Embargos, HMRC Payment defaults, non payment of wages, the usual under Dai Wrongge

[Linden Jones' Tash]

Will Dai pay the fine before, or if, he goes? But he will pocket any incoming transfer fees this week though. Leaving Couhig to pay the fine, IIF or when the deal is done.

I'd assume the SPA ( Sale & Purchase Agreement) would include a whole bunch of contingencies based on liabilities, etc - so the end sale price & payment schedule would be based on agreed criteria being met.

Otherwise things can get very legal very quickly...

[Snowflake Royal]

How about ask the FA to issue clear instructions detailing everything they should do/ what measures should be in place to avoid it, then stick 100% to that and then if it still happens, the FA can't accuse you of not doing enough.

You've not dealt with a regulator have you.

I have. Ofcom. Quite a few times.

They provide high level guidelines for some things that aren't too critical to customer rights or safety. They then tend to be pretty reasonable in negotiating outcomes when there is a problem. An example might be allocation of geographic dialling codes to land lines.

Other things have very detailed regulations and rules. Like, for example, billing accuracy. Get that wrong and there's no ambiguity - you're in BIG trouble.

So Forbs's suggestion is not at all ridiculous, although I would say that enforcing ground regulations is pretty firmly the responsibility of the club, not the EFL / FA.

Ours basically says, these are your conditions of existing, make sure you meet them. Not our job to tell you how.

That way, when someone complains, even though they've known for a decade we do things that way, they can still tell us we should have done something different.

[Clyde1998]

The club knew it was going to happen but realistically there was absolutely oxf*rd all could do to stop it so the best course of action was to let it happen and manage the situation as it evolved. I doubt the ball being kicked at the Port Vale assistant manager was intentional or targeted.

The charge is fair enough but everyone knows that the issue goes away when Dia finally fcuks off. The FA have to be seen to be sanctioning the club and I think they've made a sensible and pragmatic decision.

What can a club reasonably do to stop an invasion? If just 10% of fans run on, stewards and police have no chance.

Exactly what I was thinking reading the report.

The personal who complied the initial report basically asks 'why didn't the club have more stewards and utilise the police on site?' It's a case of if someone is determined to break into your house, you can't reasonably stop it. If 1,000 people are determined to get onto the pitch, you can't stop it - at least not without creating a much more volatile situation and without causing serious injuries.

Additionally, and IIRC, the pitch invasion plan was only publicly 'approved' about three days before the game. I can't imagine the club could find and train an additional 100 stewards (or whatever it would've taken) in that time and I'd imagine the police would need more time to provide resources.

That's without considering deploying more stewards would've cost the club financially. The club wasn't paying HMRC; I don't see how it was going to pay for additional stewarding or policing for a one-off game without additional revenue from that fixture.

I think the most important quotes from the report are (in regards to policing), both being arguments made by the club:

26.
vi. At no point during the incident when RFC’s supporters entered the pitch did TVP consider intervening as the Incident was a peaceful protest without any violence or disorder;
viii. RFC has no control over what actions or decisions are taken by TVP officers when they are on duty at any match. Therefore any criticism which Mr. Conniford has regarding TVP should not be attributed to RFC which is in no position to give orders to experienced police officers;

Essentially the Commission has agreed the culpability of the club was low, with the fine basically due to the seriousness and harm of the incident (basically the mass invasion, the game being abandoned and the risk of the situation suddenly getting worse). The fine was lowered from the starting point of £15k due to the club accepting misconduct and the club's financial situation. Half being suspended was due to the EFL's sanctions as a result of the match. I think the final outcome reached by the Commission is reasonable.

[PieEater]

I thought I heard that the club hadn't paid the bill for TVP so they only sent the legal minimum cover. So no chance of them stopping anything,

[Crusader Royal]

I thought I heard that the club hadn't paid the bill for TVP so they only sent the legal minimum cover. So no chance of them stopping anything,

You think there is some ‘legal’ cover level set somewhere ?
Well most games have no police in attendance so that makes that an interesting theory !
Levels of cover would be discussed by the Safety Officer and the police, they might disagree on what is needed but it seems unlikely the police would not turn up because of an outstanding invoice. Even if the police are there then managing a peaceful pitch invasion would be a club issue rather than a police one.

[Forbury Lion]

The personal who complied the initial report basically asks 'why didn't the club have more stewards and utilise the police on site?' It's a case of if someone is determined to break into your house, you can't reasonably stop it. If 1,000 people are determined to get onto the pitch, you can't stop it - at least not without creating a much more volatile situation and without causing serious injuries.

The police are not there to stop trespassing, especially a peaceful protest. That's a civil matter, so completely different to breaking into a house.
If they thought there would be violence of a thread to property then maybe they would have taken action. People just standing together in the middle of a football pitch isn't a criminal matter.

[From Despair To Where?]

The personal who complied the initial report basically asks 'why didn't the club have more stewards and utilise the police on site?' It's a case of if someone is determined to break into your house, you can't reasonably stop it. If 1,000 people are determined to get onto the pitch, you can't stop it - at least not without creating a much more volatile situation and without causing serious injuries.

The police are not there to stop trespassing, especially a peaceful protest. That's a civil matter, so completely different to breaking into a house.
If they thought there would be violence of a thread to property then maybe they would have taken action. People just standing together in the middle of a football pitch isn't a criminal matter.

I didn't say that!!!!

[rabidbee]

The personal who complied the initial report basically asks 'why didn't the club have more stewards and utilise the police on site?' It's a case of if someone is determined to break into your house, you can't reasonably stop it. If 1,000 people are determined to get onto the pitch, you can't stop it - at least not without creating a much more volatile situation and without causing serious injuries.

The police are not there to stop trespassing, especially a peaceful protest. That's a civil matter, so completely different to breaking into a house.

It is an offence for a person at a designated football match to go onto the playing area, or any area adjacent to the playing area to which spectators are not generally admitted, without lawful authority or lawful excuse (which shall be for him to prove).

[Brogue]

feck knows where to put this but nigel howe has had his suspension reduced by 3 months on appeal

https://www.thefa.com/news/2024/sep/16/ ... ate-160924

[Snowflake Royal]

It did seem a bit harsh given the clause never made it past the authorities and we knew it wouldn’t

[WestYorksRoyal]

I wonder what the situation with the financial statements are. If you take too long, you get a letter from the government threatening legal action against the directors.

[Mid Sussex Royal]

I wonder what the situation with the financial statements are. If you take too long, you get a letter from the government threatening legal action against the directors.

Doesn't seem to have been asked by anyone at the press conf.

[Forbury Lion]

I wonder what the situation with the financial statements are. If you take too long, you get a letter from the government threatening legal action against the directors.

Doesn't seem to have been asked by anyone at the press conf.

You have 9 months to file your accounts from the date of your financial year end, For most football clubs that's end of June.
Most clubs take as long as possible.

[Mid Sussex Royal]

I wonder what the situation with the financial statements are. If you take too long, you get a letter from the government threatening legal action against the directors.

Doesn't seem to have been asked by anyone at the press conf.

You have 9 months to file your accounts from the date of your financial year end, For most football clubs that's end of June.
Most clubs take as long as possible.

In terms of EFL regs I've just checked and there's no additional action, other than player registration embargo, they can take regardless of how long it takes for the accounts to be submitted.

[Lower West]

I wonder what the situation with the financial statements are. If you take too long, you get a letter from the government threatening legal action against the directors.

Doesn't seem to have been asked by anyone at the press conf.

You have 9 months to file your accounts from the date of your financial year end, For most football clubs that's end of June.
Most clubs take as long as possible.

The ultimate sanction is that the company gets struck off and the assets seized by the Crown.

Concern must be that the club continues to get run down to a level where it can operate at a financially sustainable level. Until there's a long term solution found.

[Sutekh]

Doesn't seem to have been asked by anyone at the press conf.

You have 9 months to file your accounts from the date of your financial year end, For most football clubs that's end of June.
Most clubs take as long as possible.

The ultimate sanction is that the company gets struck off and the assets seized by the Crown.

Concern must be that the club continues to get run down to a level where it can operate at a financially sustainable level. Until there's a long term solution found.

What would the crown do with a Harvey Knibbs?

[Forbury Lion]

You have 9 months to file your accounts from the date of your financial year end, For most football clubs that's end of June.
Most clubs take as long as possible.

The ultimate sanction is that the company gets struck off and the assets seized by the Crown.

Concern must be that the club continues to get run down to a level where it can operate at a financially sustainable level. Until there's a long term solution found.

What would the crown do with a Harvey Knibbs?

Court Jester?

[RG30]

New embargo - https://www.efl.com/governance/embargoes/

Reading FC - Regulation 16.7.4 Submission of Annual Accounts

[Clyde1998]

New embargo - https://www.efl.com/governance/embargoes/

Reading FC - Regulation 16.7.4 Submission of Annual Accounts

Surprised the EFL have taken as long as they have to flag that.

[Snowflake Royal]

New embargo - https://www.efl.com/governance/embargoes/

Reading FC - Regulation 16.7.4 Submission of Annual Accounts

Surprised the EFL have taken as long as they have to flag that.

It had been in place, Dai lied about the Couhig deal and used the sale of Azeez to get it lifted on TDD. Since then, there hasn't really been urgency to put it back on officially.