Jump to content
IGNORED

not good news from Burnley?


Never to the dark side

Recommended Posts

Birmingham are also under investigation for something similar iirc although in their mitigation fans have been encouraging them for years to look into BSH (their owners- Birmingham Sports Holdings) but the EFL did bugger all.

Al Majir in particular has, he raiser the alarm as far back as 2017 but the Football League under Harvey did nothing. Under Parry too for a while presumably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, chinapig said:

It's not the Premier League so they aren't interested.

The story is still on the Mails website.

Tbh - it’s no real surprise to me anyway that ‘dodgy’ deals in football are under scrutiny. This story is slightly different in as much its about high finance and buying an entire club and just a little above motorway services meetings and grubby brown envelopes.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, PHILINFRANCE said:

 

There appears to be some suggestion this is the Daily Mail or, more specifically, Matt Hughes (he has form) making mischief.

  • Burnley stated that ALK are unequivocally the Championship club's true owners
  • The EFL are investigating claims that the ownership is actually based in Jersey

 

47780EC2-EBC9-4547-B94A-0F961D1BA7EE.jpeg

How does this differ from BCFC being part of BC Holdings and owned by Pula based in Guernsey?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Davefevs said:

How does this differ from BCFC being part of BC Holdings and owned by Pula based in Guernsey?

Compare the use of 'considered' and 'an' with the BCFC Holdings disclosure:

 

 

 

Screenshot 2022-09-09 121630.png

Edited by Hxj
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Hxj said:

Compare the use of 'considered' and 'an' with the BCFC Holdings disclosure:

 

 

 

Screenshot 2022-09-09 121630.png

Indeed. There is a big difference between saying somebody is the ultimate controller and saying they are considered to be.

Considered by whom exactly?

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Grey Fox said:

Is one potential problem that the “actual “ owners, if different, have not submitted to any suitability test? Also, if not known, money laundering legislation?

It's certainly the case for ML, and also could potentially hide owners from places such as Russia. The changes in legislation occured a few years back and caused huge headaches for my wife in her then role as a Company Secretary Administrator. They were supposed to follow the money back to the actual owners for every new company they took on. It's fine in principal but in practice it's almost impossible. Once you get to countries that are outside our legislation or control, you can ask for details, but you can't demand and anything that is offered has to be taken at face value.

In the end she was making decisions on a gut instinct, her main ploy if she had doubts was to charge exorbitant fees. This was used a bit like the witch trials, if they agreed to pay without question, she knew they were dodgy and withdrew her services. :)

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...