pioowl Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said: I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your second point. I do not believe the current model for administering P & S is perfect. Far from it in fact. I do believe that there needs to be some controls in place and we are currently bound by the existing one. The club must have agreed to be bound by the rules in order to take part in the competition. Don't retrospectively argue against something that was previously agreed and enacted. Company law and competition rules are two different things. The club is bound by both, not one or the other. 2 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said: I wouldn't necessarily disagree with your second point. I do not believe the current model for administering P & S is perfect. Far from it in fact. I do believe that there needs to be some controls in place and we are currently bound by the existing one. The club must have agreed to be bound by the rules in order to take part in the competition. Don't retrospectively argue against something that was previously agreed and enacted. Company law and competition rules are two different things. The club is bound by both, not one or the other. Not so sure our club agreed with those particular rules,Chansiri may have voted against,in any event he gambled on being promoted in the 3 years and failed.Company law and competition rules are different in EFL but should not be. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinaOwl Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 1 minute ago, pioowl said: Not so sure our club agreed with those particular rules,Chansiri may have voted against,in any event he gambled on being promoted in the 3 years and failed.Company law and competition rules are different in EFL but should not be. We are taking part in a competition that is bound by rules. Do you not feel that a contractual requirement of being part of that competition is agreeing to the terms and conditions namely the rules? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Lestrade Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, WadsleyOwl said: Not while at Wednesday no, but we got him for £1million, we should have kept him and move Carlton on for the £2.7mill or whatever it was, but we sold them both. Taylor ended up being a Villa legend he was a quality midfielder. nothing to do with takeover but someone brought up selling players on, and how we’re not very good at it. I apologise No need to apologise. Yes, he was very popular at Villa and deservedly so, but I don't think I would prefer Taylor over Palmer at their best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pioowl Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 59 minutes ago, Ante's Bubbly said: Yes and that is the crux of the matter. We did overspend on those players because there was little to no chance of getting proper value for money out of a lot of players that we signed, due to their ages, lack of form, lack of fitness and injury problems. We suddenly went from not buying those kinds of players, to the majority of our signings being those kinds of players. The purchase of Rhodes really highlights the bad value for money that we got during recent years under DC, because we paid a ridiculous amount of money for a player that we tried on loan, and despite his poor goal record for a couple of years before that, and despite the lack of evidence during the loan period that he was going to suddenly become a goal machine again, we still paid over the going rate for the time and we still agreed to pay him a ridiculous amount of money, despite being less than average at this level. people have published tables recently showing how much we have paid for those two brief cracks at the play-offs and the expenditure has got higher, while the season points totals have got less! Chansiri listened too much to all those who pleaded for Rhodes to be signed as they thought he would guarantee promotion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daizan10 Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 19 minutes ago, pioowl said: Chansiri listened too much to all those who pleaded for Rhodes to be signed as they thought he would guarantee promotion. Rhodes was so obviously a bad signing. 8-10m for a player over the age of 27 is just stupid. On top of the fact that he hadn't done much for the least year or more for Middlesbrough. Just a sign of someone listening too much to the fans who doesn't understand how age effects players and their values in football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage owl Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 1 hour ago, hugeowl said: McCabe did it without spending silly money McCabe said he'd put in more than 90m define silly money. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sage owl Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 27 minutes ago, Inspector Lestrade said: No need to apologise. Yes, he was very popular at Villa and deservedly so, but I don't think I would prefer Taylor over Palmer at their best. They'd both get into our midfield tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Lestrade Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Just now, sage owl said: They'd both get into our midfield tomorrow. Er maybe To be honest either one of them alongside Bannan would be a dream for him, he can stop worrying about having to help the defence out and get forward more. And even use them to connect the midfield with the attack, a nice through ball to them to take it forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pioowl Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 10 minutes ago, sage owl said: McCabe said he'd put in more than 90m define silly money. Yeh at 8% interest as well+ all the money made by his building concerns for work done on stadium etc.etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heppers Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 I am personally looking forward to the return of the good times. Not the Prem. The Boardroom being the most active part of Owlstalk. Billsaja. Billionaires with frozen assets. Lee Strafford . Fudders. Consortiums. Community Club options. Wednesdayite. Imagine DA stepping back in and buying us for a £1. Remember how excited we were when CC bought us. Anything was the answer. He paid for us in instalments and ruined us before he had even paid MM off. I don’t think he is malicious. He is just poorly advised and incompetent. He tried to deliver short term results. Gambled and lost. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pioowl Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 43 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said: We are taking part in a competition that is bound by rules. Do you not feel that a contractual requirement of being part of that competition is agreeing to the terms and conditions namely the rules? Not agreeing to them no but being bound by them yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinaOwl Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Just now, pioowl said: Not agreeing to them no but being bound by them yes The counter argument to that is, if Chansiri or A.N.Other are not happy with the rules, either get them changed or don't take part in the competition. It is unethical and unprofessional to agree to be bound by a set of rules then flagrantly abuse them later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pioowl Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 3 minutes ago, heppers said: I am personally looking forward to the return of the good times. Not the Prem. The Boardroom being the most active part of Owlstalk. Billsaja. Billionaires with frozen assets. Lee Strafford . Fudders. Consortiums. Community Club options. Wednesdayite. Imagine DA stepping back in and buying us for a £1. Remember how excited we were when CC bought us. Anything was the answer. He paid for us in instalments and ruined us before he had even paid MM off. I don’t think he is malicious. He is just poorly advised and incompetent. He tried to deliver short term results. Gambled and lost. Malicious is a discusting thing to say. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heppers Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Just now, ChinaOwl said: The counter argument to that is, if Chansiri or A.N.Other are not happy with the rules, either get them changed or don't take part in the competition. It is unethical and unprofessional to agree to be bound by a set of rules then flagrantly abuse them later. True, however, look at cycling. To win you needed to ‘cheat’. Everyone knew everyone else was doing it. We are in a situation where the ‘cheats’ are rewarded with promotion. If you get promoted, no problem. You can see the conundrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heppers Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, pioowl said: Malicious is a discusting thing to say. Que? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pioowl Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 Just now, ChinaOwl said: The counter argument to that is, if Chansiri or A.N.Other are not happy with the rules, either get them changed or don't take part in the competition. It is unethical and unprofessional to agree to be bound by a set of rules then flagrantly abuse them later. I really believe that if the rules were voted on now they would not be applied in the present form. He did not abuse them ,he ignored them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChinaOwl Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, pioowl said: I really believe that if the rules were voted on now they would not be applied in the present form. He did not abuse them ,he ignored them. OK, fancy a job in politics? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HarrowbyOwl Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 57 minutes ago, pioowl said: Not so sure our club agreed with those particular rules,Chansiri may have voted against,in any event he gambled on being promoted in the 3 years and failed.Company law and competition rules are different in EFL but should not be. After Bury were expelled from the EFL in August 2019 the EFL announced a comprehensive review into the regulations and procedures concerning the financial sustainability of its member clubs. The independent review is being led by Jonathan Taylor QC, an expert on commercial and regulatory issues in sport, and co-head of the sports group at law firm Bird & Bird. He is also leading a pre-existing review of the EFL's governance systems and procedures. The review into financial sustainability will take place in two phases. Phase one will look into the background to Bury's insolvency and consider the role of the EFL's regulations - including the application of the owners' and directors' test, the approach to insolvent clubs and the EFL's efforts to help secure a long-term future for Bury. The second phase will focus on the effectiveness of the EFL's regulations and procedures in ensuring the financial sustainability of its member clubs. Taylor will make recommendations on modifications to the EFL's articles of association, regulations and procedures, which will be considered by the EFL board and clubs. Any changes approved by the clubs at the EFL's annual general meeting (in June?) will come into immediate effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pioowl Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 2 minutes ago, HarrowbyOwl said: After Bury were expelled from the EFL in August 2019 the EFL announced a comprehensive review into the regulations and procedures concerning the financial sustainability of its member clubs. The independent review is being led by Jonathan Taylor QC, an expert on commercial and regulatory issues in sport, and co-head of the sports group at law firm Bird & Bird. He is also leading a pre-existing review of the EFL's governance systems and procedures. The review into financial sustainability will take place in two phases. Phase one will look into the background to Bury's insolvency and consider the role of the EFL's regulations - including the application of the owners' and directors' test, the approach to insolvent clubs and the EFL's efforts to help secure a long-term future for Bury. The second phase will focus on the effectiveness of the EFL's regulations and procedures in ensuring the financial sustainability of its member clubs. Taylor will make recommendations on modifications to the EFL's articles of association, regulations and procedures, which will be considered by the EFL board and clubs. Any changes approved by the clubs at the EFL's annual general meeting (in June?) will come into immediate effect. Good.Well its a start. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pioowl Posted February 25, 2020 Share Posted February 25, 2020 4 minutes ago, ChinaOwl said: OK, fancy a job in politics? Wouldn't mind.It has its perks . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now