Greg Clarke, Chairman of the Football League was on 5 Live this morning. He was quizzed about Pompey and in particular, Antonov's takeover. What he revealed about the process for buying a club is disgraceful. It's self-certification. That's right, you fill in a form stating that you aren't either a real criminal or a regulatory criminal, and that's you. Done. Simple. I will try and find a link to the show later......
Just listened to the interview. I thought it was a weak and insipid response to a grave problem within the national sport.
Yeah, the League should bear some regulatory responsibility, but the buck should stop with the club, as the business being taken over, to ensure its prospective owners are legit.
Surely the complete opposite! If you are selling it's because you need or want to get out. Why would you care who took over provided you got your cash out? That's the very essence of why a FAPP test is required.
Well, hang on a minute. A club is, at the end of the day, a business. The Government can bar individuals from being directors but would only do that after evidence of illegal or immoral behaviour, business wise. The fit and proper bit is an additional check which the FL do, but if someone has not got a known criminal past, how would they judge what a "fit and proper" person was? What some fans seem to object to is that Al Fahim bought Pompey and then turned out not to want to put millions into the club. Al Mirage was to say the least dis-interested in doing similar, if he even existed. Did the fit and proper person process fail? That's not what it's for, IMO. Let's say that a man with a string of convictions for money laundering, fraud and sexual offences contacted the administrator and made an offer for Pompey. The administrator might have a legal duty to accept whatever offer gave the best return to the creditors. The protection that the FPP test gives is that it should stop a monster such as this fictitious character getting his hands on a club. No doubt anyone wanting to buy a club will have to sign some form confirming that have no skeletons in the cupboard, but the football league cannot be expected to investigate every nook and cranny of an applicants finances. How could they? The failure of the football authorities is in allowing the indebtedness of football as a whole to go unchecked, something that FIFA is trying to address with the FairPlay rules coming soon.
But it is apparent that there is no such thing as a FPP test. Even the FSA refusing to grant him leave to trade in the UK wasn't picked up on. The test seems to be "Can you write your name?".
But, would it open the FL up to legal action if it barred a takeover without a legally watertight reason? I don't know the answer, by the way. I am just interested so if someone knows,mI would be interested to hear.
Channon's right, there's no way they can stop people buying clubs without serious evidence. Even if they wanted to say no, they'd just be sued and they can't afford a legal battle with several litigious millionaires.
It was a weak interview. The thing is using the FL (or FA or PL) as a check on prospective owners will never work as they have no expertise or funds to do this. They do a basic check that there are no criminal issues outstanding (just 'cause you've been naughty in the past doesn't bar you from ownership). The real responsibility should be with the Administrator (and we know Pompey have been shafted in the past on this one!) to ensure the sale is legal and sustainable. If you were selling a car would you take a lower price instead of selling to some one who'd broken the speed limit in the past but was offering more?
Actually that's not correct. The Football League is unlike other businesses as all of its component parts (the clubs) trade on the basis of their membership of the League. Anyone can buy a club but it doesn't follow that the League has to grant membership. The League can do whatever it likes as it wouldn't be stopping someone from owning anything instead they would be saying you aren't welcome to take part in our League if you do buy. The "innocent until proven guilty" stuff is a smokescreen.
I think that the FPP test should contain an investigation into the proposed buyers business dealings and their character. I work in transport and have to obtain a certificate of Profesional Competence to be able to go on an 'O' Licence which a company must have to run a fleet vehicles. To gain this licence the company has had to, among other things show that I (as the accountable person on the licence) am of reputable character and of sound financial standing. My company has to provide the ministry with proof that I can not only buy vehicles, I have enough capital to run them legally and keep them maintained. I have to disclose any criminal offences I may have had to prove I am reputable. The companies request to run a fleet of vehicles is put out in the press for all to see so people can object to the application. The idea of this is to keep unscrupulous characters out of the transport industry. Why could this not be applied to potential buyers of a football club? They must prove they have sufficient funds to not only purchase the club but to meet the day to day running costs of it (including tax). A background check with the persons country of origin should be able to show if there have been any criminal dealings etc. Once this is completed then that person is granted a Certificate to show that they conform to the requirements of running a football club and can go ahead with the purchase. Once they have this then it can be used to purchase a different club if they wish i.e Mandaric. It can't be left to the club to weed out who is Fit and Proper. If the current owners want out they will sell to the first buyer and get the hell out of town. Ala Gaydamak.. A crook is not going to turn down a potential buyer for being a crook so it should be up to the FA.
From what I remember of the interview Greg Clarke said he contacted the FSA whose reply was "no comment" to the question/s asked about Antonov, although the interviewer pointed out that it was clearly stated on the FSA website (where a lot of Pompey fans picked up the information). Hotbovril is absolutely right. You would have thought that the FL would have addressed this particular concern a long time ago, clubs have been going into admin for a long time - for a variety of reasons - it is up to them to have some protective measures in place for their members. It isn't a novel idea either. I worked for a very long time in the voluntary sector, in charities which were membership based - and we had at times not approved the membership of certain clubs due to irregularities. We were never sued either although we did have an internal appeals process that the aggrieved party could go through. It just takes the will to do something.
Pompey chose quality over quantity. Pompey chose not to pay players, staff, community businesses and the TAX MAN. Pompey chose to pay players that they couldn't afford knowing well enough that they still had to be wary of the spending. I feel for the fans but Pompey management brought this on theirselves.
If a club was going out of business fans would be furious if the League blocked it...short term thinking comes in when your back is to the wall. The FL is not the villain in this...dubious owners and poor management is to blame.
All well and good but not addressing the subject matter. This thread is not wholely about Pompey but about the Football League/Football Association/Premier League and their criteria when it comes to accepting or refusing to recognized potential owners as fit and proper and whether that criteria is viable. I haven't seen anybody so far in this thread say that Portsmouth's current situation was not a result of poor management from Portsmouth so I dont see why you've commented on it as if that's been in the subject of the thread. I dont understand why you felt the need to post that.
I'm sorry, but if they refused someone without a damn good reason, they would have lawsuits on their hands, which they just can't afford to fight. Nothing to do with presumption of innocence.
