Because you get dividends not percentages of sell on fees as an owner.
Only if you sell your shares do you in effect get payments related to the assets.
Its a vehicle that amounts to third party player ownership.
And is 100% not allwed.
Off Topic Cellino
- Thread starter themaclad
- Start date
Because you get dividends not percentages of sell on fees as an owner.
Only if you sell your shares do you in effect get payments related to the assets.
Its a vehicle that amounts to third party player ownership.
And is 100% not allwed.
Interesting times ahead then. Bit worried what will happen with Cellino banned and no buyer lined up.
You couldn't make up the last 10 years, Bates back will be the next breaking story...
Maybe not as clear cut as that.
Bonuses can be paid for creating extra profit or reaching and exceeding targets if agreed by the board of Directors.
In football signing a player for 1 million and selling for 20 million would be construed as good business and part and parcel of the every day trading of a football club. As an owner or part owner it's perfectly reasonable that I may have to finance or part finance aspects of the business from time to time to ensure opportunities to grow the business are not lost.
In my opinion Cellino is correct on this matter. If you are an owner or part owner of a football club you are not in breach of third party regulations on players. And if I did invest 20% in a football club there would be far more involved in my investment than any potential profits on player transfers.
In addition has he actually done anything he discussed ? Has he sold 20% of LUFC and paid profits on transfers to those investors ?
Last edited:
Delete your search history and cookies and then you should be able to read 5 articles.Can someone cut & paste this? I don't subscribe to the Telegraph & it won't let me read it.
Rinse and repeat that's how I read it.
I'm sure Shaun Harvey will sort it all out....The man who himself would be deemed as not fit to own a football club but can dictate to others
I've now read the article fairly thoroughly, and although I confess that I'm tired, I think that I might have to rain on your parade a little.
As I read it, Celllino has not broken one single rule. Not one. He's spoken to people about what they could do to get round 3rd party ownership, without breaking the rules.
The key quote is ... “I’m telling you not with Massimo Cellino lips but I’m giving you the recipe to a job that covers you and doesn’t expose you to any risk with the Football League or anyone".
The emboldened part of the quote could easily be translated from broken english to 'hypothetically speaking'. End of.
Now if we were talking about an employee of the FA, like Big Sam was, the FA might have grounds to act, based on their reputation being brought into disrepute by an employee who effectively represents them. Cellino only reports to the LUFC board in that respect. As he has simple spoken hypothetically, and not broken any rules, there are no charges to face.
If something was trumped up, he could simply use the old chestnut defence of 'I had them investigated & knew who they were. I decided to string them along & see how long it took them to realise that I could not possibly do business with anyone who wished to operate in this way'. Or any other naff but effective defence. There is no evidence of wrongdoing from what I can see here. Can't say I like what I read, but no actual rule breaking IMO.
I must however stress that this opinion is solely based on the Telegraph's short article & short video. If that's the best they've got, it's over. However, if they have evidence that they have not provided, I would need to re-evaluate. I'll just mention this keyword again as I think it's highly relevant - short.
As I read it, Celllino has not broken one single rule. Not one. He's spoken to people about what they could do to get round 3rd party ownership, without breaking the rules.
The key quote is ... “I’m telling you not with Massimo Cellino lips but I’m giving you the recipe to a job that covers you and doesn’t expose you to any risk with the Football League or anyone".
The emboldened part of the quote could easily be translated from broken english to 'hypothetically speaking'. End of.
Now if we were talking about an employee of the FA, like Big Sam was, the FA might have grounds to act, based on their reputation being brought into disrepute by an employee who effectively represents them. Cellino only reports to the LUFC board in that respect. As he has simple spoken hypothetically, and not broken any rules, there are no charges to face.
If something was trumped up, he could simply use the old chestnut defence of 'I had them investigated & knew who they were. I decided to string them along & see how long it took them to realise that I could not possibly do business with anyone who wished to operate in this way'. Or any other naff but effective defence. There is no evidence of wrongdoing from what I can see here. Can't say I like what I read, but no actual rule breaking IMO.
I must however stress that this opinion is solely based on the Telegraph's short article & short video. If that's the best they've got, it's over. However, if they have evidence that they have not provided, I would need to re-evaluate. I'll just mention this keyword again as I think it's highly relevant - short.
Club Statement, which makes the case better than me.
Leeds tonight dismissed the Telegraph's report as a "non-story", insisting that Cellino had breached no regulations during the conversation.
A club statement read: "The club has reviewed the supposed 'evidence' that the Daily Telegraph have published tonight. At no time in this video clip has Mr Cellino suggested getting around the FA's rules on third-party ownership of players.
"In complete contrast to what has been suggested, Mr Cellino has made a perfectly proper suggestion which is entirely consistent with the FA's regulations, as the only parties entitled to take benefit from ownership of a player is the club itself.
"If a company commits money to a club by way of investment, taking on the potential for profit but also the risk for loss, then that is a normal, every-day corporate process.
"This is plainly not a suggestion as to how to circumvent the rules, but rather an accurate albeit concise explanation of how to operate within the confines of the rules and effectively become the club.
"The club intends to make no further comment on this non-story."
If you want to read the full article for whatever reason, he's the YEP link from which I got the quote.
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....ation-but-whites-dismiss-non-story-1-8153381?
Leeds tonight dismissed the Telegraph's report as a "non-story", insisting that Cellino had breached no regulations during the conversation.
A club statement read: "The club has reviewed the supposed 'evidence' that the Daily Telegraph have published tonight. At no time in this video clip has Mr Cellino suggested getting around the FA's rules on third-party ownership of players.
"In complete contrast to what has been suggested, Mr Cellino has made a perfectly proper suggestion which is entirely consistent with the FA's regulations, as the only parties entitled to take benefit from ownership of a player is the club itself.
"If a company commits money to a club by way of investment, taking on the potential for profit but also the risk for loss, then that is a normal, every-day corporate process.
"This is plainly not a suggestion as to how to circumvent the rules, but rather an accurate albeit concise explanation of how to operate within the confines of the rules and effectively become the club.
"The club intends to make no further comment on this non-story."
If you want to read the full article for whatever reason, he's the YEP link from which I got the quote.
http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co....ation-but-whites-dismiss-non-story-1-8153381?
Looks like Glory got his cock out a bit too soon
Admittedly I only watched a small clip on this so probably don't have all information.
I hate cellino as much as anyone on this forum (I really do) but in the clip I saw I didn't see him do or say anything that I'd imagine is illegal. He didn't talk about third party ownership, he said if you want to get percentages on player profits then you need to invest in the club, which is surely true??? All owners get a percentage of profit from any business.
He did say some bad things about the people in charge on english football as well which probably isn't smart but he didn't know he was being filmed and those people are generally ****s and try to screw over football clubs all the time.
I actually think the Telegraph hoped to get a lot more out of this "investigation" they've been doing for 10 months and they are a little disappointed so over exaggerating everything. The JFH thing seems even more thin. It doesn't look good for the Barnsley assistant manager however.
Just wondering out loud - how long do you think these reporters will live before they have a fatal accident? Agents are the new Mafia. They don't like people taking money out of their pockets, and they have the wealth & contacts to make awful things happen.
As I said, just thinking aloud.
As I said, just thinking aloud.
Someone else concurs ...
Adam Pope @APOPEY 5h5 hours agoHuddersfield, England
Seen the Cellino video but I can't see that he's broken any rules as such. Basically offered a hypothesis of how profits from player sales..
Adam Pope @APOPEY 5h5 hours agoHuddersfield, England
Seen the Cellino video but I can't see that he's broken any rules as such. Basically offered a hypothesis of how profits from player sales..
On top of the McCormack bung case..... He is toast.p imo... Perhaps this explains the delay in a vertict snd punishment.
I really dont get why people want to "support him" when they must know that he is bent.
There is far too much smoke (and quite a few fires). I undestand the "is that all they have got/ it doesnt prove wrong doing" point i thought it about Sam. But cellino looks more in the wrong to me..... Sam was greedy for £400k and was going to "work" for it. Cellino wanted 25 times more and was willing to bastardise the club accounts to get it. If he offered to do it for them he is doing it himself... It explains the missing transfer cash that has never gone back into the club.
I just cant see the telegraph risking their major sting story by putting out inaccurate stuff. They started big with sam, are filling the middle with lesser peoples wrong doing and will finish with another biggy, they wont want their credibility blown before exposing the last biggy. My criticism is they must have their story completed but are dripping it out to maximise readership and publicity. I understand why they are doing it but if they were all about exposing wrong doing they would have published everything in one go.
Must admit, I read it the same as Jammy, WJ and Josh hence my earlier question, loophole as such rather than breaking any law.
Now the Chinese investigators, how far can reporters legally go? Pretending they want in to such an extent that the owner buys out GFH to free up the shares, surely that's going too far?
Now the Chinese investigators, how far can reporters legally go? Pretending they want in to such an extent that the owner buys out GFH to free up the shares, surely that's going too far?
It did for Sam.
Bigger question for me is, no matter how they prove it isnt it good to get bent people out of football, industry and commerce? Imo undercover stings are a price worth paying yo expose these cnuts.
IF Cellino has done anything wrong yes it is good, if he hasn't then no, it could cost us financially
I don't believe he has done wrong this time, like Josh I hate him as much as the next guy. Okay, we have got shot of GFH out of it but I believe they went too far and like Josh again, they expected more and instead dressed up the little they had.
