Wouldn't be too sure about that - after all, with his known business record (bankruptcy) there should surely have been no way for him to manage what he did with the club. He certainly fooled me, but that is no great feat - I have no understanding whatsoever of business/finance. I struggle to understand what my wife spends all her money (and a lot of mine) on & can't keep her spending in check.
I still find the entire episode incredible. Many years ago I was the Finance Director of an investment company. The due diligence we did on any target was exhaustive and we went into detail on the finances of those involved - they had to prove access to funds that they needed in addition to our investment, show their own track record and financial stability - and had we ever decided to do a deal with an ex bankrupt we would have doubled our precautions. What the previous Board did I don't like to guess. In addition our accountants would have had access to bank accounts and financial records while we still had a financial interest in the company or individual. I don't use the word crook as I don't want to see this site closed down but you only had to look at the string of failed business ventures he had been involved with to doubt his competence.
I don't want to speculate on the implications of the club being found guilty of the charges. But I would note that Portsmouth came 22nd last season.
I guess all this may depend on the effect it had on the club. It could be argued that the club had money "diverted" from it by its owner - if that were the case the club itself is a victim not a guilty party. The speed with which this all came to light when the accounts were published may suggest that elements within the club alerted the authorities in advance as they would not have had the power to prevent the money being diverted.
What is the charge bought by the FL against the club exactly? As I see it the club hasnt benefited through these alleged breaches therefore what sanction could the FL seek? Charges of a procedural breech appear to be the order of the day in the public arena and as such a financial (albeit small) penalty would be the order of the day. I'll be interested to see which entity was in breech (watford FC Ltd, Watford leisure or the club?) If its anything but the club could Jo Bloggs set up a company breach FL rules and the penalty fall on the club? would seem strange but then in football logic reason and common sense take a back seat!!
It is interesting that the club and Baz have had individual charges laid against them, something that is unusual. This could be because Baz is no longer at the club and the FL want to make sure he cannot control a club again. It could also be read that the FL are considering that the club were in the dark about what was going on, so separated the charges to treat the two cases differently.
If the case is that the offence was committed by Watford FC Ltd sole director Bassini surely it would be difficult to hold another entity that may have been unaware and unable to be aware culpable? We'll have to wait and see what the charges are exactly but I fail to see how the club have gained or how they could have acted any differently. The football league on the other hand!!!!!!!!
Good luck on the FL finding Baz , I think the club should get the SFO involved. IMO Baz is prob somewhere nice and warm with our clubs money .
I see the outcome: Bassini - no case to answer, and the Hornets - the book will chucked at them, twice.
Oh how i hope you are wrong Zen. But when you look at previous clubs with similar situations, like our dear old rivals and Pompy, i have a very bad feeling about this. Shame the club didn't have that same feeling when Mr change your name for tax reasons wanted to take over!
The trouble is, if Bas were to be fined or sanctioned in some way by the FL he could just ignore it all, and so get away with it. The Club is easier to punish---it cannot run away or declare itself bankrupt to avoid a fine , and it must accept FL sanctions if it wants to stay in the Championship. Though the football business part of the Club might claim to be a victim more than a villain, it is an easier target for "making an example of". From the FL point of view it is all about "making an example" to deter other owners/clubs from misusing football revenues in this way.
The problem with that Roger, is that it won't actually deter owners. In fact, I would have thought quite the opposite. If Bas gets away with it, but the club doesn't, then it will just make owners take bigger risks knowing they can walk away when it all starts going wrong, without any repercussions! Bassini needs to get done over this to be made an example of! I suspect we will get some kind of sanctions - hopefully it will be a small fine at most! We possibly might get a transfer ban for one or two windows.
Good point, Kev. But FL "charges" are a bit of a blunderbuss in this kind of situation and just as likely to harm a (blameless) club as much as a (blameworthy) owner. I wonder if the FL will be sophisticated enough to unravel the notion of "how the club benefited" from these transactions in determining a sanction.? Are they capable of targeting the villain and not the victim? We would argue that the club received no benefit , in fact has been harmed, but the words "sophistication" and "FL" do not often appear together. The FL may just say "Bas (and therefore the Club) broke the rules by not informing us " so the sanction is inevitable. Duxbury will have to box clever here.
Glasgow Rangers were taken to the cleaners by their previous owners, to the extent of bankrupcy and it is the new club, new owners that have paid the price both from the financial point of view and the SFA) and they won't get their hands on the money loaned against season ticket revenues & future transfer payments to the previous owner who used a similar tactic to gain control of the club that Baz did, just on a grander scale.
That's an arguable point about the new club paying the price. The old club were liquidated, no longer existed - and in the opinion of many, the new club were lucky to be given immediate entry into SFL rather than having to go through the lower ranks first, as others (such as Gretna) have had to do. Financially they haven't endeared themselves to other clubs either - in recent cup games against SPL opposition, where the gate receipts are split 50:50, they set ticket prices at £1, purely out of spite. Also, while they have 'retained' players signed from other SPL clubs, it seems that they have a problem when it comes to paying the outstanding transfer fee instalments to those clubs. There's a lot of anger up here at what their financial shenanigans have done to the game.
They were not really lucky - there was a vote to let them join as I understood it and Div 3 2 and 1 clubs stand to benefit in the next few years. As for the SPL I think Rangers must hate them all for their part in their undoing. As we have now seen a club can be charged because of an owner - Rangers have not been treated very well and owe nothing to the SPL
Yes there was a vote but, unlike in previous years, it was purely a yes/no vote - no other nominations were involved. You might say that Rangers would in all probability have won the vote regardless, but that is moot - an outcome that will never actually be known. As to them hating the SPL, that's a two-way street - ask the likes of Hearts who are still owed, and unlikley to be paid, £800K by them, a figure that has sent them close to liquidation. So, I'd say yes, Rangers do owe the SPL something.
How much do we owe we're not paying? As I understand it we haven't shirked anything or played any tricks that have benefited the playing clubs trading, from whats in the public arena I can only see a procedural indiscretion which I would opine did not benefit the club at any point and my deduction did not prejudice any other club. The right and proper sanction would be to seek the source of the alleged indiscretion and apply a fit and proper fine/sanction to prevent recurrence. BUT its the FL so not holding breath.
