Bury Fc

[Proposition Joe]

They could at least uphold their own (fairly useless) Fit and Proper test. In Bury's case they didn't even bother with that.

The game needs an overhaul, the EFL should be disbanded and a regulator with teeth needs to be created. Never happen, obviously.

The EFL are not responsible for regulating clubs.

They are responsible for their competition They are not allowed by law to do most of what fans want.
They punish clubs who breach their rules, then fans complain that clubs are punished

Why are you just repeating yourself when my reply shows I already understand?

[spen666]

They could at least uphold their own (fairly useless) Fit and Proper test. In Bury's case they didn't even bother with that.

The game needs an overhaul, the EFL should be disbanded and a regulator with teeth needs to be created. Never happen, obviously.

The EFL are not responsible for regulating clubs.

They are responsible for their competition They are not allowed by law to do most of what fans want.
They punish clubs who breach their rules, then fans complain that clubs are punished

Why are you just repeating yourself when my reply shows I already understand?

Why should the EFL be disbanded and replaced by a regulator.

The EFL's role is not intended to be a regulator.

A regulator with teeth? To do what? The EFL have rules & punish clubs who break the rules....what more will a regulator do?

Any regulator will like the EFL be bound by Company Law


It's all very well to complain about the EFL but neither you nor anyone has actually come up with anything specific that the EFL or any new regulator could legally do.

It is not for the EFL or a regulator to run a company. It's not for either to appoint or dismiss directors (see Companies Act).

The EFL or a Regulator can't predict the future much as club owners can't. For example FB never took over Orient planning to lose £millions.

If we are to improve things, let's have specific proposals as to what EFL / regulator can legally do

[Buddy Manucci]

https://www.otbfootball.net/the-efl-are ... r-purpose/

https://www.itsroundanditswhite.co.uk/a ... -andy-holt

Semi interesting reads.

[Lovejoy]

Bury are now facing possible EFL expulsion.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49280328

[EliotNes]

I fear they are “doomed”, Mr Mainwaring

There but for the grace of God (and the input of Nigel and Kent) it could have been us

[o-no]

Not looking good. Their first team is down to the bare bones too

https://www.buryfc.co.uk/teams/first-team/

I didn't know Stephen Dawson was there, he's a good bloke and deserves better.

[RedDwarf 1881]

Not looking good. Their first team is down to the bare bones too

https://www.buryfc.co.uk/teams/first-team/

I didn't know Stephen Dawson was there, he's a good bloke and deserves better.

If we tried to get other players and were unsuccessful ,why don't we try and bring Dawson back here . He's just the type of player we need in central midfield.

[Lovejoy]

Match postponed by the EFL again, I hope they sort this out asap.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49356357

[spen666]

Match postponed by the EFL again, I hope they sort this out asap.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49356357

The whole situation is both sad and also farsical.

Bury say they are in a position to play games. The EFL disagree and the EFL postpone the games then charge Bury with alleged offences of failing to fulfill their fixtures....not sure how that works when it's the EFL postponing the games

[Disoriented]

Match postponed by the EFL again, I hope they sort this out asap.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49356357

The whole situation is both sad and also farsical.

Bury say they are in a position to play games. The EFL disagree and the EFL postpone the games then charge Bury with alleged offences of failing to fulfill their fixtures....not sure how that works when it's the EFL postponing the games

The EFL has rules Spin.

[spen666]

Match postponed by the EFL again, I hope they sort this out asap.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/49356357

The whole situation is both sad and also farsical.

Bury say they are in a position to play games. The EFL disagree and the EFL postpone the games then charge Bury with alleged offences of failing to fulfill their fixtures....not sure how that works when it's the EFL postponing the games

The EFL has rules Spin.

But it's the EFL stopping the games, then charging Bury for not playing the games when Bury want to play them

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

I guess they want to be sure the club can fulfill all its league fixtures not just the next game.

[spen666]

I guess they want to be sure the club can fulfill all its league fixtures not just the next game.

I have no issue with that.
It's the fact they are seeking to punish Bury for something they (EFL) ordered to happen

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

I guess they want to be sure the club can fulfill all its league fixtures not just the next game.

I have no issue with that.
It's the fact they are seeking to punish Bury for something they (EFL) ordered to happen

Imagine the chaos if Bury played games, points awarded, then fail to complete their fixture list. That would be an utter shambles and totally unfair on clubs who have played those fixtures and others affected by the fallout. Chaos.

I think it’s right and proper, but hugely sad, that Bury need to be able to show they can complete the season and until they can then the EFL is perfectly correct in punishing them according to the rules. They are not being judged on their willingness and ability to complete the next game but the full season. They clearly have not proven that can be achieved leaving the EFL little choice.

I sincerely hope Bury find a solution and continue as a league club.

[spen666]

I guess they want to be sure the club can fulfill all its league fixtures not just the next game.

I have no issue with that.
It's the fact they are seeking to punish Bury for something they (EFL) ordered to happen

Imagine the chaos if Bury played games, points awarded, then fail to complete their fixture list. That would be an utter shambles and totally unfair on clubs who have played those fixtures and others affected by the fallout. Chaos.

I think it’s right and proper, but hugely sad, that Bury need to be able to show they can complete the season and until they can then the EFL is perfectly correct in punishing them according to the rules. They are not being judged on their willingness and ability to complete the next game but the full season. They clearly have not proven that can be achieved leaving the EFL little choice.

I sincerely hope Bury find a solution and continue as a league club.

So you want Bury punished because the EFL worry about something that may or may not occur



BTW There would be no chaos even if Bury played some games then folded. There is settled policy & rules now for this following what happened after the demise of Spennymoor United back in 2005 and the subsequent court case.

Basically if a team hadn't played I think it's 75% of games, then it's record is expunged

If team has played more than that then remaining games are awarded to opposition is 3 points & no goals

[OrientSeb]

I have no issue with that.
It's the fact they are seeking to punish Bury for something they (EFL) ordered to happen

Imagine the chaos if Bury played games, points awarded, then fail to complete their fixture list. That would be an utter shambles and totally unfair on clubs who have played those fixtures and others affected by the fallout. Chaos.

I think it’s right and proper, but hugely sad, that Bury need to be able to show they can complete the season and until they can then the EFL is perfectly correct in punishing them according to the rules. They are not being judged on their willingness and ability to complete the next game but the full season. They clearly have not proven that can be achieved leaving the EFL little choice.

I sincerely hope Bury find a solution and continue as a league club.

So you want Bury punished because the EFL worry about something that may or may not occur



BTW There would be no chaos even if Bury played some games then folded. There is settled policy & rules now for this following what happened after the demise of Spennymoor United back in 2005 and the subsequent court case.

Basically if a team hadn't played I think it's 75% of games, then it's record is expunged

If team has played more than that then remaining games are awarded to opposition is 3 points & no goals

This rule is hardly fair though? Say for example bury are doing okay, mid table maybe pushing for playoffs when they go bust, a team bottom of the league lost to them early in the season and middle of the season home and away, the team second bottom has played them once and lost, but doesn’t play them again til the end of the season thus gets 3 points, despite not likely getting anything from them had the game been played? The EFL whilst being inept for letting the owner in in the first place (among other owners), have got little choice, if Bury can’t prove they have enough funds to fund their full campaign, to avoid potential issues later in the season, they are best not letting them play at all, if they can prove it, the games can be played later in the season. This is the best way to maintain a fair league for all other parties.

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

Absolutely seb. IMO most football fans hope Bury survive, i certainly do.

However, with the current uncertainty it makes most sense to not allow games to go ahead. Of course it’s not ideal should a massive backlog occur but that’s no different from, for example, weather or cup affected games.

It’s far from ideal. But to allows games to go ahead without a reasonable degree of certainty of the season being completed is wrong.

[Still's Carenae]

They should be allowed to play games, to allow money to come in. Then they may survive.

However, if they fail then the record should be expunged.

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

They should be allowed to play games, to allow money to come in. Then they may survive.

However, if they fail then the record should be expunged.

It will take a whole lot more money than the profit from the odd game to remedy their situation. A whole lot more. The problems associated with expunging results have been covered.

[spen666]

Imagine the chaos if Bury played games, points awarded, then fail to complete their fixture list. That would be an utter shambles and totally unfair on clubs who have played those fixtures and others affected by the fallout. Chaos.

I think it’s right and proper, but hugely sad, that Bury need to be able to show they can complete the season and until they can then the EFL is perfectly correct in punishing them according to the rules. They are not being judged on their willingness and ability to complete the next game but the full season. They clearly have not proven that can be achieved leaving the EFL little choice.

I sincerely hope Bury find a solution and continue as a league club.

So you want Bury punished because the EFL worry about something that may or may not occur



BTW There would be no chaos even if Bury played some games then folded. There is settled policy & rules now for this following what happened after the demise of Spennymoor United back in 2005 and the subsequent court case.

Basically if a team hadn't played I think it's 75% of games, then it's record is expunged

If team has played more than that then remaining games are awarded to opposition is 3 points & no goals

This rule is hardly fair though? Say for example bury are doing okay, mid table maybe pushing for playoffs when they go bust, a team bottom of the league lost to them early in the season and middle of the season home and away, the team second bottom has played them once and lost, but doesn’t play them again til the end of the season thus gets 3 points, despite not likely getting anything from them had the game been played? The EFL whilst being inept for letting the owner in in the first place (among other owners), have got little choice, if Bury can’t prove they have enough funds to fund their full campaign, to avoid potential issues later in the season, they are best not letting them play at all, if they can prove it, the games can be played later in the season. This is the best way to maintain a fair league for all other parties.

Whatever way the league deals with a club who fails mid season will cause some winners and some losers. That is what the issues caused by Spennymoor United ceasing to exist were about
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004%E2 ... ontroversy

[F*ck The Poor & Fat]

So you want Bury punished because the EFL worry about something that may or may not occur



BTW There would be no chaos even if Bury played some games then folded. There is settled policy & rules now for this following what happened after the demise of Spennymoor United back in 2005 and the subsequent court case.

Basically if a team hadn't played I think it's 75% of games, then it's record is expunged

If team has played more than that then remaining games are awarded to opposition is 3 points & no goals

This rule is hardly fair though? Say for example bury are doing okay, mid table maybe pushing for playoffs when they go bust, a team bottom of the league lost to them early in the season and middle of the season home and away, the team second bottom has played them once and lost, but doesn’t play them again til the end of the season thus gets 3 points, despite not likely getting anything from them had the game been played? The EFL whilst being inept for letting the owner in in the first place (among other owners), have got little choice, if Bury can’t prove they have enough funds to fund their full campaign, to avoid potential issues later in the season, they are best not letting them play at all, if they can prove it, the games can be played later in the season. This is the best way to maintain a fair league for all other parties.

Whatever way the league deals with a club who fails mid season will cause some winners and some losers. That is what the issues caused by Spennymoor United ceasing to exist were about
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004%E2 ... ontroversy

Best to avoid the winners and losers scenario if at all possible then. Whatever the EFL do it’s not ideal but preventing as many issues as possible has to be the best overall solution. Focuses the mind more so too for the club I would imagine, more so than if they just plod along on a game by game basis. Sad.

[spen666]

This rule is hardly fair though? Say for example bury are doing okay, mid table maybe pushing for playoffs when they go bust, a team bottom of the league lost to them early in the season and middle of the season home and away, the team second bottom has played them once and lost, but doesn’t play them again til the end of the season thus gets 3 points, despite not likely getting anything from them had the game been played? The EFL whilst being inept for letting the owner in in the first place (among other owners), have got little choice, if Bury can’t prove they have enough funds to fund their full campaign, to avoid potential issues later in the season, they are best not letting them play at all, if they can prove it, the games can be played later in the season. This is the best way to maintain a fair league for all other parties.

Whatever way the league deals with a club who fails mid season will cause some winners and some losers. That is what the issues caused by Spennymoor United ceasing to exist were about
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004%E2 ... ontroversy

Best to avoid the winners and losers scenario if at all possible then. Whatever the EFL do it’s not ideal but preventing as many issues as possible has to be the best overall solution. Focuses the mind more so too for the club I would imagine, more so than if they just plod along on a game by game basis. Sad.

All it does is guarantee the club will fail. It is already in breach of the CVA because it had no income and therefore unable to make payments under the CVA

[Mikero]

When you look through the various social media you get hints that there is much more to this story than is being reported. It appears that there are people behind this mess who want the club to fail. Loans taken out at usurious rates and hidden in books so that the club can only fail, then they can asset strip the ground.

The blundering of the EFL is a very convenient distraction at the moment and shows just how poor they are at dealing with club ownership. You would think that 'property developer' would ring alarm bells but heh they allowed Owen Oysten to remove huge sums of money from Blackpool even after he had been banned as a club directer for life by the Premier League.

Mikero

[RientO]

Seems like they only have 8 days left...

But then the EFL announced that Dale hadn't shown proof of funds for the season, which has led to our first four fixtures being suspended, and a notice that we will be removed from the Football League after 134 years unless this is satisfied by August 22. Next Thursday.
Read more at https://www.fourfourtwo.com/features/fi ... gJYj1ud.99

[spen666]

When you look through the various social media you get hints that there is much more to this story than is being reported. It appears that there are people behind this mess who want the club to fail. Loans taken out at usurious rates and hidden in books so that the club can only fail, then they can asset strip the ground.

The blundering of the EFL is a very convenient distraction at the moment and shows just how poor they are at dealing with club ownership. You would think that 'property developer' would ring alarm bells but heh they allowed Owen Oysten to remove huge sums of money from Blackpool even after he had been banned as a club directer for life by the Premier League.

Mikero

Oyston did not get a life ban by the Premier League...he "merely" fail the fit & proper rest in 2010.

He could always reapply.