Jump to content

Can Mr Mystery remain a mystery?


Alain Perrin
 Share

Recommended Posts

Is it possible? Could Pinnacle takeover and the backer then refuse to show himself? Is he obliged to do so by the FL or FA?

 

Would we have to face up to years of "I think it is Tabor" threads?

 

At least with a PLC we knew who owned us :)

 

p.s. Simon Cowell and Phillip Green are going into business together.... could it be..... erm no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least with a PLC we knew who owned us

 

The shareholders owned SLH, but that is largely irrelevent with regards the running of the club. Well, usually it is, but Askham stitched the club up so badly that the majority of the shareholders had a hands on say as to the running of the club, which is not the standard practice for most PLCs. The board should be answerable to the shareholders, but when the board is made up of major shareholders, well you are gonna have shenanigans.

 

If an individual wanted to own a private company and install a board to manage this company, there is not really any way, or any need, to force him to reveal himself if he deemed it appropriate to put a set-up in place that secured anonimity using a nominee account.

 

We need to look at the personnel running the company and its goals and track record as to whether we support said regime, not the backer that paid the way for them to run the concern on his behalf.

Edited by The Farmer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The shareholders owned SLH, but that is largely irrelevent with regards the running of the club. Well, usually it is, but Askham stitched the club up so badly that the majority of the shareholders had a hands on say as to the running of the club, which is not the standard practice for most PLCs. The board should be answerable to the shareholders, but when the board is made up of major shareholders, well you are gonna have shenanigans.

 

If an individual wanted to own a private company and install a board to manage this company, there is not really any way, or any need, to force him to reveal himself if he deemed it appropriate to put a set-up in place that secured anonimity using a nominee account.

 

We need to look at the personnel running the company and its goals and track record as to whether we support said regime, not the backer that paid the way for them to run the concern on his behalf.

 

Couple of points - wouldn't this go against FL / FA requirements to know who owns the club?

- if the Pinnacle deal goes through (a big IF for me) would the new backer want to remain unknown?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If an individual wanted to own a private company and install a board to manage this company, there is not really any way, or any need, to force him to reveal himself if he deemed it appropriate to put a set-up in place that secured anonimity using a nominee account.

 

I can see that being accepted practice in 'normal' business circles but this is the Football League we are talking about here. Doesn't the Football League have it's own rules about transparency of the source of financial input into football clubs?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see that being accepted practice in 'normal' business circles but this is the Football League we are talking about here. Doesn't the Football League have it's own rules about transparency of the source of financial input into football clubs?

 

I thought there were (quite logical) rules preventing one party from owning more than one club, which would mean that the FL would HAVE to know the identity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought there were (quite logical) rules preventing one party from owning more than one club, which would mean that the FL would HAVE to know the identity.

 

Would/could/should the FL put that knowledge into the public domain though?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought there were (quite logical) rules preventing one party from owning more than one club, which would mean that the FL would HAVE to know the identity.

 

That doesn't mean they have to publicise it though. In a world strewn with confidentiality clauses and NDA's, many a detail stays out of the limelight if so wished, as we all know.

 

But then again, with a world full of loose lips on the back of the right inducement, one wouldn't be able to ensure their wishes are upheld with any amount of certainty.

 

If the backer had no untoward reason to stay hidden after the negotiation process is finalised, it would merely be a personal preference for reasons we do need to be privy to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would/could/should the FL put that knowledge into the public domain though?

 

No but every ITK expands the risk of it becoming common knowledge - especially as the FL is essentially our competing clubs. How long is that going to stay secret?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see that being accepted practice in 'normal' business circles but this is the Football League we are talking about here. Doesn't the Football League have it's own rules about transparency of the source of financial input into football clubs?

 

Yep, they must know the actual owner, not the conduit (Lynham).

 

Does make me wonder if that's part of the stalling process with the FL as well...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honestly couldn't care who he is, if he is happy to spend his money and let someone he trust run the club then so be it. would be a much better option than the attention seeking scum we had before and some of the similat idiots that are sniffing about the place now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...