A what point do the FA get involved?

Not seen this asked elsewhere - apologies if already being discussed.

The FA/EPL has the fit and proper persons test for club owners - to ensure they don't crap all over the clubs and harm the game.

What if anything do they/could they do in a situation like ours?

Surely it can't been viewed as good for the game?

I'd like to think they would at least ask a couple of questions of our owner/board?

This is the sort of post that you'd of seen on a Pompey forum not too long ago.

But once they have passed the test (and they already let lunatics through) they are free to do what they want basically?

 

This is the sort of post that you'd of seen on a Pompey forum not too long ago.

Probably!

Have they started a 'Saints Takeover' Thread yet??!

'Can you stop selling all of your players for huge fees please?'

Such a request would leave the club lawyers running for the hills I am sure.

Surely it can't been viewed as good for the game?

Of course it's good for the game. Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal and (shortly) Spurs have been enhanced by our players this window. The EPL only care about the top teams, they have no interest in the smaller clubs.

The fit and proper test is a joke. Look at some of the lunatics they've let take over clubs. Asian dude at Cardiff and the italian one at Leeds springs to mind.

Involved with what, selling successful players to the highest bidder. Don't think they've any power over that. If we can't field a team on opening Sunday they may give us a call to ask why, until then!!!!!!!.

Why should they?

......

Probably when we cannot field a team at Anfield

We'll field a team, but may be charged with playing a 'weakened' one.

Involved with what, selling successful players to the highest bidder. Don't think they've any power over that. If we can't field a team on opening Sunday they may give us a call to ask why, until then!!!!!!!.

With that in mind how about what Holloway when at Blackpool got hammered for, playing a weakened team?!

Just a thought to throw into a tame debate.

You could equally argue the owners of Liverpool aren't "fit and proper owners" - how much money have they frittered away on ridiculously over priced squad players now?!

You could equally argue the owners of Liverpool aren't "fit and proper owners" - how much money have they frittered away on ridiculously over priced squad players now?!

probably less than they've gained in shirt sponsorship for a single season. Our shirt sponsorship would probably buy a Bechuanaland youth international, theirs 4 top flight players.

Not seen this asked elsewhere - apologies if already being discussed.

 

The FA/EPL has the fit and proper persons test for club owners - to ensure they don't crap all over the clubs and harm the game.

 

What if anything do they/could they do in a situation like ours?

 

Surely it can't been viewed as good for the game?

 

I'd like to think they would at least ask a couple of questions of our owner/board?

Oh FFS, REALLY? What is it that makes everyone want someone else to blame - as said above, this is exactly the kind of whining crap that the Skates would trot out - "don't blame us guv, we fort the FA would make sure the dodgy no-bank account tyre-kicker from the Emirates with no cash was on the level"...

You don't understand the fit and proper persons test, and the (incredibly difficult to fail anyway) criteria definitely don't apply to Saints' owner.

With that in mind how about what Holloway when at Blackpool got hammered for, playing a weakened team?!

 

Just a thought to throw into a tame debate.

An equally lame point - firstly the rules have changed since then, secondly, you had to be playing a side comparable to another side recently fielded with obvious changes to your usual line up. Our starting line up for this season does not have to be comparable to our starting line up of last season, and "just being shiiit" isn't against the league rules, or Derby would have been hammered for it in 2008.

The fit and proper test is a joke. Look at some of the lunatics they've let take over clubs. Asian dude at Cardiff and the italian one at Leeds springs to mind.

The guy at Leeds is the only person to have actually failed it, to my knowledge, and then it was overturned on a technicality anyway.

What on earth is there to complain about? We've sold a few players, we shall buy a few players. It goes on all the time.

This I get - the club making lots of money from player sales and players wanting to move to 'bigger' teams.

But I do get the very uneasy feeling that the 'bigger' clubs are buying up the oppositions' best players to PREVENT them playing against said 'bigger' teams rather than for their talents.

It's just not cricket

Of course it's good for the game. Liverpool, Man U, Arsenal and (shortly) Spurs have been enhanced by our players this window. The EPL only care about the top teams, they have no interest in the smaller clubs.

Spot on. To your list can be added Man City and Chelsea but beyond those 6 clubs the rest are just cannon fodder. The system is designed to keep the wealthy clubs at the top and only rarely will televised games be between two of the cannon fodder so that most of the TV money goes to the chosen 6. At the same time, there are pages of newsprint in the redtops, devoted to these clubs and when the rest get a mention it's usually just a scrappy combined paragraph. All of this is designed to keep the body of football followers focused just on the teams where the money is. Everton have been the nearest to breaking into the glamour group but even they had their manager poached and at least one international player.

This I get - the club making lots of money from player sales and players wanting to move to 'bigger' teams.

 

But I do get the very uneasy feeling that the 'bigger' clubs are buying up the oppositions' best players to PREVENT them playing against said 'bigger' teams rather than for their talents.

 

It's just not cricket

Cool, let's report Liverpool to the CMA

Thought I should drag up this thread, since doing so is clearly "in".

Clearly the OP was being a bit of a cock here. Completely in character I'd suggest. Poor boy.

Thought I should drag up this thread, since doing so is clearly "in".

 

Clearly the OP was being a bit of a cock here. Completely in character I'd suggest. Poor boy.

fair play mate. hindsight is a wonderful thing but most of us thought it wouldn't end like this

Not every buy-in by a wealthy owner works out well - on one hand you can have the Pompey outcome where it all goes to catsh*t or to a lessor extent the Coventry and Cardiff situations. If it works to the advantage of the bought club, a la Chelsea and Man City, it then raises questions about whether the league can still offer a fair competition. We have what we have got and I'm not sure the FA could change it even if they wanted to. I think Greg Dyke would if he could but here are so many vested interests. We shouldn't be too complacent here because who knows what would follow if Katherina got bored with it. Unfortunately the days of collective ownership look to be a diminishing thing of the past.