Re: Our neighbours..........
 

who are they especially one who we rejected.

Re: Our neighbours..........
 

He certainly isn't son of an MP past or present, it is the Burnley fan who uset to work for Tony Blair as top medai man who is his dad.

No idea why they would be interested in Bury.

Agree with Dave, however they are more likely to give five 0-1. No chance that they will have evidence withing the extra 48/72 hours, this will go on for a while yet.

Re: Our neighbours..........
 

It can't go on much longer than the newest deadline, although the EFL have said they might get a little longer IF the deal is 99% done by 5pm on Tuesday, they have also said they cannot postpone any more fixtures

Re: Our neighbours..........
 

True - it looks like a pulicity stunt to me. "We have done are football analytics on Bury and realised they are ****", what a shock.

Ballturn in same boat now again, shame if they both go it could cost stanley about £80k.

Re: Our neighbours..........
 

Apologies - but parliamentary aide government spokesman and campaign manager plus personal advisor to the ON seems enough to me.

Re: Our neighbours..........
 

Tickets on sale for Bury v Donny. Donny told its on.
Get your bets on Chris Dagnall for first goal.

Re: Our neighbours..........
 

If the EFL extend Bury or Bolton’s deadlines again then the EFL needs to be binned off and the clubs start their own league with suitable governance.
There is no point having a rules enforcer who can’t even enforce their own deadlines.

It may sound harsh but they should have both been kicked out the league the day before the first fixtures. They could have applied for the non league and possibly have got in at conference north / national premier league level who would have made provision to accommodate as their leagues started later and they would have had the huge financial incentive to let them in due to the fan base and press it would have generated.

The EFL or whoever takes over from the EFL needs to have an agreement in place with one of the non leagues that they can accept a league team if they are rejected from the league prior to the first game; this is not rocket science.
I know the league of Wales was willing to make an exception to let Bury enter there 2nd division if Bury where kicked out of the EFL and rejected from the national league; while it seems harsh at least they could have continued to compete for a season and then reapplied for the English non league to try and get back in at say Conference North level.

Re: Our neighbours..........
 

S’funny how times have changed.
Seem to recall being told that, in 1962, when a letter was sent asking for Stanley’s rash resignation to be rescinded, it was dismissed with no further debate by the then League authorities.

Re: Our neighbours..........
 

I was saying as much the other day, I doubt we'd have got too much if any leeway in 2009 either

Re: Our neighbours..........
 

Whats happening is weird to me, at weekend it looked like Bury dead and buried, Bolton surviving, now it looks the other way around to me? have to agree with Di, but for ilyas in 2009 we would have been knackered, i cant recall the E.F.L. offering us a chance? please correct me if thats wrong!

Re: Our neighbours..........
 

Speaking of Ilyas, whats become of the great man? A true STANLEY legend.

Re: Our neighbours..........
 

That's quite correct Cashy they would have let us die no doubt but 10 years on things have deteriorated rapidly in the financial state of the lower leagues personally I think they are bending over backwards for these 2 clubs because they are waking up to the fact,there antiquated rules that belong in the 1930,s aren't fit for purpose and they are panicking, if Bury and Bolton go before they have a chance to change some rules on finance they could be facing quite a few more going to the wall ruining the whole league set up,league 1 this year is already a farce.

Re: Our neighbours..........
 

The difference here is that the EFL had nothing to do with our problems in 2009. We owed the taxman £300k and they issued a winding up petition to force us to pay. We were given two stays of execution by the high court judge (standard) who knew a trading company had a better chance of settling up than a liquidated company with no assets. EFL had no say in the matter as operational costs and wages (mostly) were being paid.

The current problem with Bury and Bolton is not that they owe substantial amounts of money, as they are operationally manageable. Bury's problem is that Steve Dale wasnt paying anyone, players, opponents, staff, possibly police. He wasnt trustworthy to stage a game and pay the interested parties for their part in that game. I believe EFL payments to the club have been withheld (tv money, solidarity and academy monies). Until he can either prove he has the money to see it through, or sells the club to someone who can, then EFL wont sanction a game.

With Bolton the problem lies in red tape. A club (or presumably any business?) cannot be allowed to trade indefinitely whilst in administration. Administrators are brought in to realise the value of a company and either facilitate a sale (again to someone who will be take responsibility for all liabilities) or liquidate the company in order to sell off the assets and repay owings. The administrators told the EFL that a deal was in place, price agreed, and paperwork drawn up needing only to be signed. So on the eve of the season the EFL granted Bolton their place as the deal was 99% in place. Bolton COULD play games as they had the operational cashflow to pay people and the administration would shortly be lifted. The deal then fell through. Another deal has since fell through.

The administrators at Bolton WILL liquidate the club in order to sell off the family heirlooms and settle their debts. The EFL have given them more than enough time and now want to force their hands one way or another with any deal left on the table.

Neither situation can be allowed to just ramble on. The EFL have taken flak over it all but have been overly lenient throughout. Their true guilt lies in having allowed new owners to take on the 2 clubs despite BOTH having history of multiple failed businesses collapsing owing money whilst they both profited (asset strippers). Quite clearly neither was 'fit and proper'

I feel for both sets of fans. Ive helped where I can with Bury, hell I even dragged my Jurassic body along to the charity match and performed 45 minutes of painfully torturous exercise (loosely), and will tomorrow be taking my van full of water along to Gigg Lane to help with the clean up of the stadium. Whatever the outcome for both clubs, this HAS to be a watershed moment where football realises what it has almost lost - and sorts its act out. Failure to do so is going to result in a huge reshuffle of footballing power. Perhaps a well run, profitable club from a small town may even see its star rising further?

Re: Our neighbours..........
 

Aye ta for that, but who vets new owners? cos they are doing a very poor job.

Re: Our neighbours..........
 

[quote=maccawozzagod;1230926]
Good post, macca, and your comment about the EFL’s laughable “fit and proper test” is the crux of the problem. Unfortunately, it doesn’t just apply to football clubs but to all types of ‘business’, where the law seems allow crooks and conmen to run up massive debts, fold the company, and set up a new one the next day with virtually the same name and no sanctions.

interesting that i heard a bury fan on the radio the other day saying that “maybe the accrington model” is the way to go!