Takeover

[Real Sharapova]

Just a bit worried that our prospective new head is a puppet for his father, who was investigated by the Premier League and found unsuitable.

Source?

 

[The Old Fox]

I for one can not wait for a bit of transparency from the club. Disgusting that we still don't know who the owners are.

Why? Football is an entertainment. If you like the product, you pays your money and watch: if you don't, you don't. I cannot believe that you would make the decision to watch a film based upon your approval of the money men behind it, why is a football team any different?

Please note, that I agree with the League having some control as to whom is a fit and proper owner, but why the fans? Would most care if Attila the Hun was reincarnated and became owner of Leicester, were he to put in millions and get us challenging for the Premiership title?

 

[alex]

Umm, I would. I wouldn't even like Marlon King at our club.

 

[Mawsley]

Would most care if Attila the Hun was reincarnated and became owner of Leicester, were he to put in millions and get us challenging for the Premiership title?

I would care.

Firstly, I suspect Attila isn't football people. Secondly, where would his millions come from? He'd need to have been ahead of the curve to have made investments prior to his so-called death anticipating an investment opportunity in my club.

Frankly the whole Hun-City thing wouldn't sit right with me...except the anticipation of his reaction to a Foxes Trust email.

 

[Ike O'Noclassed]

I would care.

Firstly, I suspect Attila isn't football people. Secondly, where would his millions come from? He'd need to have been ahead of the curve to have made investments prior to his so-called death anticipating an investment opportunity in my club.

Frankly the whole Hun-City thing wouldn't sit right with me...except the anticipation of his reaction to a Foxes Trust email.

He's already co-owner of Brighton HA, so not allowed.

 

[Mawsley]

He's already co-owner of Brighton HA, so not allowed.

The Russians are running the DHSS, apparently.

 

[SilverFox]

Why? Football is an entertainment. If you like the product, you pays your money and watch: if you don't, you don't. I cannot believe that you would make the decision to watch a film based upon your approval of the money men behind it, why is a football team any different?

Please note, that I agree with the League having some control as to whom is a fit and proper owner, but why the fans? Would most care if Attila the Hun was reincarnated and became owner of Leicester, were he to put in millions and get us challenging for the Premiership title?

What a strange analogy.

When a film is made, it is indeed made for entertainment purposes. If it does well, the production companies make big money, they are happy and they probably make a second film (followed usually by a horrible third one just so that they can cream off further revenue by releasing the ever popular trilogy box set...thanks George Lucas).

If the film does badly, the production company doesn't make a sequel, but spread their loss across several other films. Such is the nature of the game in the world of film.

If a football club is backed by shady types and the bottom falls out, their is a distinct possibility that the club go through what Portsmouth are experiencing now, or dissapear entirely. It is not like Superman Returns, people don't say thank Christ they aren't going to make a sequel to that...the football club is effectively gone.

For that reason (i.e. because the potential future of the football club is at stake) I am extremely interested in who the owner is.

I can't imagine why any fan of the club would not be interested to know this information.

 

[The Old Fox]

What a strange analogy.
For that reason (i.e. because the potential future of the football club is at stake) I am extremely interested in who the owner is.

I can't imagine why any fan of the club would not be interested to know this information.

But, what are you going to do with the information? Supposing that you find that it is someone of whom you disapprove, but the League give their blessing; what effect would it have upon you, or the club?

 

[SilverFox]

It's pretty simple really. If they are "fit and proper", I probably won't have issue with the takeover. If it is indeed the case that they are fit and proper, I can't really understand why uncle "trust me" Milan is so cagey in the first place.

If they are not fit and proper, and there are questionable things that they like to do with their money, the football league will probably say that they can't be owners. I won't really hae an input in that process.

I can't really envisage a situation where the league find them to be fit and proper people with the club's interests at heart yet I still dissaprove. That wouldn't make sense.

If such a situation did arise, I'd probably have to not give my money to them anymore.

 

[Macky]

But, what are you going to do with the information? Supposing that you find that it is someone of whom you disapprove, but the League give their blessing; what effect would it have upon you, or the club?

Well, he could make an informed decision as to whether or not he chooses to spend his hard earned cash on the club in the future for a start

 

[SilverFox]

Well, he could make an informed decision as to whether or not he chooses to spend his hard earned cash on the club in the future for a start

Why did it take several paragraphs for me to say that. :icon_lol:

Nail on head basically.

 

[SilverFox]

It's pretty simple really. If they are "fit and proper", I probably won't have issue with the takeover. If it is indeed the case that they are fit and proper, I can't really understand why uncle "trust me" Milan is so cagey in the first place.

If they are not fit and proper, and there are questionable things that they like to do with their money, the football league will probably say that they can't be owners. I won't really hae an input in that process.

I can't really envisage a situation where the league find them to be fit and proper people with the club's interests at heart yet I still dissaprove. That wouldn't make sense.

If such a situation did arise, I'd probably have to not give my money to them anymore.

Why is there a random hyperlink?

 

[Macky]

Why is there a random hyperlink?

It's an auto-link, there's no such word as 'anymore'

 

[The Old Fox]

I think we may be in broad agreement. My point is that many on this board are talking about football of yester-year, when fans views counted for something. We are now in an era when money does the talking.

Should the Football League have doubts as to the ability or desire of our new owners to fund the club in a proper manner, they will act. Fans can only sit back and enjoy (?) the ride.

 

[SilverFox]

It's an auto-link, there's no such word as 'anymore'

Ture.

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

I can't really envisage a situation where the league find them to be fit and proper people with the club's interests at heart yet I still dissaprove. That wouldn't make sense.

I think the League's test is that none of the owners have been convicted of fraud. I am not sure they have any 'legal' interest in whether the new owners have the the club's interests at heart.

Most owners have their own interests at heart - 'new toy', making money if you get a small club up into the Prem etc.

 

[SilverFox]

I think we may be in broad agreement. My point is that many on this board are talking about football of yester-year, when fans views counted for something. We are now in an era when money does the talking.

Should the Football League have doubts as to the ability or desire of our new owners to fund the club in a proper manner, they will act. Fans can only sit back and enjoy (?) the ride.

Fans can have a say to an extent, but it depends really on the resolve of the new owners.

Take the Glazers and Man U for instance. There were quite large demonstrations, probably even threats made concerning their personal safety, yet they went along with it, and although unpopular they are still there.

On the flip side, similar threats were made by Newcastle United's fans and Mike Ashley wanted out pronto...only problem for him was the price tag he put on the club. If someone had stumped up that cash he would most likely have gone in my view.

I think that there is potential when enough fans stand up and say no to something, but I really doubt that we are that type of fan base. We seem largely apathetic about most things.

 

[SilverFox]

I think the League's test is that none of the owners have been convicted of fraud. I am not sure they have any 'legal' interest in whether the new owners have the the club's interests at heart.

Most owners have their own interests at heart - 'new toy', making money if you get a small club up into the Prem etc.

There are loads of them. But it isn't a bad list for determining what type of person you have at the club. You could probably be deemed reasonably trustworthy if you are a successful business person who hasn't committed any of the following:


SCHEDULE OF OFFENCES:

• Conspiracy to defraud: Criminal Justice Act 1987, section 12
• Conspiracy to defraud: Common Law
• Corrupt transactions with (public) agents, corruptly accepting consideration: Prevention of Corruption Act 1906, section 1
• Insider dealing: Criminal Justice Act 1993, sections 52 and 61
• Public servant soliciting or accepting a gift: Public Bodies (Corrupt Practices) Act 1889, section 1
• Theft: Theft Act 1968, section 1
• Obtaining by deception: Theft Act 1968, section 15
• Obtaining a money transfer by deception: Theft Act 1968, section 15A + B
• Obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception: Theft Act 1968, section 16
• False accounting: Theft Act 1968, section 17
• False statements by Company Directors: Theft Act 1968, section 19
• Suppression of (company) documents: Theft Act 1968, section 20
• Retaining a wrongful credit: Theft Act 1968, section 24A
• Obtaining services by deception: Theft Act 1978, section 1
• Evasion of liability by deception: Theft Act 1978, section 2
• Cheating the Public Revenue/Making false statements tending to defraud the public revenue: Common Law
• Punishment for fraudulent training: Companies Act 1985, section 458
• Penalty for fraudulent evasion of duty etc: Customs & Excise Management Act 1979, section 170
• Fraudulent evasion of VAT: Value Added Tax Act 1994 section 72
• Person subject to a Banning order (as defined) : Football (Disorder) Act 2000, Schedule 1
• Forgery: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 1
• Copying a false instrument : Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 2
• Using a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 3
• Using a copy of a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 4
• Cheating the Public Revenue/ Making false statements tending to defraud the public revenue: Common Law
• Punishment for fraudulent training: Companies Act 1985, section 458
• Penalty for fraudulent evasion of duty etc: Customs & Excise Management Act 1979, section 170
• Fraudulent evasion of VAT: Value Added Tax Act 1994, section 72
• Person subject to a Banning order (as defined): Football (Disorder) Act 2000, Schedule 1
• Forgery: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 1
• Copying a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 2
• Using a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 3
• Using a copy of a false instrument: Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981, section 4

At the same time, there is still no way of knowing really who you are jumping into bed with so I take your point.

 

[Mike - True Blue Tinter]

I think that there is potential when enough fans stand up and say no to something, but I really doubt that we are that type of fan base. We seem largely apathetic about most things.

Whatever :icon_wink

 

[SilverFox]

Whatever :icon_wink

:icon_lol: