Bury's new financial trouble?

Doesn’t seem to be a very firm proposal.
Deadline has passed.
Surely this is it?

This buyer has been in talks for 10 weeks apparently and is still asking for more time to do due diligence. The EFL can't allow itself to be played like this. Time to give the buyer a deadline of early next week to produce the cash to cover the cost of completing the season's fixtures or it's curtains for Bury.

This inventing of creditors is what Bates did at Leeds. Seems pointless on the face of it, but means if there is a large enough percentage belonging/relating to Dale (or Bates) they have enough votes to accept the terms of the CVA. Especially so if the receivers are (allegedly) under the control of Dale having been appointed and paid by him (mute point I accept).
Thing is, Postman Shaun was party to the dodgy deal at Leeds, and it was said by the EFL the matter would be addressed - what happened there then Shaun?
The worrying thing about this episode is that the EFL are wanting proof of funds for the year ahead for Bury. Seems fairly likely this will be applied to all clubs, but will it be hard proof or just projections as present. If it is the former, which seems likely, we should be very worried about the implications for us with our lack of a pot.
For this reason alone, no one should be celebrating the demise of Bury. It is wrong for any football supporter to wish this on any other club (unless it is Bolton - personal - or Man Utd).

I think it is quite clear that the EFL want to impose financial prudence on League 1 and 2 clubs for the clubs' long term benefit. The Bury situation has dragged on for too long. The EFL cannot take the risk of Bury not completing the season's fixtures. It does seem likely that in the future L1 and L2 clubs will have to provide the EFL with more evidence of access to funding to back up the financial projections should there be a shortfall. This is why our arrangement with EWM is so important.

CarlisleWhite wrote: This inventing of creditors is what Bates did at Leeds. Seems pointless on the face of it, but means if there is a large enough percentage belonging/relating to Dale (or Bates) they have enough votes to accept the terms of the CVA. Especially so if the receivers are (allegedly) under the control of Dale having been appointed and paid by him (mute point I accept).
Thing is, Postman Shaun was party to the dodgy deal at Leeds, and it was said by the EFL the matter would be addressed - what happened there then Shaun?
The worrying thing about this episode is that the EFL are wanting proof of funds for the year ahead for Bury. Seems fairly likely this will be applied to all clubs, but will it be hard proof or just projections as present. If it is the former, which seems likely, we should be very worried about the implications for us with our lack of a pot.
For this reason alone, no one should be celebrating the demise of Bury. It is wrong for any football supporter to wish this on any other club (unless it is Bolton - personal - or Man Utd).

Not wishing it on Bury fans perse but I didn’t hear any of them complaining when they got promoted last season. I think a club going out of business does need to happen though before anything gets taken seriously.

The EFL should have had this sorted out. This final deadline should have been in July and there would have been no problems.

Instead they've made it look like a Sunday League set up.

That Dale bloke is an absolute clown. 43 of the 51 companies Dale has been associated with have been liquidated.

The EFL have admitted they did not put him through the usual process of due diligence when he took control because the club's future was under threat at the time.

Dancingbear wrote:

CarlisleWhite wrote: This inventing of creditors is what Bates did at Leeds. Seems pointless on the face of it, but means if there is a large enough percentage belonging/relating to Dale (or Bates) they have enough votes to accept the terms of the CVA. Especially so if the receivers are (allegedly) under the control of Dale having been appointed and paid by him (mute point I accept).
Thing is, Postman Shaun was party to the dodgy deal at Leeds, and it was said by the EFL the matter would be addressed - what happened there then Shaun?
The worrying thing about this episode is that the EFL are wanting proof of funds for the year ahead for Bury. Seems fairly likely this will be applied to all clubs, but will it be hard proof or just projections as present. If it is the former, which seems likely, we should be very worried about the implications for us with our lack of a pot.
For this reason alone, no one should be celebrating the demise of Bury. It is wrong for any football supporter to wish this on any other club (unless it is Bolton - personal - or Man Utd).

Not wishing it on Bury fans perse but I didn’t hear any of them complaining when they got promoted last season. I think a club going out of business does need to happen though before anything gets taken seriously.

I totally agree with both of your points.

I think everything should be done to save Bury. The people at the club and the fans have been let down by the EFL in this instance.

Markovitch wrote:

franksidebottom wrote:

Markovitch wrote: Their hands are tied though, aren't they? In the eyes of the law football clubs are limited companies who happen to belong to a club, the Football League. The FL can't but in and tell them how to run their business. Under restrictive trade practices they have to give them reasonable time to get their house in order or the shareholders of Bury will sue the FA for diminution in value of their investments.
The bankruptcy of Wine Direct, Oddbins and Wine Cellars all brought a bigger tear to my eye than Bury, especially if it means we can't get relegated.

What happens in Rugby?

Of course the EFL can but in and tell owners how to run their club, that’s what FFP is all about and the fact you can only spend so much of turnover on wages.

EFL also have the power to block these rogues from being involved in FL clubs, although it appears they’re only actually bothered about individuals having enough funds to take the club on, they don’t seem too bothered about previous business practices and past misdemeanours.

They’ve proved beyond doubt that they’re not fit for purpose with their handling of several high profile cases in recent years, they’re absolutely hopeless.

No Frank, they don't! The FA is a club managed by its members taking into account the rules and regulations of other bodies such as UEFA and FIFA.

FFT rules were voted on by the clubs

Championship clubs vote in favour of Financial Fair Play
www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/17841566
The Premier League shareholders passed a set of financial regulations for its clubs
cartilagefreecaptain.sbnation.com/2013/4...eague-UEFA-Scudamore

Same for fit and proper
They are mandated to run the tests.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fit-and-proper-person_test

A football club is a limited company, virtually the same as Debenhams or the Post Office in the eyes of the law.

And every year the members pay honest, hard-working, chartered accountants to audit whether the FA has acted within the mandate of the members. And not just in England

Really don’t know what you’re trying to say here Markovitch. Are you trying to say that the football authorities, whether it be EFL, FA, PL, UEFA or FIFA, have no power to step in and tell a football club owner how to run his club in certain circumstances?

If that’s the case then you’re saying FFP isn’t enforceable. These authorities govern the leagues which the clubs are members of therefore they enforce the rules which the clubs must abide by, some of which are regarding finance. Are you somehow disputing this?

With regards the fit and proper persons test, David Conn wrote a great article on it recently saying how it’s not fit for purpose within football, the criteria has become less stringent and basically if you can provide proof of funds you’re in. This Steve Dale fella at Bury, the FL weren’t even sure if he’s provided proof of funds on takeover at the turn of the year yet he’s here running the club into the ground. The fact Karl Oyston was on the fit and proper person test panel until recently says all you need to know about it’s credibility.

Fifa is the overall body that governs football federations. What do they have to do with individual clubs. Clubs can spend what they want on wages. All the Premier league can do is threaten to expel them. If they fine them it is because that is in lieu of expelling them. The only reason the pl can do that is because the individual clubs have given them the mandate to do that.

I didn't get the last part at all. The fl should step in but it is a waste of time because people like oyston are involved?What does that even mean. What exactly do you want them to do?

The solution Marko is to get clubs to file their accounts within say 3 months of season end-say 30/9.As you know, the auditors test the going concern point looking forwards 12 months-and directors need to stand behind their assumptions so that creditors aren’t impacted.

It’s absolutely pathetic clubs file their accounts on the last day-by then, the period covered by the accounts is history and helps nobody, notably creditors.

Problem is the auditors will take a directors letter of available funding.

Not sure what Frank thinks the fl can do. They could set up a concrete procedure for these situations. But the club owners want it to be as lax as possible. And if Bury don't play before 31/12 what difference does it make if they are in the league or not? Kicking them out the league will take any value out the club so maybe it might inspire owners to act more responsibly in the future. Can't see it though. Frank is on about ffp rules, fit and proper tests but this owner hasnt got a record has he? Being daft isn't a barrier to entry.

Markovitch, your argument is getting more bizarre as it goes on. The EFL runs and governs the FL, they are the authority and if any clubs breaks their rules they have the power to expel them. Expelling a club virtually means the club is finished as they have nowhere else to go and compete.

Their current rules include the fact that you may only spend a certain percentage of turnover on wages, therefore they are the authority on how much a club is allowed to spend. They are allowed to tell clubs how run their business and have the power to sanction clubs who don’t adhere to these rules. Which part of this do you disagree with?

You say Steve Dale hasn’t got a record but the fact 43 of his previous 51 businesses were liquidated should set alarm bells ringing. Surely this should be proof enough that he isn’t fit to run a football club. They have the power to veto his purchase but the fact is they admitted to not doing the correct due diligence with regards his takeover, they are admitting to their own failures.

Frank you began braying on that the fl should do something. The members of the fl have voted to permit the fl to act in certain circumstances. Like ocd joey deacon you are now wittering on about fair play rules. What has that got to do with Bury? Nothing. If you don't pay wages you can't breach the ffp rules.

What do you believe the fl can do about Bury? You droned on about it as usual, so what? What can they do?

Where do you want me to start?

They should have stepped in when Stewart Day started spending money way beyond Bury’s means.

They should have done better due diligence on Steve Dale

They should have stepped in when players weren’t being paid.

The EFL have the power to set rules of membership which clubs must adhere to, those rules blatantly aren’t stringent enough. A blind man on a galloping horse can see that, they’re inept.

If you don’t think the EFL can do anything about clubs who are obviously being unscrupulously ran then what is their purpose?

OK. I'll give you the fl side of the picture.
It's not their place to tell people how to spend their money. They don't have the resources to do deep diving due diligence.
Wages not being paid I'll grant you because they are members of the pfa so they have a mandate to act so that's a good one.

The purpose of the fl is to organise the league, promote the league and represent the interests of the clubs. Their duty is to Bury and the owners of the other clubs will do everything to look after them.

I get what you are saying, not great what is happening. But how many companies and shops are going bust? Why would clubs be different?

It is their place to tell clubs how to spend their money, or at least how much of it they can spend. FFP and their own rules regarding % of turnover dictate this. You seem to be totally disregarding the fact that they are the authority which governs the league, therefore the clubs which compete in the league.

With regards due diligence, of course they have the resources to delve deep as they have done in the past in order to refuse purchases of clubs by certain individuals.

They’ve already admitted that due diligence wasn’t properly undertaken in Steve Dale’s case as was the perilous position of the football club at the time (a woeful excuse). They’ve admitted their own mistake yet you still seem intent on sticking up for them!

Anyhow, how deep would one have to delve to unearth Steve Dale’s appalling business history? Media outlets have discovered it easily enough, so why would this be beyond the means of an organisation like the EFL? Perhaps they should ditch the AGM jolly up in Portugal to save money and direct more finance and resources in ensuring the safety of their members from rogues like Mr Dale.

Firstly, football. You are ignoring the politics Frank. The clubs appoint the committee members. The Congress receives information. The executive Committee implements the decision of the Congress. The clubs do not want stringent financial restrictions. The chairman puts cash in a club, it appears as debt. Why is he ever going to advocate limiting debt?

Secondly business law. If you want to borrow £100k to open a parcels business should some civil servant be allowed to randomly decide, can't do that? A football club is a company like any other. The fl simply can't go in and tell them what to do unless the league rules specifically allow it

I’m sorry Markovitch, you are completely incorrect. Firstly a club chairman isn’t allowed to plough endless amounts of money into their club or have a limitless debt facility. Why do you think clubs are looking at ways around the rules which will allow them to put more money in such as unrealistic sponsorship deals or purchasing the stadiums?

Secondly football business runs different to normal business in certain ways, they aren’t the same. In which other business world do creditors of the same business type automatically get paid out before any other for instance, even the inland revenue?

Football clubs must abide by a set of rules implemented and enforced by the games governing bodies, these rules must be adhered to and failure to do so results in sanctions. You appear to think this isn’t the case which is baffling.

Abramovich has put more than 1 billion into Chelsea, so what is the limit? It's not the sum of money, it's the way the finance is reflected.

1) Think of a stretch of river. A group of 20 people get together to form a fishing club to fish on the river. From the 20 people they form a committee of 4 people who will organise licences, timetables, try to get discounts on nets etc. That committee functions as the FA in football. They can set rules but only to the extent that the members permit them. And the function of the committee is to represent the interests of the members. The hikers, fish and the local fish and chip shop only get taken into account in the context of the interest of the members.

2) You are right re finance. But as noted at 1 these restrictions only exist over certain types of finance, debt finance for example and only because the members have agreed to the rules.
Stop thinking about doing the right thing and think about politics. Imagine if some guy appears tomorrow and says to Jenkins I'll pay £2m for CU. Jenks would be overjoyed. Then the FL step in and say no, not going to happen. Think Jenks will be pleased? And the owners of Accrington, Crawley, Cambridge want that as a precedent? Forget it.

3) Secondly football business runs different to normal business in certain ways, they aren’t the same. In which other business world do creditors of the same business type automatically get paid out before any other for instance, even the inland revenue? Wrong to the point of illegality. If you want a discussion on company law before you start read up on what is a fixed charge, a floating charge, preferred creditors in insolvency and a statement of affairs on insolvency. That will answer all of your questions.

The FL can act where permitted by its members ie FFP rules,. But the FFP are completely irrelevant here. Ask yourself the following questions re Bury
1) what do you want the FL to do?
2) Using what powers?
3) With a view to what result?
4) Will that make the situation better?

Simply repeating ad nauseam they have powers doesn't move the discussion

I haven’t been repeating the same thing, I’ve answered the questions you asked, see post #219. Now you’re asking the same questions again.

They had the powers to have stepped in several times but due to their own ineptitude they didn’t and we are now at this ridiculous situation. Hopefully this could be a watershed moment for the EFL and football in general, huge overhaul of several organisations is badly needed.

franksidebottom wrote: Where do you want me to start?

They should have stepped in when Stewart Day started spending money way beyond Bury’s means.

They should have done better due diligence on Steve Dale

They should have stepped in when players weren’t being paid.

The EFL have the power to set rules of membership which clubs must adhere to, those rules blatantly aren’t stringent enough. A blind man on a galloping horse can see that, they’re inept.

Stepped in isn't a professional term! What does that mean? Stepped in and did what?
The league has rules, which ones have they broken? There is almost certainly a provision forbidding breaking the laws of the country, not paying payers would fall under that. If they have broken them what are the sanctions? You are going to fine a club that needs £5m to keep trading? They can expel them from the league, what good will that do? Makes the club much less attractive for a takeover. The games aren't being played currently and if expelled they won't be played. So the difference is zero.
And so I ask again, what are you actually going to do, how are you going to do it and with what authority?

I think it’s called trading whilst insolvent, creditors increasing with no hope of paying them-it’s a criminal offence and I would throw the book at him.He will have signed a going concern note in the accounts so you hold him to that

The EFL are toothless-and of course we now have HMRC looking to become a secure creditor after being shafted over and over.

Laffy wrote: I think it’s called trading whilst insolvent, creditors increasing with no hope of paying them-it’s a criminal offence and I would throw the book at him.He will have signed a going concern note in the accounts so you hold him to that

The EFL are toothless-and of course we now have HMRC looking to become a secure creditor after being shafted over and over.

The whole affair is diabolicle . HMRC should have called in their dept if they are a major creditor and forced the issue ages ago. This might have been last season even

The reality is that HMRC are only an unsecured creditor-they can huff and puff but their only teeth is to threaten closure if they don’t get paid.Most of the time it works.

I’d kick them out Last year they took arguably our best player (Nicky Adams) on a good long contract they only paid him till March along with the rest of the players They should not have been allowed to be promoted when the hadn’t paid their players The best solution in March when they hadn’t paid their players was a 10 point penalty then they wouldn’t have gone up

Weird when you think that we did the double over them last season as well.

Markovitch wrote:

franksidebottom wrote: Where do you want me to start?

They should have stepped in when Stewart Day started spending money way beyond Bury’s means.

They should have done better due diligence on Steve Dale

They should have stepped in when players weren’t being paid.

The EFL have the power to set rules of membership which clubs must adhere to, those rules blatantly aren’t stringent enough. A blind man on a galloping horse can see that, they’re inept.

Stepped in isn't a professional term! What does that mean? Stepped in and did what?
The league has rules, which ones have they broken? There is almost certainly a provision forbidding breaking the laws of the country, not paying payers would fall under that. If they have broken them what are the sanctions? You are going to fine a club that needs £5m to keep trading? They can expel them from the league, what good will that do? Makes the club much less attractive for a takeover. The games aren't being played currently and if expelled they won't be played. So the difference is zero.
And so I ask again, what are you actually going to do, how are you going to do it and with what authority?

We’re talking on an Internet messageboard so what does it matter that we aren’t using professional terms? You know fine well what I mean when I use the term “stepped in” - intervene, arbitrate, get involved, take action.

When you ask what the FL can do now I really don’t know what the answer is, as it stand they’re stuck between a rock and a hard place with regards sanctioning the club. Expelling them seems to be the last viable option which they’re probably reluctant to do but to save the integrity of the competition they must take action.

However, the present day isn’t where my argument lies, it’s the past year or so. The EFL should have intervened (hope this term is professional enough for you) several times over.

First when Stewart Day was spending well beyond the clubs means and blatantly well beyond SCMP limits. Salary Cost Management Protocol is where clubs are only permitted to spend a certain percentage of turnover on wages, it’s the scheme which CUFC’s hierarchy have eluded to many times and the scheme which the vast majority of other clubs work to. Had they intervened with a transfer embargo at the time they could well have prevented further financial problems.

Secondly when Steve Dale reared his ugly head. The fact he had an appalling business history should have set alarm bells ringing at EFL headquarters, how is it possible for someone like him to be getting involved in football clubs? The EFL has a panel which sits to decide if someone is ‘fit and proper’ to get involved in the ownership and running of its clubs, the personal must pass certain criteria and proof they have enough funds to a) complete the purchase and b) keep the club functioning for the season ahead. As recently as June the EFL admitted that Dale hadn’t passed certain aspects of the criteria and hadn’t yet provided proof of funds from his purchase 6 months or so earlier. Ineptitude at its finest by the governing body.

Add to this the non-payment of wages to staff beginning not long after Dale took charge and as Laffy says trading insolvently then I think there’s enough evidence there that the EFL should have done so much more than they did over the last 12 months, hence why people are calling them inept and their lack of authority in the matter scandalous.

I hope all my terms used are professional enough for you Markovitch, any problems with your understanding of non-professional terms then give me a shout.

Laffy wrote: The reality is that HMRC are only an unsecured creditor-they can huff and puff but their only teeth is to threaten closure if they don’t get paid.Most of the time it works.

One reason it works is that almost certainly in a liquidation brought about by a winding-up petition, the 'football creditors' argument doesn't apply. Football creditors can only get preferential treatment where there is an ongoing football club. I say almost certainly because in recent times no Football League club has gone into liquidation so the legal situation has not been tested in a court of law. In practice, secured creditors are likely to have taken all the remaining assets in any case.

I was delivering post this morning, there was an incident, so I intervened. Then what??!! When I intervened I did what....? Physically, called the police, beeped my horn? Your constant repeated shouts for intervention don't convey any information whatsoever. Did you get o level English?


So lets say the EFL ignores their overall mandate and their rule book. First two clubs to provide certificates of funds, Everton and Liverpool. So Bolton and Bury are replaced by Everton and Liverpool u23s. Done, they've stepped in just as you demanded and that would be an example of an action they could take. Happy? Two financially sound teams who can fulfil fixtures. Or might that be an example of where the sticking to the rules might be useful.



And you are on about these financial rules again. The sanction for failing the financial rules is a fine. So you want to fine Bury? A club £5m in the red. What is the point of that? You have to go with an action plan that will achieve a successful outcome. What is fining a club that can't pay its wages going to achieve that will help anybody?

Have you got links to any of this stuff you are claiming? They blatantly exceeded the wage cap? The EFL have said they performed the fit and proper tests on Dale after the sale went through because they weren't informed, which is a breach of rules. But I don't see anything that says that he failed any of the tests.

Still seems v iffy to me as to whether they will get everything through.
Sounds like they haven't met assurances they gave and now trying to ask for further delay with EFL insisting they won't allow next game to be called off.

Minister of Sport is supposedly going to request the FL gives them more time

An alternative would be a levy on football tv money and confiscation of the licence in event of distress-handing club clean over to a community run structure.

Any loans made by anyone who doesn't hold a UK banking license convert to 0% deferred shares on the commencement of a winding up

Good idea but you still need to fill the void of who takes it on

Absolutely. But that's always the problem isn't it. Reading the background this the previous owner sounds like the real shark, loans at 10% a month. Not sure quite what the new guy thought he was doing. Even the bar fixtures are security for some loan or other.
Council puts a community asset order on the ground. Newco buys the ground on the cheap, and they restart in the northern premier league. Anyone taking on the club now will be saddled with so much crap its just not worth it. Two/three seasons or so, and they'll be back in the league

You are indeed a disciple of Corbyn Marko-it will be alright on the night-NOT

Lower league football needs a total rethink-it’s unsustainable and poorly governed.Sticking plasters don’t work.

That’s what JN should do-make his mark and lead from the front on change.

Look at the SFA and their pathetic silence over sectarian singing.Its taken UEFA to sort.

Wages need to fall. Three players on £35k a month. They were the same back in 2014 when they nearly went under
Lets wait and see. If they can get one of these Dale/Day people under the Director's Disqualification act the players can sue them to contribute to the assets of the business. We'll see if the liquidator can do it

Markovitch wrote: I was delivering post this morning, there was an incident, so I intervened. Then what??!! When I intervened I did what....? Physically, called the police, beeped my horn? Your constant repeated shouts for intervention don't convey any information whatsoever. Did you get o level English?


So lets say the EFL ignores their overall mandate and their rule book. First two clubs to provide certificates of funds, Everton and Liverpool. So Bolton and Bury are replaced by Everton and Liverpool u23s. Done, they've stepped in just as you demanded and that would be an example of an action they could take. Happy? Two financially sound teams who can fulfil fixtures. Or might that be an example of where the sticking to the rules might be useful.



And you are on about these financial rules again. The sanction for failing the financial rules is a fine. So you want to fine Bury? A club £5m in the red. What is the point of that? You have to go with an action plan that will achieve a successful outcome. What is fining a club that can't pay its wages going to achieve that will help anybody?

Have you got links to any of this stuff you are claiming? They blatantly exceeded the wage cap? The EFL have said they performed the fit and proper tests on Dale after the sale went through because they weren't informed, which is a breach of rules. But I don't see anything that says that he failed any of the tests.

I’ll ignore the first half of your post because to be perfectly honest it’s absolute nonsense! Your analogy is strange to say the least and your scenario about Liverpool and Everton is baffling. I’m actually beginning to question your sanity.

Even though I’ve explained more than once what the EFL should have done on intervention you keep on insisting I’m not giving information. I’ve tried to make it as simple as I can for you; overspending on wage bill even though heavily in debt - transfer embargo, Steve Dale’s takeover shouldn’t have been ratified until all fit and proper person criteria was met, unpaid wages - expulsion from FL threat before season begins.

There are several sanctions available to the EFL should a club break financial rules. One is a fine, you are quite correct (first for everything), but also withholding prize money, transfer bans, points deductions and a ban on registration of new players. A transfer ban would have been the obvious first stage followed by a points deduction if further sanctions were needed. The EFL did nothing!

As for the fit and proper persons test, well this article is pretty damning regarding the Bury situation...

www.theguardian.com/football/2019/jul/11...transfer-embargo-efl

The EFL version of the fit and proper persons test has been widely criticised for years now as being unfit for purpose. Critics have called it not rigorous enough, due diligence has been lax and serious concerns about its effectiveness. The fact Karl Oyston was until recently on the panel says all you need to know about its credibility.

As with several subjects recently you seem to be in a minority of one yet again with your views, have you ever thought it strange that nobody ever seems to agree with your bizarre points of view? The EFL have come in for some severe criticism with regards the Bolton and moreso the Bury debacles and quite rightly, they’ve been ineffective and inadequate in their authority on the matters. You keep championing their cause though with your one man crusade, I know they’ll be grateful for your support!

I’ve tried to make it as simple as I can for you; overspending on wage bill even though heavily in debt
Where does it say that they breached the FFP rules? You have some obsession with these things but I've not seen one single article that mentions them. So what overspending?

heavily in debt
Carlisle United are heavily in debt, so what?

unpaid wages
The takeover was in December. What wages were unpaid in December? Nicky Adams made his statement about wages being unpaid on 22 May, 6 months after the takeover.

Bury are understood to have been placed under an embargo on registering new players
There is a transfer ban!

Read the context of the article. Does it not seem relevant that they mentioned the previous owner going bankrupt? Do you not think that the FL were under pressure to accept a takeover because if they didn't Gigg Lane would be taken by the creditors of Day's companies? So if they blocked the takeover what would have been the situation? I get that things are bad but if the ground had gone in December would that have been better?

(The EFL) will continue to offer assistance as the club attempts to find a long-term solution to the complex and challenging issues it currently faces.” the club can't bring in any new players. What more do you want?

You seem to have no ability to look at the situation and think what would be best. Fining them or withholding money means more people, don't get paid. A transfer embargo is in place. Allowing the takeover to proceed seems to have meant Bury could at least finish the season playing at Gigg Lane. A points deduction has been made.

As with several subjects recently you seem to be in a minority of one yet again with your views, have you ever thought it strange that nobody ever seems to agree with your bizarre points of view?
You walk round council estates at 7am in the rain. If your opinions were sensible or intelligent you would be paid for them

Thread closure anyone?

heilkmoon wrote: Thread closure anyone?

Give it a 5 pm tomorrow deadline.

Markovitch wrote: I’ve tried to make it as simple as I can for you; overspending on wage bill even though heavily in debt
Where does it say that they breached the FFP rules? You have some obsession with these things but I've not seen one single article that mentions them. So what overspending?

heavily in debt
Carlisle United are heavily in debt, so what?

unpaid wages
The takeover was in December. What wages were unpaid in December? Nicky Adams made his statement about wages being unpaid on 22 May, 6 months after the takeover.

Bury are understood to have been placed under an embargo on registering new players
There is a transfer ban!

Read the context of the article. Does it not seem relevant that they mentioned the previous owner going bankrupt? Do you not think that the FL were under pressure to accept a takeover because if they didn't Gigg Lane would be taken by the creditors of Day's companies? So if they blocked the takeover what would have been the situation? I get that things are bad but if the ground had gone in December would that have been better?

(The EFL) will continue to offer assistance as the club attempts to find a long-term solution to the complex and challenging issues it currently faces.” the club can't bring in any new players. What more do you want?

You seem to have no ability to look at the situation and think what would be best. Fining them or withholding money means more people, don't get paid. A transfer embargo is in place. Allowing the takeover to proceed seems to have meant Bury could at least finish the season playing at Gigg Lane. A points deduction has been made.

As with several subjects recently you seem to be in a minority of one yet again with your views, have you ever thought it strange that nobody ever seems to agree with your bizarre points of view?
You walk round council estates at 7am in the rain. If your opinions were sensible or intelligent you would be paid for them

What a bizarre statement. Unless you’re paid for your opinion then they’re not sensible or intelligent? You make some ridiculous points but this is certainly top of the list.

Nicky Adams made his statement on 22 May, the same article stated they hadn’t been paid for 12 weeks, a point confirmed by a player live on Talksport 2 weeks ago. Wages stopped being paid just 2 months after the takeover, the takeover which wasn't sanctioned by the authorities! And you some how think the EFL are blameless!

The transfer ban and points deduction only came into place this summer, around 6-7 months too late in my book. They blatantly flouted EFL FFP rules and as a result gained promotion, the transfer ban should have come into play before the January window and the points deduction last season, the season they cheated to gain promotion. If you somehow think they were within SCMP limits (55% for league 2) then how do you explain paying players £9k and £5k a week to sit at home on crowds of 4,000? How do you explain them running up £13m worth of debt over a short period (a lot more than CUFC’s debt)? Just because the EFL are so inept to intervene and put a stop to the charade it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.

talksport.com/football/efl/581194/bury-c...eve-dale-league-one/

As for the takeover itself, you seem to think that because things were desperate (things have been desperate at Bury for years) that they should let anyone take over? The EFL bypass their own rules (rules put in place to protect clubs from folk like Steve Dale) just because things were desperate. You sound as silly as the way the EFL have acted and your argument’s getting weaker by the post. Maybe log off and have a little think before you next type Markovitch.