They have loved our demise now the boot is on the other foot; HA HA HA

Edited February 17, 20215 yr by Casino

bloody hell, it must be a leigh thing

Mr Grey is at best pink and youve come out as a wigan fan

deary me 

1 hour ago, Leyther_Matt said:

Thing is that they were pretending that they were selling it to a different person altogether who doesn’t actually exist

Is this definitely true ? I haven’t looked for a few days. But I thought I saw it had been sold to a company and the majority shareholder of that company was the same guy who already owned it? I may have been hallucinating of course as it was daft o’clock. I will have a look again later 

 

just checked and companies house has been updated. I cannot still see that this guy doesn’t exist. I think that’s nonsense. May well be a crook but I can’t see that he doesn’t exist 

Edited July 9, 20206 yr by Escobarp

1 hour ago, Ani said:

I think there was a point made on TV the other day that no takeover has ever been stopped by ‘fit and Proper’ tests. Not sure if true. But if you are saying EFL approve people as the only show in town the test is pointless. But like saying ok to get in a car with a pissed driver as no one else offered you a lift. 

Didnt Bassini fail the F&P test ?

2 minutes ago, ZiggyStardust said:

Didnt Bassini fail the F&P test ?

No he was asked to provide more proof of funding if he had anything but a letter on some scrap paper from david Sullivan (allegedly) we wouldn’t be looking forward to a bright future as a football club. It was that close 

9 minutes ago, Escobarp said:

No he was asked to provide more proof of funding if he had anything but a letter on some scrap paper from david Sullivan (allegedly) we wouldn’t be looking forward to a bright future as a football club. It was that close 

SO the EFL wouldnt allow the sale because he couldnt prove funding.

Whereas the fit and proper test includes the ability to prove funding.

Not sure what the difference is myself.

7 minutes ago, ZiggyStardust said:

SO the EFL wouldnt allow the sale because he couldnt prove funding.

Whereas the fit and proper test includes the ability to prove funding.

Not sure what the difference is myself.

Does it? Must be a different fit and proper test I’m thinking of then 

never mind

 

SO only reference I can find in it that could even be anywhere realistically linked to your point  is 3.5b but I’m not quite sure what It means if I’m totally honest 

Edited July 9, 20206 yr by Escobarp

34 minutes ago, ZiggyStardust said:

SO the EFL wouldnt allow the sale because he couldnt prove funding.

Whereas the fit and proper test includes the ability to prove funding.

Not sure what the difference is myself.

Fit and proper means you are not a cunt. 
funding means you have enough money to fund club I think for 2 years. 
 

You can pass one without the other. Bassini was rumoured to be ok to pass fit and proper as his previous exclusion and bankruptcies had been discharged/expired. Thinking about it it might have been in relation to the Newcastle takeover I heard that story so Premier League rather than EFL. 
 

As Mentioned in this thread definition of fit and proper seems to depend on financial plight of the club concerned. 
 

‘Yes let Uncle Jimmy babysit the kids no one else is available. ‘ 

Quote

"We at the EFL have a process that we need to go into any time there is a change of control at any club - not just one that has been categorised as being in crisis.

"We need to ensure that the incoming owners or those going to be responsible are able to pass our owners and directors test. Ultimately, (we check) the principles behind a takeover have got the sufficiency of funds to keep the club going and we are comfortable with where those funds are coming from."

Ken's pal, Shaun Harvey.

 

Not that I believe that they actually enforce it like.

38 minutes ago, Ani said:

 

 

‘Yes let Uncle Jimmy babysit the kids no one else is available. ‘ 

Not quite the right example 

It’s more a case of, let uncle Jimmy save the kids from drowning or let them drown instead 

Clearly this isn’t always the case, but I doubt Ken would have got the green light to take over at our place given his previous if the situation wasn’t dire 

Besides, in Wigan’s case, putting hindsight to one side, was anyone flagging this lot up as not being either fit or proper? I don’t recall hearing any complaints at the time. Financially speaking they tipped up with £40m up front and have been covering £1m a months losses for a sustained period. Way beyond what our current / previous owners have put in cash wise 

Fit and proper

You have to be able to trade as a business owner

Not guilty of money laundering , fraud etc

Not Disqualified as a company director 

Provide proof of running funds for 2 years.

Thats it. 

Obvious question...where was the proof of 2 years funding?

2 hours ago, Escobarp said:

Is this definitely true ? I haven’t looked for a few days. But I thought I saw it had been sold to a company and the majority shareholder of that company was the same guy who already owned it? I may have been hallucinating of course as it was daft o’clock. I will have a look again later 

 

just checked and companies house has been updated. I cannot still see that this guy doesn’t exist. I think that’s nonsense. May well be a crook but I can’t see that he doesn’t exist 

I’m far from an expert and presumably it is because he’s had no previous involvement in the UK, but the only things listed on Companies House for Au Yeung Wai Kay are Wigan related. Nothing comes up for him on Google pre-takeover. Like nothing at all. The money he used to buy the club was loaned by the previous owners at a high interest rate which is a little odd for what was put forward as a new ownership (the one from the previous ownership was conveniently delisted from the company taking over). One for the forensic financial types which it definitely isn’t me anyway.

A good number of their fans and Whelan can fuck off anyway. 

44 minutes ago, Leyther_Matt said:

A good number of their fans and Whelan can fuck off anyway. 

A good number?? - They can ALL Fuck off

Edited July 9, 20206 yr by Burndens Bogs

1 hour ago, Rudy said:

Fit and proper

You have to be able to trade as a business owner

Not guilty of money laundering , fraud etc

Not Disqualified as a company director 

Provide proof of running funds for 2 years.

Thats it. 

Doesn’t specify the 2 years proof of funds. Jsl 

1 hour ago, Casino said:

Obvious question...where was the proof of 2 years funding?

I’d imagine this becomes less imperative the more desperate the situation commands.

1 hour ago, Casino said:

Obvious question...where was the proof of 2 years funding?

He / they may be minted, but decided against putting any money into the club.

I can afford to buy a car on finance and could prove funds. Doesn’t stop me cancelling my direct debit and not paying a penny, if I was so inclined.

Mr grey, he doth protest too much

What colour do you get when you mix blue white and red?

2 hours ago, Rudy said:

Fit and proper

You have to be able to trade as a business owner

Not guilty of money laundering , fraud etc

Not Disqualified as a company director 

Provide proof of running funds for 2 years.

Thats it. 

didn't KA fail those two based on his previous?

3 hours ago, ZicoKelly said:

didn't KA fail those two based on his previous?

Doesn’t mean you won’t get it, just means there are other things the FA want to see. 

4 hours ago, Escobarp said:

Doesn’t specify the 2 years proof of funds. Jsl 

Yeah it’s not specific but they should be able to say yes, we have the bunce to operate.

Its all bollocks anyways, you could be a shocking business man with a bad record and it still doesn’t stop you from buying a club, they would just want measures or the right people in place to assist. 
 

If it’s a choice between a club going bust or someone not passing the test, they’re not gonna  let the club go, who’s gonna ever check if they passed it

5 minutes ago, Rudy said:

Yeah it’s not specific but they should be able to say yes, we have the bunce to operate.

Its all bollocks anyways, you could be a shocking business man with a bad record and it still doesn’t stop you from buying a club, they would just want measures or the right people in place to assist. 
 

If it’s a choice between a club going bust or someone not passing the test, they’re not gonna  let the club go, who’s gonna ever check if they passed it

I agree. I was just being a pedantic arsehole in response to other pedantic arseholes on here but not you 😁

1 hour ago, Rudy said:

Doesn’t mean you won’t get it, just means there are other things the FA want to see. 

They should probably change the name of the test from "fit and proper" to "better than nowt?"

10 minutes ago, ZicoKelly said:

They should probably change the name of the test from "fit and proper" to "better than nowt?"

Can you buy the club to save the league the inconvenience of a club going bust?

Welcome aboard

Just now, Rudy said:

Can you buy the club to save the league the inconvenience of a club going bust?

Welcome aboard

"Not only that, I'll let you use my restaurant for private functions at a reduced rate"

WIgan getting £500,000 from Brighton for an 18 year old who has made one appearance  this season.