Author Topic: Owners’ and Directors’ Test  (Read 7999 times)

Offline Jack Slater

  • The hard hitting Detective with a drink problem and an eye for the ladies
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,469
Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« on: August 8, 2010, 10:40:23 am »
I thought we may as well have the PL rules for reference, as it may become a topic of conversation shortly.  Mods feel free to delete it you think it's waste of space.


------------------------

SECTION D

DIRECTORS & DIRECTORS’ REPORTS

Definitions


1. For the purpose of this Section of these Rules:

1.1 “Auditors” means registered auditors appointed by a Club to audit its accounts who
have not been disqualified by the Board under the provisions of Rule D.36;

1.2 “Auditors’ Report” means a report in Form 3(1);

1.3 “Bankruptcy Order” means an order adjudging an individual bankrupt;

1.4 “Bankruptcy Restriction Order” and “Interim Bankruptcy Restriction Order” mean
orders made under the provisions of Schedule 4A of the Insolvency Act 1986;

1.5 “Club” includes any Associated Undertaking, Fellow Subsidiary Undertaking, Group
Undertaking, or Parent Undertaking of such Club;

1.6 “Concert Party” means any person with which any relevant person is acting in concert
within the meaning of paragraphs (2) to (5) (inclusive) of the definition of “acting in
concert” in the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers, or would be so acting in concert if
the City Code on Takeovers and Mergers applied in the relevant case;

1.7 “Connected Person” means any Person who directly or indirectly possesses or is
entitled to acquire more than 30 per cent of:
1.7.1 the issued ordinary share capital of the company; or
1.7.2 the loan capital (save where loan capital was acquired in the ordinary course of
the business of lending money) and issued share capital of the company, or
1.7.3 the voting power in the company, or
1.7.4 the assets of the company which would be available for distribution to equity
holders in the event of winding up of the company.

1.8 “Control” means the power of a Person to exercise, or to be able to exercise or acquire,
direct or indirect control over the policies, affairs and/or management of a Club, whether
that power is constituted by rights or contracts (either separately or in combination)
and having regard to the considerations of fact or law involved, and, without prejudice
to the generality of the foregoing, Control shall be deemed to include:
1.8.1 the power (whether directly or indirectly and whether by the ownership of the
share capital, by the possession of voting power, by contract or otherwise
including without limitation by way of membership of any Concert Party) to
appoint and/or remove all or such of the members of the board of directors of
the Club as are able to cast a majority of the votes capable of being cast by the
members of that board; and/or
1.8.2 the holding and/or possession of the beneficial interest in, and/or the ability to
exercise the voting rights applicable to, shares or other securities in the Club
(whether directly, indirectly (by means of holding such interests in one or more
other persons) or by contract including without limitation by way of membership
of any Concert Party) which confer in aggregate on the holder(s) thereof 30 per
cent or more of the total voting rights exercisable at general meetings of the Club;
For the purposes of the above, any rights or powers of a Nominee for any Person or of an
Associate of any Person or of a Connected Person to any Person shall be attributed to that
Person;

1.9 “Declaration” means a declaration in Form 2A;

1.10 “Director” means any person occupying the position of director of a Club whose
particulars are registered or registrable under the provisions of section 162 of the Act
and includes a shadow director, that is to say, a person in accordance with whose
directions or instructions the directors of the Club are accustomed to act, or a Person
having Control over the Club, or a Person exercising the powers that are usually
associated with the powers of a director of a company;

1.11 “Individual Voluntary Arrangement” means an arrangement made under the
provisions of Part VIII of the Insolvency Act 1986;

1.12 “Material Transactions” has the meaning set out in Rule D.26;

1.13 “Objectives” has the meaning set out in Rule D.34;

1.14 “Report” means a report in Form 3(2);

1.15 “Shares” includes securities;

1.16 “Spent Conviction” means a conviction in respect of which the offender is treated as
rehabilitated for the purposes of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 or, where this
Act does not apply for any reason, a conviction which would be so treated had the
provisions of the Act applied.

1.17 “Third Party Payment” means any payment made or liability incurred (other than
Compensation Fees, remuneration or payments to or for the benefit of Agents referred
to in Rule D.26) by or on behalf of a Club in respect of a Player, including an Image
Contract Payment.



PART 1 - DIRECTORS

Owners’ and Directors’ Test



2. A Person shall be disqualified from acting as a Director and no Club shall be permitted to have
any Person acting as a Director of that Club if:

2.1 either directly or indirectly he is involved in or has any power to determine or influence
the management or administration of another Club or Football League club; or

2.2 either directly or indirectly he holds or acquires any Significant Interest in a Club while he
either directly or indirectly holds any interest in any class of Shares of another Club; or

2.3 he becomes prohibited by law from being a Director (including without limitation as a
result of being subject to a disqualification order as a director under the Company
Directors Disqualification Act 1986, or being subject to the terms of an undertaking
given to the Secretary of State under that Act, unless a court of competent jurisdiction
makes an order under that Act permitting an appointment as a Director); or

2.4 he has a conviction (which is not a Spent Conviction) imposed by a court of the United
Kingdom or a competent court of foreign jurisdiction:
2.4.1 in respect of which an unsuspended sentence of at least 12 months’
imprisonment was imposed; or
2.4.2 in respect of any offence involving any act which would reasonably be
considered to be dishonest (and, for the avoidance of doubt, irrespective of the
actual sentence imposed); or
2.4.3 in respect of an offence set out in the Appendix 12 Schedule of Offences or a
directly analogous offence in a foreign jurisdiction (and, for the avoidance of
doubt, irrespective of the actual sentence imposed); or

2.5 he makes an Individual Voluntary Arrangement or becomes the subject of an Interim
Bankruptcy Restriction Order, a Bankruptcy Restriction Order or a Bankruptcy Order; or

2.6 he is or has been a Director of a Club which, while he has been a Director of it, has
suffered 2 or more unconnected Events of Insolvency (and for the purposes of this Rule
D.2.6 and Rule D.2.7 a person shall be deemed to have been a Director of a Club which
has suffered an Event of Insolvency if such Event of Insolvency occurred in the 30 days
immediately following his having resigned as a Director of that Club); or

2.7 he has been a Director of 2 or more Clubs or clubs each of which, while he has been a
Director of them, has suffered an Event of Insolvency; or

2.8 he is subject to a suspension or ban from involvement in the administration of a sport
by any ruling body of a sport that is registered with UK Sport or Sport England, or any
corresponding national or international association, whether such suspension or ban is
direct or indirect (for example a direction to Persons subject to the jurisdiction of the
ruling body that they should not employ, contract with or otherwise engage or retain
the services of an individual); or

2.9 he is subject to any form of suspension, disqualification or striking-off by a professional
body including, without limitation, the Law Society, the Solicitors’ Regulation Authority,
the Bar Council or the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales or any
equivalent body in any jurisdiction outside England and Wales, whether such suspension,
disqualification or striking-off is direct or indirect (for example a direction to Persons
subject to the jurisdiction of the professional body that they should not employ,
contract with or otherwise engage or retain the services of an individual); or

2.10 he is required to notify personal information pursuant to Part 2 of the Sexual Offences
Act 2003;

2.11 he is found to have breached (irrespective of any sanction actually imposed), or has
admitted breaching (irrespective of whether disciplinary proceedings were brought or
not):
2.11.1 Rule V.26; or
2.11.2 Rule E.8 of the Rules of the Football Association (as amended, or replaced from
time to time); or
2.11.3 any other rules in force from time to time in relation to the prohibition on
betting on football matches played in England and Wales.


Submission of Declaration

3. Not later than 14 days before the commencement of each Season each Club shall submit to
the Secretary a duly completed Declaration in respect of each of its Directors signed by the
Director to which it refers and by an Authorised Signatory, who shall not be the same person.


4. Within 21 days of becoming a member of the League each Club promoted from the Football
League shall likewise submit to the Secretary a duly completed Declaration in respect of each
of its Directors signed as aforesaid.


5. If any person proposes to become a Director of a Club (including for the avoidance of doubt
by virtue of being a shadow director or acquiring Control of the Club):

5.1 the Club shall no later than 10 Working Days prior to the date on which it is anticipated
that such person shall become a Director submit to the Secretary a duly completed
Declaration in respect of that person signed by him and by an Authorised Signatory;

5.2 within 5 Working Days of receipt thereof the Secretary shall confirm to the Club
whether or not he is liable to be disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule
D.2, and if he is so liable the Board will take the steps set out in Rule D.7; and

5.3 he shall not become a Director until the Club has received confirmation from the
Secretary pursuant to Rule D.5.2 above that he is not liable to be disqualified as a
Director under the provisions of Rule D.2.


Change of Director’s Circumstances

6. Upon the happening of an event which affects any statement contained in a submitted
Declaration:

6.1 the Director in respect of whom the Declaration has been made shall forthwith give full
written particulars thereof to his Club; and

6.2 the Club shall thereupon give such particulars in writing to the Secretary.


Disqualification of a Director

7. Upon the Board becoming aware by virtue of the submission of a Declaration or in the
circumstances referred to in Rule D.6 or by any other means that a person is liable to be
disqualified as a Director under the provisions of Rule D.2, the Board will:

7.1 give written notice to the person that he is disqualified, giving reasons therefore, and (in
the case of a person who is a Director) require him forthwith to resign as a Director; and

7.2 give written notice to the Club that the person is disqualified, giving reasons therefore,
and (in the case of a person who is a Director) in default of the Director’s resignation, it
shall procure that within 28 days of receipt of such notice the Director is removed from
his office as such.


Disciplinary Provisions

8. Any Club which fails to comply with its obligations under the foregoing provisions of this Section
of these Rules or which submits a Declaration which is false in any particular shall be in breach
of these Rules and will be liable to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section R.


9. Any Director who fails to comply with his obligations under the foregoing provisions of this
Section of these Rules or who fails to complete and sign a Declaration and any Director or
Authorised Signatory who signs a Declaration which is false in any particular shall likewise be
in breach of these Rules and liable to be dealt with as aforesaid.


Suspension of the Club

10. If a Director who receives a notice under the provisions of Rule D.7.1 fails to resign and his
Club fails to procure his removal from office as required, or if a Club proceeds with the
appointment as a Director of a person to whom Rule D.5 applies despite having received a
notice under the provisions of Rule D.7.2, the Board shall have power to suspend the Club by
giving to it notice in writing to that effect.


11. A suspended Club shall not play in:

11.1 any League Match; or

11.2 any Premier Academy League Match; or

11.3 any Premier Reserve League Match; or

11.4 any of the competitions set out in Rules E.10 and E.11; or

11.5 any other match.


12. For the purposes of the League competition, the Board shall have power to determine how the
cancellation of a League Match caused by the suspension of one of the Clubs which should
have participated in it shall be treated.


13. Upon being reasonably satisfied that the Director of the suspended Club has resigned or has
been removed from office, the Board shall have power to withdraw the suspension by giving
to it notice in writing to that effect.


Appeal against Disqualification of a Director

14. Any person or Club who receives notice under Rule D.7 above has a right to appeal the
disqualification notice(s) in accordance with the following Rules. However, for the avoidance
of doubt, unless and until any such appeal is upheld, the disqualification notice(s) will take full
effect.


15. Any person or Club wishing to appeal a disqualification notice must, within 21 days of the
date of that notice, send or deliver to the Secretary a notice of appeal, setting out full details
of the grounds of appeal of that person or Club, together with a deposit of £1,000.


16. The only grounds upon which a person or Club may appeal a disqualification notice are:

16.1 none of the Disqualifying Events set out in Rule D.2 apply; or

16.2 in respect of a conviction of a court of foreign jurisdiction under Rule D.2.4, or a
suspension or ban by a sport ruling body under Rule D.2.8, or a suspension,
disqualification or striking-off by a professional body under Rule D.2.9, there are
compelling reasons why that particular conviction, suspension, ban, disqualification or
striking-off, should not lead to disqualification; or

16.3 it can be proven that the Disqualifying Event has, or will within 21 days of the notice of
appeal, cease to exist;

16.4 the Disqualifying Event is a conviction imposed between 19th August 2004 and 5th June
2009 for an offence which would not have led to disqualification as a Director under
Premier League Rules as they applied during that period;

16.5 the Disqualifying Event is a conviction which is the subject of an appeal which has not
yet been determined and in all the circumstances it would be unreasonable for the
individual to be disqualified as a Director pending the determination of that appeal.


17. An appeal under the provisions of Rule D.14 shall lie to an appeal tribunal which shall hear the
appeal as soon as reasonably practicable. The appeal tribunal shall be appointed by the Board
and shall comprise 3 members of the Panel including a legally qualified member who shall sit
as chairman of the tribunal.


18. The chairman of the appeal tribunal shall have regard to the procedures governing the
proceedings of Commissions and Appeal Boards set out in Section R of these Rules but, subject
as aforesaid, shall have an overriding discretion as to the manner in which the appeal is
conducted.


19. The person or Club advancing the appeal shall have the onus of proof of the matters set out
in the appeal on the balance of probabilities.


20. If the members of the appeal tribunal are not unanimous the decision of the majority of them
shall prevail.


21. The appeal tribunal shall give written reasons for its decision.


22. Members of the appeal tribunal shall be entitled to receive from the Company a reasonable
sum by way of fees and expenses.


23. The appeal tribunal shall have the following powers:

23.1 to allow the appeal in full;

23.2 to reject the appeal;

23.3 if it determines that a Disqualifying Event exists, to determine that the individual
concerned should not be banned for that period during which they will remain subject
to it and substitute such period as it shall reasonably determine, having regard to all of
the circumstances of the case.

23.4 to declare that no Disqualifying Event ever existed or that any Disqualifying Event has
ceased to exist;

23.5 to order the deposit to be forfeited to the Company or to be repaid to the appellant
person or Club;

23.6 to order the appellant person or Club to pay or contribute to the costs of the appeal
including the fees and expenses of members of the appeal tribunal paid or payable under
Rule D.22;


24. The decision of the appeal tribunal shall be final and binding on the appellant person and Club.


Persons Prohibited by Law from entering the United Kingdom etc

25. No Person may acquire any Holding in a Club if, pursuant to the law of the United Kingdom
or the European Union:

25.1 he is prohibited from entering the United Kingdom; or

25.2 no funds or economic resources may be made available, directly or indirectly, to or for
his benefit.


PART 2 - DIRECTOR’S REPORTS

Material Transactions


26. For the purposes of a Report Material Transactions shall comprise any payment or financial
obligation (or any series of connected payments or financial obligations relating to the same
transaction) made or undertaken by or to or in favour of a Club and recorded in its accounting
and administration records which exceeds (or in the case of more than one payment or
financial obligation in the aggregate exceed) in value £25,000 and which is (or are) in respect
of any of the following:

26.1 Compensation Fees, Contingent Sums or Loan Fees; or

26.2 remuneration of Players (including, for this purpose, any benefits they are entitled to
receive); or

26.3 payments to or for the benefit of Agents; or

26.4 Third Party Payments
and remuneration of and payments to or for the benefit of Players or Agents shall in each case
include payments made by or on behalf of a Club to or for the benefit of a Player or Agent (as
the case may be) including, for this purpose, to any company or trust in which the Player or
Agent (as the case may be) has an interest.


Record of Material Transactions

27. Brief particulars of each Material Transaction sufficient to identify its date(s), its amount(s)
and the nature of it shall be recorded by a Club and the record shall be made available on
demand to its Directors, its Auditors and the League.


28. Directors of a Club (including non-executive Directors) shall take such steps as are reasonably
necessary to satisfy themselves that their Club’s record of Material Transactions is complete
and correct.


Preparation of the Report

29. At the end of each of its accounting periods the Directors of each Club shall prepare or cause
to be prepared a Report.


30. Subject to Rule D.31 below, upon a Report having been prepared it shall be signed and dated
by each of the Directors of the Club.


31. Any such Director who for any reason is unwilling to sign the Report shall note the Report to
that effect, giving full reasons.


32. Any Director signing a Report who knows or ought reasonably to know that it or any part of
it is false or misleading in any way and any Director noting a Report knowing that such note
or the reasons given by him are false or misleading in any way will in either case act in breach
of these Rules and will be liable to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of
Section R.


33. Managers, Players and Officials shall cooperate fully with the Directors and Auditors of their
Club in the preparation of Reports and Auditors’ Reports.



Objectives

34. The Objectives referred to in the Report are to ensure that:

34.1 in relation to Compensation Fees:
34.1.1 the Club has formally adopted a written transfer policy identifying who on its
behalf has authority to negotiate Players’ transfers and the terms of Players’
contracts, what approvals (if any) are required before such authority is exercised
and who is the Authorised Signatory;
34.1.2 Material Transactions have been entered into by the Club strictly in accordance
with its transfer policy and the provisions of these Rules;

34.2 in relation to remuneration of Players, details of their remuneration and any benefits
they are entitled to receive are fully disclosed in the Players’ contracts and the terms
thereof have been strictly observed;

34.3 in relation to payments to or for the benefit of Agents:
34.3.1 all Material Transactions between Clubs and Agents are evidenced in writing; and
34.3.2 all Material Transactions between Clubs and Agents are authorised by a person
appointed by the Directors of the Club for that purpose;

34.4 in relation to Third Party Payments:
34.4.1 all contracts and arrangements in relation thereto have been entered into by the
Club with the authority of its Directors or a person appointed by them for that
purpose; and
34.4.2 the terms of such contracts and arrangements have been strictly observed;

34.5 in all such cases all elements of the Material Transaction have been accurately and
completely entered into the accounting and administration records of the Club on a
timely basis, including the record required by Rule D.27.


Submission of the Report

35. Within 10 months of the end of each of its accounting periods each Club shall cause its
Auditors to submit its Report together with its Auditors’ Report to the Secretary on behalf of
the Board and the Board shall be entitled to rely on the contents of any Report and any
Auditors’ Report in exercising its powers set out in Section R of these Rules.


Disqualification

36. The Board shall have power at any time to disqualify Auditors from preparing Auditors’
Reports.


37. It shall be a condition precedent to the exercise of such power that the Board shall have
communicated with the Club for which the Auditors in question act setting out fully its
reasons and inviting the Club and its Auditors within 21 days to show cause why its Auditors
should not be disqualified.


38. A Club to which such a communication is addressed shall be entitled within the said period of
21 days to require the Board to exercise its power of inquiry under Rule R.1 and to inquire into
the reasons for the proposed disqualification and both the Club and the Auditors in question
shall be entitled to appear before the Board when conducting such inquiry.


39. In the event of a Club’s Auditors being disqualified under the provisions of this Rule, the Club
in question shall as soon as practicable appoint other auditors to replace them.







« Last Edit: August 9, 2010, 02:08:48 am by Jack Slater »

Offline Zappa

  • Old OCB Rep
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,014
  • Shankly's man 60yrs served come December
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #1 on: August 8, 2010, 10:53:32 am »
One day, someone will challenge this in Court and there is a high chance that it will be judged uninforceable.

Football thinks it can act outside of the ordinary law through self-defined "agreements" such as this and the bigger issue of the transfer system. Sooner or later footballer will be employed and change jobs the same way as everybody else does - and directors can have an interest in as many clubs as they wish
There ain't no money in poetry
That's what sets the poet free
I've had all the freedom I can stand

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #2 on: August 8, 2010, 11:47:25 am »
Under those rules,G&H could still buy the club.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline Lush is the best medicine...

  • FUCK THE POLICE - NWA
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 40,804
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #3 on: August 8, 2010, 11:56:50 am »
Under those rules,G&H could still buy the club.

as could robert mugabe

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 54,150
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #4 on: August 8, 2010, 12:53:46 pm »
No - good idea Jack. Any other useful documents that could go in here? Might sticky it.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #5 on: August 8, 2010, 01:33:42 pm »
No - good idea Jack. Any other useful documents that could go in here? Might sticky it.

The FA fit and proper persons test would give everyone a laugh.
http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/RulesandRegulations/~/media/Files/PDF/TheFA/FitandProperPersons0809.ashx
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline The Flying Pig

  • Bill. Not improving with age.
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,652
  • Truth? Yes. Justice? Not yet. JFT96.
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #6 on: August 8, 2010, 08:14:30 pm »
I think Hitler would probably pass that.
Suddenly I turned around and she was standin' there
With silver bracelets on her wrists and flowers in her hair
She walked up to me so gracefully and took my crown of thorns
"Come in", She said, "I'll give you shelter from the storm."

I might be in!

Offline OLDIE

  • WORLDIE
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 6,020
  • We all Live in a Red and White Kop
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #7 on: August 9, 2010, 01:52:27 am »
I think Hicks in particular can be disqualified under clause 2.8 and both of the fuckers under 26.

Anyone agree ?

Offline Jack Slater

  • The hard hitting Detective with a drink problem and an eye for the ladies
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,469
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #8 on: August 9, 2010, 02:07:07 am »
I think Hicks in particular can be disqualified under clause 2.8 and both of the fuckers under 26.

Anyone agree ?

Why though?


Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2010, 04:37:14 pm »
I think Hicks in particular can be disqualified under clause 2.8 and both of the fuckers under 26.

Anyone agree ?
No.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline Mutton Geoff

  • 'The Invigilator'
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,706
  • Life is a journey, not a destination.
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2010, 06:52:11 pm »
jack and xerxes trying to be alone again in their private thread shocker!!
Mellowing and Retired, and stayed around long enough to watch the Tories implode

Offline zabadoh

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,507
  • Walk on with hope in your heart
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #11 on: August 14, 2010, 11:15:54 pm »
Hicks could still buy the club today under those rules which say nothing about financial soundness.  The rules only cover with criminal behavior (2.4), professional improprieties (2.9) and cheating in sports (2.8 and 2.11), e.g. Flavio Briatore and Renault in F1.

H&G ran up huge debts legitimately, lied to the fans about laying debt on the club perfectly legally.  Hicks ran the Texas Rangers and Dallas Northstars and Corinthians into insolvency, but again completely within the law.
“It's impossible,” said Pride.  “It's risky,” said Experience.  “It's pointless,” said Reason.

“Give it a try,” whispered the Heart. - Ken-Obi

Offline Zeb

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,571
  • Justice.
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #12 on: August 14, 2010, 11:55:14 pm »
Hicks could still buy the club today under those rules which say nothing about financial soundness.  The rules only cover with criminal behavior (2.4), professional improprieties (2.9) and cheating in sports (2.8 and 2.11), e.g. Flavio Briatore and Renault in F1.

H&G ran up huge debts legitimately, lied to the fans about laying debt on the club perfectly legally.  Hicks ran the Texas Rangers and Dallas Northstars and Corinthians into insolvency, but again completely within the law.


And one of the few times action was attempted because someone clearly failed the tests, it didn't make a jot of difference (cf Chester City).
"And the voices of the standing Kop still whispering in the wind will salute the wee Scots redman and he will still walk on.
And your money will have bought you nothing."

Offline zabadoh

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 3,507
  • Walk on with hope in your heart
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #13 on: August 16, 2010, 06:00:33 am »
Didn't Chester City's owners at the time of their demise already own the team when the "Fit and Proper Persons" Test was put into effect?
“It's impossible,” said Pride.  “It's risky,” said Experience.  “It's pointless,” said Reason.

“Give it a try,” whispered the Heart. - Ken-Obi

Offline Alan_X

  • WUM. 'twatito' - The Cat Herding Firm But Fair Voice Of Reason (Except when he's got a plank up his arse). Gimme some skin, priest! Has a general dislike for Elijah Wood. Clearly cannot fill even a thong! RAWK Resident Muppet. Has a crush o
  • RAWK Staff
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 54,150
  • Come on you fucking red men!!!
  • Super Title: This is super!
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #14 on: August 16, 2010, 06:21:20 am »
Hicks could still buy the club today under those rules which say nothing about financial soundness.  The rules only cover with criminal behavior (2.4), professional improprieties (2.9) and cheating in sports (2.8 and 2.11), e.g. Flavio Briatore and Renault in F1.

H&G ran up huge debts legitimately, lied to the fans about laying debt on the club perfectly legally.  Hicks ran the Texas Rangers and Dallas Northstars and Corinthians into insolvency, but again completely within the law.


Sorry mate, but he didn't run Corinthians into insolvency.
Sid Lowe (@sidlowe)
09/03/2011 08:04
Give a man a mask and he will tell the truth, Give a man a user name and he will act like a total twat.
Its all about winning shiny things.

Offline Jack Slater

  • The hard hitting Detective with a drink problem and an eye for the ladies
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,469
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #15 on: August 16, 2010, 08:34:11 am »

This is Rule V26  (mentioned as potential grounds for banning a director/owner)

26. No Club, Official or Player may, in connection with betting on an event in, or on the result of,
a League Match:
26.1 offer or receive a payment or any form of inducement to or from any Club or the Official
or Player of any Club; or
26.2 receive or seek to receive any payment or other form of inducement from any Person.



Offline Jack Slater

  • The hard hitting Detective with a drink problem and an eye for the ladies
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,469
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #16 on: August 16, 2010, 08:37:11 am »

And this is FA Rule E8


Betting
8 (a) A Participant shall not, either directly or indirectly, bet, or instruct, permit or enable
any person to bet, on the result, progress or conduct of a Match or Competition in
which the Participant is participating, or has participated in that season, or in which the
Participant has any infl uence, either direct or indirect.
(b) A Participant shall not use, or provide to any other person any information relating to
football which the Participant has by virtue of his or her position within the game and
which is not publicly available for, or in relation to, betting.
It shall not be a breach of the above provisions of this Rule E8, if the Participant can
prove that the bet was on authorised and registered football pools.


Offline Mutton Geoff

  • 'The Invigilator'
  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 32,706
  • Life is a journey, not a destination.
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #17 on: August 16, 2010, 05:58:36 pm »
fuck me Jack that was death by data!
Mellowing and Retired, and stayed around long enough to watch the Tories implode

Offline Zeb

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,571
  • Justice.
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #18 on: August 17, 2010, 12:41:20 am »
Didn't Chester City's owners at the time of their demise already own the team when the "Fit and Proper Persons" Test was put into effect?

Not sure about that. But the Football League did take action against the owner, and he just transferred ownership to his son. And so nothing changed. Same with who owns Leeds now. No-one knows. And it's all perfectly within the rules because you can drive a coach and horses through almost any of them. If the SFO can't track down ownership of shares for football clubs (cf Chelsea's sale to the Russian), what hope has the Premier League got?

----

Jack - re. the financial guarantees for new owners. They can't block but the sanction powers are a lot stronger. The budget enforcement, the inability to either bring players in or keep existing players on new contracts etc. And they can demand financial projections and business plans for any time period they want and if they aren't happy can then trigger the sanctions. Nothing will be able to stop someone coming in and looting over a few months if they are able to convince the PL that they have sound finances/business plans to start with, but it shouldn't be possible to do that over the long term. At least not to the extent of taking a club out of existance. Running a club down and out of the PL will still be perfectly possible, just as long as they don't bankrupt it.
"And the voices of the standing Kop still whispering in the wind will salute the wee Scots redman and he will still walk on.
And your money will have bought you nothing."

Offline Jack Slater

  • The hard hitting Detective with a drink problem and an eye for the ladies
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,469
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #19 on: August 17, 2010, 07:21:18 am »
... the sanction powers are a lot stronger. The budget enforcement, the inability to either bring players in or keep existing players on new contracts etc. And they can demand financial projections and business plans for any time period they want and if they aren't happy can then trigger the sanctions.

Sure.  I read all of C90, and wasnt trying to summarise all of it  (hence the "eg" :) )

It's just that I thought I'd read media reports &/or posts on RAWK which suggested that the PL can block a potential new owner if their finances are not up to scratch.

Looking through the extracts pasted above, I havent been able to find such a rule.  Maybe it exists elsewhere in the PL rules, I havent read them all.

 


Offline No666

  • Married to Macca.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,065
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #20 on: August 17, 2010, 09:55:08 am »
jack/Zeb - slightly off-topic but easier to get your attention in here, otherwise it's like waving from the back on the big board:

These penalties that H&G may have to pay - is it likely that they are part of a strategy by RBS to keep the bastards reasonable, and that they might, for example, say to them - accept this bid - it may be less than you wanted but if you do we'll let you off the penalties. If you don't we're happy to see you in court and you'll be losing the Matisse and the personal chef. ??

Offline Zeb

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,571
  • Justice.
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #21 on: August 17, 2010, 03:29:21 pm »
Sure.  I read all of C90, and wasnt trying to summarise all of it  (hence the "eg" :) )

It's just that I thought I'd read media reports &/or posts on RAWK which suggested that the PL can block a potential new owner if their finances are not up to scratch.

Looking through the extracts pasted above, I havent been able to find such a rule.  Maybe it exists elsewhere in the PL rules, I havent read them all.

Ah k - thought it was an odd one, but then even Homer sleeps etc ;) On financial grounds, there really doesn't seem to be a way for the PL to block - just to harass to the point where a buyer may think it's not worth their time. And the fit and proper grounds for blocking can be danced around fairly easily too. It may prevent another Portsmouth (not least because the PL will divert tv money to some creditors), but think its intention is to make life difficult rather than block outright. Not sure what reports have claimed otherwise - Scudamore been on the glue again? :D

----

No666 - The background is, as you know, that the various reports all seem to agree on £2.5m per week but we don't know whether they are penalty charges (as reported in the broadsheets) on c.£100m of the loans which is due for repayment (on 30th July as Bamba suggested loans could be called in then? but then what's due on October 6th?) or whether £100m of the loans have been converted to a PIK loan with ludicrous interest being charged (as reported by Bascombe supposedly on the basis of seeing the actual agreement). If penalty charges, how come they will be paid directly by H&G? Doesn't make sense. If a PIK loan, then the security would surely be some/all of their shares which again would be an indirect hit to their finances. Is it possible that the bank debt come October would be around £347m (£287m reported as bank debt at end of 09/10 financial year + penalty charges) and RBS will move in and look to sell the club for, say, £237m and then claim the £110m of personal guarantees which are known to exist?
"And the voices of the standing Kop still whispering in the wind will salute the wee Scots redman and he will still walk on.
And your money will have bought you nothing."

Offline No666

  • Married to Macca.
  • RAWK Scribe
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 17,065
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #22 on: August 17, 2010, 04:05:18 pm »
Thanks, guys. Why is it so much more civilised in here despite the over-riding stench of rotting owners?...

Offline Zeb

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,571
  • Justice.
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #23 on: August 19, 2010, 04:54:32 pm »
Just a quick tangential one:

Are we aware of any covenants which still bind Hicks and Gillett from their takeover? Are we aware of any covenants which would transfer with ownership?


"And the voices of the standing Kop still whispering in the wind will salute the wee Scots redman and he will still walk on.
And your money will have bought you nothing."

Offline Zeb

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,571
  • Justice.
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #24 on: August 20, 2010, 09:49:56 am »
Cheers Jack. Yeah, I seem to recall rumours of covenants being insisted upon by Moores and Parry but wasn't sure and wondered if anyone could remember anything more specific or whether it was just people reading too much into the assurances Parry and Moores thought they had.
"And the voices of the standing Kop still whispering in the wind will salute the wee Scots redman and he will still walk on.
And your money will have bought you nothing."

Offline xerxes1

  • Arch Revisionist. Lord Marmaduke of Bunkerton. Has no agenda other than the truth. Descendant of Prince John.
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 10,434
  • L-I-V,E-R-P-,double OL, Liverpool FC.
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #25 on: August 20, 2010, 12:06:10 pm »
Cheer Yeah, I seem to recall rumours of covenants being insisted upon by Moores and Parry but wasn't sure and wondered if anyone could remember anything more specific or whether it was just people reading too much into the assurances Parry and Moores thought they had.

There is no evidence whatsoever that G&H made contractual commitments with regards to their intentions at LFC that they failed to keep.

There is no question even that M&P were misled. If they had been, they could have sued for "inducement to contract".

There is a world of difference between an intention, an aspiration, and a legally binding commitment.

It is possible for positive and restrictive covenants to be put in place for such a sale. They can lessen the chances of a sale, and the value at which the assert is sold.There is no evidence whatsoever that any such covenant was included in the sale of LFC.
"I've never felt being in a minority of one was in any way an indication that I might be in error"

Offline Zeb

  • RAWK Supporter
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 18,571
  • Justice.
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #26 on: August 20, 2010, 12:52:34 pm »
Thanks Jack. Hadn't noticed that difference at all.

And thanks Xerxes - it's one of the reasons why I asked about whether there was any truth over covenants really because they are legally binding commitments. Was also thinking of any which may have been on the club since foundation etc which would also impact upon any potential future buyer.

"And the voices of the standing Kop still whispering in the wind will salute the wee Scots redman and he will still walk on.
And your money will have bought you nothing."

Offline Jack Slater

  • The hard hitting Detective with a drink problem and an eye for the ladies
  • Legacy Fan
  • ******
  • Posts: 2,469
Re: Owners’ and Directors’ Test
« Reply #27 on: August 20, 2010, 01:08:33 pm »
Was also thinking of any which may have been on the club since foundation etc which would also impact upon any potential future buyer.

Any like that  (say over the use of Anfield, or whatever) would be burdens on LFC&AG Ltd.  So the changes in ownership of that company wouldnt really matter as such.

You're right, of course, that any potential buyer has to investigate that type of thing very carefully so that they know what they're paying for.