Thanks.On the Price of Football podcast, they discuss Sadler and Blackpool from 15:45 in the video. Gives a basic explainer on the situation and how he thinks it might effect the football club.
Thanks for finding that.On the Price of Football podcast, they discuss Sadler and Blackpool from 15:45 in the video. Gives a basic explainer on the situation and how he thinks it might effect the football club.
I know what I've heard about him and it isn't different from B;oomberg.Thanks for finding that.
It's a wait and see as we suspected.
Interesting description of being a hard boss in there from Bloomberg - makes me wonder how he is at Bloomfield Road; or whether it literally is his hobby and therefore can be more relaxed about the whole thing.
I don't think it's difficult to believe that a very successful businessman is both a task master and cut throat. Those attributes are part of what has made his company as profitable as it is. It's an interesting point but still depends on his company being found guilty, I suspect it is very difficult proving beyond all doubt.I know what I've heard about him and it isn't different from B;oomberg.
It's SS not the company who might be found guiltyI don't think it's difficult to believe that a very successful businessman is both a task master and cut throat. Those attributes are part of what has made his company as profitable as it is. It's an interesting point but still depends on his company being found guilty, I suspect it is very difficult proving beyond all doubt.
Exactly Mick, although if convicted can the EFL retrospectively take action against him?It's SS not the company who might be found guilty
I'm not convinced by the stuff i'm reading. Think there's plenty of bs being written.The more I read about Mr Sadler the less convinced I am by him.
I don’t know if the EFL can ban him from ownership? Apparently there is much more detail in Private Eye this week. I haven’t got a copy yet but I am told it doesn’t read wellExactly Mick, although if convicted can the EFL retrospectively take action against him?
If you fall foul of the ODT you can be forced to sell - though as we have seen with our past owners the EFL aren't exactly known for enforcing their own rulesI don’t know if the EFL can ban him from ownership? Apparently there is much more detail in Private Eye this week. I haven’t got a copy yet but I am told it doesn’t read well
Technically it's DeRocca and Sadler as the owner of the company.It's SS not the company who might be found guilty
Agree. Which is why I find it concerning.For stuff like this, get your news from Bloomberg or the FT……not the red tops or similar.
I would also advise not to speculate as it could come and bite you on the harris!
They can't ban him from ownership as he's already the owner. The fit and proper person test is at the time of purchase, notafterwards. That's why OO could continue as owner after his conviction.I don’t know if the EFL can ban him from ownership? Apparently there is much more detail in Private Eye this week. I haven’t got a copy yet but I am told it doesn’t read well
New convictions are different, and treated as such - and the new Football Regulator is proposing much more stricter rules.They can't ban him from ownership as he's already the owner. The fit and proper person test is at the time of purchase, notafterwards. That's why OO could continue as owner after his conviction.
Thank god for the new regulator the saviour of footballNew convictions are different, and treated as such - and the new Football Regulator is proposing much more stricter rules.
That's wrong as you have to complete a declaration every 12 months and report any qualifying issues as they ariseThey can't ban him from ownership as he's already the owner. The fit and proper person test is at the time of purchase, notafterwards. That's why OO could continue as owner after his conviction.
All in all the consequences of a conviction are likely to be serious for the football clubThat's wrong as you have to complete a declaration every 12 months and report any qualifying issues as they arise
What the EFL tried to argue with OO was that his offences were committed before the ODT and its predecessor had been introduced
The existing rules under the ODT were clear that the sanction applies whether the disqualifying act occurred before or after the rules were introduced which made Shaun Harvey look a bit stupid with his power point that was headed NO RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION
As seasideone says the new rules are likely to be more stringent
No it doesn’tAs far as I remember the club is actually owned by a holding company, something like Sooty123 ltd, so Sadler is distanced from actually personally owning? Not sure if that makes any difference
Exactly. The rules were clear. They just weren’t enforced.That's wrong as you have to complete a declaration every 12 months and report any qualifying issues as they arise
What the EFL tried to argue with OO was that his offences were committed before the ODT and its predecessor had been introduced
The existing rules under the ODT were clear that the sanction applies whether the disqualifying act occurred before or after the rules were introduced which made Shaun Harvey look a bit stupid with his power point that was headed NO RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION
As seasideone says the new rules are likely to be more stringent
Correct, which makes an absolute farce of the EFL’s handling of the Fleetwood/Andy Pilley situation.If you fall foul of the ODT you can be forced to sell - though as we have seen with our past owners the EFL aren't exactly known for enforcing their own rules
Absolute bolluxThey can't ban him from ownership as he's already the owner. The fit and proper person test is at the time of purchase, notafterwards. That's why OO could continue as owner after his conviction.
Would it apply though as it's a foreign intervention in a country that we have no judicial connection with?All in all the consequences of a conviction are likely to be serious for the football club
Yeah the new rules that BST have been fighting for for yearsHe only needs to be found guilty and convicted, he doesn't have to go to prison. If that happens then the new rules will kick in.
YesWould it apply though as it's a foreign intervention in a country that we have no judicial connection with?
I am sure it would carry the same weight as a conviction here. Foreign based owners probably outnumber domestic onesWould it apply though as it's a foreign intervention in a country that we have no judicial connection with?
Will he personally have to pay the fine or would the company he runs who are worth Billions?'Potential 10 million dolar fine which isn’t an issue for Simon Sadler'
Love how some people thought Pilley was in the same league.
Anyway, conclusion seems to be not a problem unless he gets distracted.
How is Pilley still Fleetwood owner, as I understand it, he transferred ownership to his kids. If it’s that simple, what’s the point of the regulations.That's wrong as you have to complete a declaration every 12 months and report any qualifying issues as they arise
What the EFL tried to argue with OO was that his offences were committed before the ODT and its predecessor had been introduced
The existing rules under the ODT were clear that the sanction applies whether the disqualifying act occurred before or after the rules were introduced which made Shaun Harvey look a bit stupid with his power point that was headed NO RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION
As seasideone says the new rules are likely to be more stringent
So not a problem for SS then, even if he’s jailedHe hasn’t transferred ownership - he still owns it.
What's the difference?Will he personally have to pay the fine or would the company he runs who are worth Billions?
I don't think there's much chance of him being potted, it's if he is found guilty and has to pat a hefty fine, or any fine, he will be able to afford it but surely that would make him fall foul of the new EFL rules and he could be forced to sell, or have I misunderstood? I hope that he gets off.So not a problem for SS then, even if he’s jailed
Because he changed the contract with them after it had been verbally agreed and then threatened to sue for defamation when they complained?I don't understand the Pilley situation either. How is he still able to own Fleetwood if he's been found guilty and jailed ?
As a matter of fact, getting a criminal conviction for fraud and / or dishonesty would constitute a breach of the current rules as well.Yeah the new rules that BST have been fighting for for years
I thought he had been charged, if not why did he have to pay money to the courts?As a matter of fact, getting a criminal conviction for fraud and / or dishonesty would constitute a breach of the current rules as well.
Perhaps we should all wait to see exactly what he has charged with before trying to score cheap points off one another.
I thought he'd been charged with insider trading?I thought he had been charged, if not why did he have to pay money to the courts?
He has been charged. The details were not released last week except in a very general way.I thought he had been charged, if not why did he have to pay money to the courts?