Biggs":25knbvmt said:
pafcprogs":25knbvmt said:
Oh and a hashtag to keep the culpable individual in the spotlight while we find out what he did exactly or force the EFL to properly investigate
#jaildale
#Fit&properEFL
Before Pasoti gets done for libel (!) I'm not sure this is down to one individual, especially if you look at Andy Holt's breakdown of their problems and debts.
In short, Bury were completely in the brown stuff
before Dale took over. That's why the EFL didn't scrutinise him, because it was him or they would have gone out of business eight months ago.
He either had no money, made a complete hash of things, or both... but seems the writing was on the wall a long time ago, unless they got bought by someone with serious dough.
Asking for someone to be held to account isn't libellous, and I am sure there are others that will be blameworthy...
The point is there have been over 40 clubs in administration in the last 25 years and the EFL presides over a system that still allows individuals like Mr Dale to freely enter into club ownership for £1, and when he decides he cannot fund his obligations they admit they didn't put him through the same scrutiny that every other club in that situation is made to.
The sad thing is he probably isn't even the worst owner they have welcomed in.
But can you honestly say that with that track record the EFL is fit for purpose? That it won't happen again?
I sent an open letter ( via their communications director because like many customer brands ( and they have brand values they list on their site but the contact us link is broken!!!!) to Debbie Jevons CBE which I am happy to repeat below.
I will post any reply i receive.
Dear Debbie
I write to you as a supporter of Plymouth Argyle. As such through my purchase of various services and merchandise and payment of my admission fees I am in effect a customer of the EFL. I have written to you via your communications director as there is apparently no unfiltered way for your customers to reach you when they have concerns they wish to raise.
Over the last few years, numerous teams, mine included, have found themselves in financial difficulties and have had to satisfy the EFL of their suitability and ability to be allowed to compete in the competitions your organisation administer. Until yesterday, none of these clubs have failed to reach a position whereby they were unable to meet the criteria set by your organisation.
Yesterday Bury failed to do so and were expelled. Bolton Wanderers had the suspension of their notice to be expelled lifted and are now on a similar time clock to that which expired for Bury.
I recall during the process of rescuing Plymouth Argyle the EFL were hugely influential in who could be allowed to ultimately be granted the Golden Share that allows the EFL to determine who may or may not participate in their competitions. It is therefore completely shocking that your organisation continues to have such ineffective processes that allow clubs to become owned by financial charlatans. Indeed the EFL has admitted that Bury were owned by someone who effectively evaded any such checks and balances required by the EFL.
It is surely inequitable for the EFL to insist that some clubs go through the process and others do not. In the recent negotiations for Bury a precondition of the club retaining its EFL status was that they demonstrate funding sufficient to support the club through ( and reports vary) either one or two years of trading. There are now 71 clubs in the EFL. Can you confirm how many clubs within the remaining 71 have been asked to similarly demonstrate such funding/liquidity?
Can you explain how an individual such as Stephen Dale can effectively own a member club without any effective scrutiny by your organisation? Was it incompetence, indifference or negligence? Or was there another reason because there has to be a reason and it is incumbent upon you to know what that is in order to apply your regulations effectively in future.
I believe the handling of the situation at Bury and Bolton by the EFL requires independent scrutiny to determine how such a state of affairs was a) allowed to occur and b) what is required to prevent it from reoccurring. The fact so many clubs have been through the process of administration and that clearly unsuitable individuals have so recently still been allowed to become owners without proper or effective scrutiny by the governing organisation requires an explanation.
Your most recent TV interview stated that the EFL needed to learn from what has happened at Bury. Whilst I agree that that is obviously the case I think you have a wider obligation to the game of football and its supporters, players and ancillary staff to go much further. I, and many others will campaign to make sure that the impact of the demise of a club like Bury does not get swept under the carpet.
You must be aware that in the last quarter of a century over 40 EFL clubs have entered administration. Some more than once. Ironically some clubs that have been through that process were amongst those voting to expel Bury. There but for the grace of God springs to mind.
The one constant within this is that the EFL holds jurisdiction over the competitions these clubs participate in.
This is a problem that affects real lives, careers and whole communities. The EFL have seemed incapable of regulating this effectively and to the satisfaction of its customers. You have a once in a generation opportunity to throw the spotlight onto this problem. I implore you not to waste it with corporate bland words and platitudes but to grasp the nettle and conduct a root and branch review of this game.
#FitandProperEFL
Peter Sleeman
PS Sorry to Biggs as I Pm'd him by mistake
