Do Otium pass the Fit and Proper person's test? (1 Viewer)

FootyLawBlog · Jun 20, 2013

I thought you might be interested in this: an exploration of Otium and the Football League Rules from a legal perspective.

I'm a law student and created a sports law blog, partly in response to your plight. This is its first post.

http://footylaw.wordpress.com/2013/...w-owners-fail-the-fit-and-proper-person-test/

njdlawyer · Jun 20, 2013

The Football League / FA may set out rules which suggest a rigorous and ethical approach to the approval of football club owners but Thaksin Shinawatra, Carsen Yeung, the Venkys and all the various Portsmouth owners (to name but a few examples) show those rules to be a complete sham

SkyblueBazza · Jun 20, 2013

FootyLawBlog said:
I thought you might be interested in this: an exploration of Otium and the Football League Rules from a legal perspective.

I'm a law student and created a sports law blog, partly in response to your plight. This is its first post.

http://footylaw.wordpress.com/2013/...w-owners-fail-the-fit-and-proper-person-test/

Now that's what I call a post! Nice one...it sums up all that is wrong in football. Owners (universally) have systematically hidden dealings off-shore, transferred this & that etc to the point that much of what is involved in running a club is totally divorced from the communities they were originally set up for.
If this is acceptable practice in the business world at large - maybe the government needs to 1. react more quickly & decisively toward companies & individuals non-filing of accounts, & 2. Tighten up laws on ownership. The most transparent thing to me in all of this murky stuff is that it seems designed to allow shifting of assets & earnings around to hide from paying their dues in both corporate taxes, & pay increases for workers.

Bennets Afro · Jun 20, 2013

Great read although the league will ignore everything because it doesn't want to end up in court itself. Could set a precedence if they lose

db2013 · Jun 20, 2013

Something that is very clear to me is that the FL have no regards for there own rules. The companies that own/run the club can not even file returns on time yet they are seen as competent owners. Seriously some one the FL need's to wake up and smell the coffee!.

Very good post njdlawyer I have retweeted and facebooked it, makes for a very intresting read..

The Penguin · Jun 20, 2013

Great read. Top work.

Sub · Jun 20, 2013

should send that to damien collins the MP that was pushing to find out who SISU investors were

Spionkop · Jun 20, 2013

Footy, you should make sure the Football League see this. Nice work.

db2013 · Jun 20, 2013

Spionkop said:
Footy, you should make sure the Football League see this. Nice work.

I think he should email this to the FA and FL see what response he gets!

db2013 · Jun 20, 2013

Spionkop said:
Footy, you should make sure the Football League see this. Nice work.

Think he should send this to the FA and FL see what response he gets!

SkyblueBazza · Jun 20, 2013

I wonder - our legal eagle might be able to seek the answer to this - is some kind of"class-action" via the Sky Blue Trust (that would boost the membership!) or national supporter groups possible against the FL, should the FL pass Otium et al as fit & proper???
The Gov't/Justice dept might be sympathetic to the cause & allow legal aid to support it as a legal test case.

savosdad · Jun 20, 2013

One of the finest if not the best post ive ever read you are truly a ambassador for the club and i commend you for bringing up this statement

njdlawyer · Jun 20, 2013

SkyblueBazza said:
I wonder - our legal eagle might be able to seek the answer to this - is some kind of"class-action" via the Sky Blue Trust (that would boost the membership!) or national supporter groups possible against the FL, should the FL pass Otium et al as fit & proper???
The Gov't/Justice dept might be sympathetic to the cause & allow legal aid to support it as a legal test case.

The only legal action available is a Judicial Review of either or both of the Administrator's and / or the Football League decision

A "class action" occurs when a large number of people suffer similar injury / loss allegedly as a result of the negligence or bad faith of a single entity (pompous I know!!) and sadly whilst we may all be mighty p****d off by what has happened it doesn't amount to anything we could sue for!

Lastly Legal Aid is only available for individuals, not group or organisations and those individuals need to be of limited means

Sorry but Odious need to be seen off with different tactics

RPHunt · Jun 20, 2013

SkyblueBazza said:
I wonder - our legal eagle might be able to seek the answer to this - is some kind of"class-action" via the Sky Blue Trust (that would boost the membership!) or national supporter groups possible against the FL, should the FL pass Otium et al as fit & proper???
The Gov't/Justice dept might be sympathetic to the cause & allow legal aid to support it as a legal test case.

I had been wondering about the possibility of a request for a judicial review of the Football League's decision.

It wouldn't quite be a test case - a judge decided some time ago that the FA was outside the scope of judicial review. However, things have moved on since then and it is possible that a request might now be allowable under European human rights laws.

The thoughts of the OP would be interesting.

SkyblueBazza · Jun 20, 2013

njdlawyer said:
The only legal action available is a Judicial Review of either or both of the Administrator's and / or the Football League decision

A "class action" occurs when a large number of people suffer similar injury / loss allegedly as a result of the negligence or bad faith of a single entity (pompous I know!!) and sadly whilst we may all be mighty p****d off by what has happened it doesn't amount to anything we could sue for!

Lastly Legal Aid is only available for individuals, not group or organisations and those individuals need to be of limited means

Sorry but Odious need to be seen off with different tactics

Darn-it! What about challenging on behalf of the brick/memorial owners should they actually depart the Ricoh? Surely they were bought in good faith to have association with the football club...in THAT "home"...not anywhere else. So assuming they leave them where they are - group action to sue for everything from A to Z in the book!

FootyLawBlog · Jun 20, 2013

Thank you all for your kind comments.

I have actually written to the House of Commons' Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, copied to the FA and the Football League, drawing their attention to the current situation and my blog.

The CMS select committee is on the side of football fans and is holding the FA, Premier League and Football League to account - but they need evidence.

You can write to them through your MP (if you ask your MP to pass a letter on, he should) but you can also email them directly. I don't know what this site's rules on posting other people's email addresses, but if you do an internet search for "Culture Media and Sport Select Committee Contact" it should provide you with a page on the Parliament website with full details.

The League can ignore fans (and usually do) - but they know that they can be called back to the Select Committee at any time to explain themselves.

njdlawyer · Jun 20, 2013

SkyblueBazza said:
Darn-it! What about challenging on behalf of the brick/memorial owners should they actually depart the Ricoh? Surely they were bought in good faith to have association with the football club...in THAT "home"...not anywhere else. So assuming they leave them where they are - group action to sue for everything from A to Z in the book!

Sorry to be the perpetual merchant of doom but I rather suspect that any contract that the brick / memorial garden owners have is with the stadium owners rather than SHITSU / Odious

The interesting one is the Vice Presidents, Premier Club members (particularly life members) and named seat holders (there may be others) who have got a contract with CCFC, in some guise or another, to watch them at the Ricoh. Depending upon the wording of the contracts or agreements that they have they may have some sort of claim all be it one that would be of little more than nuisance value

chickentikkamasala · Jun 20, 2013

an interesting insight into the FACTS, this should not be ignored! but no doubt will

chiefdave · Jun 20, 2013

I have no idea if legal action can be taken or not but I've said for a while the Trust really should be putting pressure on the league. It's one of the few things they can actually do that might have an impact. It's easy for the FL to send a cut and paste reply to individuals but if the Trust can get them round the table (possibly with the help of Supporters Direct) then they would at least have to justify what they're doing. Let's face it, a bit of press saying the FL is refusing to speak with the recognised Trust of the club would look very bad for them.

Sterling Archer · Jun 20, 2013

Good article, even if Otium do pass the FAPP Test, I will still like the FL to answer the points raised in the article.

FootyLawBlog · Jun 20, 2013

njdlawyer said:
The interesting one is the Vice Presidents, Premier Club members (particularly life members) and named seat holders (there may be others) who have got a contract with CCFC, in some guise or another, to watch them at the Ricoh. Depending upon the wording of the contracts or agreements that they have they may have some sort of claim all be it one that would be of little more than nuisance value

More than nuisance value, surely!?

Do they not have a case to argue that they are creditors of CCFC Ltd and should be treated as such with regards to the administration? Could they then not seek to ask the court to pierce the veil of incorporation on the grounds that Holdings and Limited are one and the same for all intents and purposes; and treat both entities as being in administration?

wingy · Jun 20, 2013

njdlawyer said:
Sorry to be the perpetual merchant of doom but I rather suspect that any contract that the brick / memorial garden owners have is with the stadium owners rather than SHITSU / Odious

The interesting one is the Vice Presidents, Premier Club members (particularly life members) and named seat holders (there may be others) who have got a contract with CCFC, in some guise or another, to watch them at the Ricoh. Depending upon the wording of the contracts or agreements that they have they may have some sort of claim all be it one that would be of little more than nuisance value

It was the Club that received the Income from the Bricks ,raised something like £250K,whether they had to pay a license to the Stadium I do not know.

jesus-wept · Jun 20, 2013

Just a thought but what about contacting UEFA with it we all know Platini loves our FA. Probably a waste of time but you never know

njdlawyer · Jun 20, 2013

FootyLawBlog said:
More than nuisance value, surely!?

Do they not have a case to argue that they are creditors of CCFC Ltd and should be treated as such with regards to the administration? Could they then not seek to ask the court to pierce the veil of incorporation on the grounds that Holdings and Limited are one and the same for all intents and purposes; and treat both entities as being in administration?

No for several but two reasons in particular:-
a) They are not at present "creditors" of anyone. They either had a contract with CCFC Ltd who have never been in receivership or CCFC(H) Ltd who were but who have now been taken out of receivership by Odious. Whoever it is will only, even potentially, break the contract giving them a claim as creditors or, more simply, parties suffering a breach of contract as and when the season begins somewhere other than the Ricoh. Even then it depends upon the wording of the original contract which may, in the small print, envisage circumstances in which the football team do not play at the Ricoh - in fact thinking logically it would be surprising if there were not such a clause, and;
b) The administration process has been and gone so the boat has been missed to register as a creditor

As I said in my first post in this thread the only legal action available is a JR of the Administrators decision and / or that of FL. At the forum I attended Tim Fisher expressed a genuine fear that other bidders eg PHIV may actually take that route however that now seems to be an unfounded fear

Whilst the avenue of JR is open to anyone, in reality it would need someone not only with deep pockets but also someone connected somehow with the process. A Fan's Group for example would be launching it blind as they would not have the necessary detailed knowledge of the facts. So Gary Hoffman, Joe Elliott, Michael Byng or Preston IV please stand up...!

wingy · Jun 20, 2013

FootyLawBlog said:
More than nuisance value, surely!?

Do they not have a case to argue that they are creditors of CCFC Ltd and should be treated as such with regards to the administration? Could they then not seek to ask the court to pierce the veil of incorporation on the grounds that Holdings and Limited are one and the same for all intents and purposes; and treat both entities as being in administration?

Would'nt ACL's brief have tried to prove this??

robbieray · Jun 20, 2013

Mmm

[QUOTE

According to Companies House, there is a proposal to strike this company off the register of companies.

][/QUOTE]

Isnt that enough ?

njdlawyer · Jun 20, 2013

wingy said:
It was the Club that received the Income from the Bricks ,raised something like £250K,whether they had to pay a license to the Stadium I do not know.

But the bricks will still be where they were contracted / required to be. People bought bricks in the wall of the Ricoh Arena. So the club / stadium / SHITSU / Odious / ACL / CCC or whoever will not be breaching any contract or agreement unless it was for the bricks to be installed wherever Coventry City play their home games which (as an owner of a brick) I doubt was the case

Bill Glazier · Jun 20, 2013

The really big question is - why is the FL so eager to pass Sisu in it's many guises as fit and proper when it's clearly not? Is it because the FL just blundered and negligently failed to keep an eye on what was happening at CCFC, and is simply covering its backside? Or is it for some other reason? There must be an answer.

Bluegloucester · Jun 20, 2013

If Wynacre Ltd are now the ultimate owners of the club, we need to find out who they are. They are key to any appeal to the FL etc. Ken Bates had to declare ultimate ownership in a similar structure when he was in control of LUFC.

cloughie · Jun 20, 2013

Bluegloucester said:
If Wynacre Ltd are now the ultimate owners of the club, we need to find out who they are. They are key to any appeal to the FL etc. Ken Bates had to declare ultimate ownership in a similar structure when he was in control of LUFC.

Where as this wynacre ltd come from I can find no record of it in companies house?

Bluegloucester · Jun 20, 2013

cloughie said:
Where as this wynacre ltd come from I can find no record of it in companies house?

It'a a British Virgin Island registrred company.

cloughie · Jun 20, 2013

Bluegloucester said:
It'a a British Virgin Island registrred company.

Thanks

Where has this info come from regarding them owning us?

Bluegloucester · Jun 20, 2013

cloughie said:
Thanks

Where has this info come from regarding them owning us?

The OP's blog

Paxman II · Jun 20, 2013

Arrh the corporate world....full of murkiness. Good read. Everyone on this forum should read it.

cloughie · Jun 20, 2013

Bluegloucester said:
The OP's blog

Cheers so just another name to add to the list

Do Otium pass the Fit and Proper person's test? (1 Viewer)

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Banned

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Active Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency