Babylon Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 League approves new owners Doesn't tell us anything new... It tells us it has been ratified, which is new. It's down to the club to release the other information.
MrSpaM Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 Blimey this took AGES, is it seriously going to take this long every time a club gets new owners?
Alexikokopops Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 Blimey this took AGES, is it seriously going to take this long every time a club gets new owners? I think because we were the first club to come through the Football League's new rules they were taking extra care not to make a balls up early doors. Once there's been a few more I'd imagine the process will be a lot quicker.
Fox 4 Life Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 Blimey this took AGES, is it seriously going to take this long every time a club gets new owners? I guess after some of the shambles at places like Pompey and Notts Co it's in the leagues interest to make sure the owners are for real. Good thing for clubs aswell IMO.
HonradaRaposa Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 I think the one thing we should all be pleased about is that the Thai owners have passed this test, and although the potential for conflict of interest was out there, Greg Clarke would have been especially keen to ensure they were the real deal. A good day all round and hopefully we can kick on with ST holders receiving free Singha vouchers in the near future to celebrate.
bettso Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 I guess after some of the shambles at places like Pompey and Notts Co it's in the leagues interest to make sure the owners are for real. Good thing for clubs aswell IMO. It signals quite clearly that our new owners are completely legit and have the funds to back up the talk. Whoever the 3rd person is, they must be koshur otherwise the ratification would not have come. It's a little weird that everything seems to be rosy at the minute.
Roy Cropper Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 Blimey this took AGES, is it seriously going to take this long every time a club gets new owners? Anything that involves Milan Mandaric is going to need to scrutanised to the nth degree so I'm surprised its gone through as quick as it has.
unreachable Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 They have to release certain information, not sure exactly what but we will know all the people involved. If they don't release it the trust have already said they will report the club. I'm happy to be proved wrong but I believe that the public disclosure requirements (as opposed to private disclosure to the Football League) are not effective until April 2011. http://www.football-league.co.uk/championship/news/20101022/change-of-ownership-approved-at-leicester_2248204_2192731 From April 2011 clubs must provide.....the publication of the identity of any individuals owning 10% or more of their club I think the public disclosure provisions remain as stated in the following article about Leeds United: http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/2010/mar/04/football-league-ownership-leeds-united Apart from the Raksriaksorn father and son I think that journalists, fans, the Foxes Trust etc can now ask the club who all the other owner/s is/are but the club doesn't have to disclose the information. The secret veil of ownership can be challenged by putting various names forward and putting the club in the position of disclosing the information voluntarily.
unreachable Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 http://leicestercityfootballclub.com/2010/09/17/leicester-city-set-to-unveil-third-members-in-the-consortium-that-has-bought-club/ “17th September 2010 Hoos also said the takeover would soon get the green light from the Football League, who have been examining all the documentation with due diligence, and then all the details of the new owners would be published. "They are from a similar geographical area, and they have already got together with the rest of the consortium. "All the investment will be coming from the consortium, the two different groups coming together. "We will then publish all the information on the club website and there will be a separate section detailing how it will be all structured.” Let's see if LCFC follows through with a full publication on the OS.
19hundred&frozen2death Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 how come it took 2days to take over liverpool and 3 month 4 us to be took over
Alexikokopops Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 how come it took 2days to take over liverpool and 3 month 4 us to be took over My guess is because we're in the Football League, who launched their new rules this year, and the Premier League might have different rules (which haven't recently changed). This could be complete balls, mind.
bettso Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 My guess is because we're in the Football League, who launched their new rules this year, and the Premier League might have different rules (which haven't recently changed). This could be complete balls, mind. There was a post earlier regarding the Liverpool takeover. Apparantly they were submitting information long before it was announced and these time scales took pretty much the same amount of time as our takeover.
HonradaRaposa Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 Does Bert know who the Thire investor is ? It's Ernie
Houdini Logic Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 It's Ernie Where did your Oakley thread go? I was about to agree with you on something
Houdini Logic Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 how come it took 2days to take over liverpool and 3 month 4 us to be took over Becuase their investors had serious money and could afford a large kickback - not a crate of Singha and a selection of those small perfume bottles
HonradaRaposa Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 Where did your Oakley thread go? I was about to agree with you on something I've being trying to post it for the best part of 18 hours now but someone in the control tower thinks I am stirring it It was highlighted to me I had previously criticised him but when you look back on it
unreachable Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 I've being trying to post it for the best part of 18 hours now but someone in the control tower thinks I am stirring it It was highlighted to me I had previously criticised him but when you look back on it Roy Cropper has come to your rescue - post away in the new thread!
Houdini Logic Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 I've being trying to post it for the best part of 18 hours now but someone in the control tower thinks I am stirring it It was highlighted to me I had previously criticised him but when you look back on it To be fair I wasn't going to post until I was 100% certain you were being serious
Alexikokopops Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 I've being trying to post it for the best part of 18 hours now but someone in the control tower thinks I am stirring it It was highlighted to me I had previously criticised him but when you look back on it Prior to the thread you'd made six posts where you directly mention Oakley. One was in the player ratings, and the other five consisted of: Calling him a dick and implying he was only picked under Sousa due to a clause in his contract Disagreeing with Dyer's contract extension, and including Oakley in a list of people who you thought would be next (with the implication that he and the others didn't deserve one) Including him in a list of people you hoped had handed in a transfer request Saying he's not good enough for this division Expressing your concern that he's going to be starting a game You can't tell me that starting a "Matt Oakley Appreciation Thread" isn't a complete and utter wind up (Oh, and I didn't delete your thread by the way)
HonradaRaposa Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 Prior to the thread you'd made six posts where you directly mention Oakley. One was in the player ratings, and the other five consisted of: Calling him a dick and implying he was only picked under Sousa due to a clause in his contract Disagreeing with Dyer's contract extension, and including Oakley in a list of people who you thought would be next (with the implication that he and the others didn't deserve one) Including him in a list of people you hoped had handed in a transfer request Saying he's not good enough for this division Expressing your concern that he's going to be starting a game You can't tell me that starting a "Matt Oakley Appreciation Thread" isn't a complete and utter wind up (Oh, and I didn't delete your thread by the way) As I said upon reflection I was wrong
Alexikokopops Posted 22 October 2010 Posted 22 October 2010 As I said upon reflection I was wrong That's a massive turn around in three weeks. Do you reckon if I start adding subliminal messages in my posts about Fryatt we'll get a positive post on him by December? Fryatt is easily the best striker in the Championship
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.