far East and a wedge of money to invest. I bet it is.

Super stuff...

 

[Feriol]

Perhaps the third member hasn't actually bought in yet? and so won't have been examined?

If anyone buys into the consortium after the approval is given, will the same checks be required?

 

[weymouthfox]

5 weeks since the takeover was ratified and still no news!!
Milan said we will all know shortly, starting to wonder if we ever will!

 

[SJN-Fox]

I really don't see what difference knowing makes. We will know as and when the club releases the info, which, I daresay, will be when they have no choice.

Knowing who the members of the consortium are is not going to make me any better as a person, nor will it enable me to influence any decisions made by the club. I really don't see what the big fixation people have with knowing who it is.

 

[kanefire166]

i was told the 3rd owner has all the tv rights in asia ,

 

[Macky]

i was told the 3rd owner has all the tv rights in asia ,

TV rights for what? Grange Hill? Eastenders? The Apprentice?