By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
"Finally, I want to say a big thank you to all the staff at the Club, some who have been working throughout lockdown, some recently returning to work, and the majority who are still furloughed."
Some of whom have been working THROUGHOUT lockdown. His words.
17. "The key events took place in April to July 2021"
What has 2020's lockdown got to do with the key event period?
What has an unsubstantiated pay cut (over what period?) got to do with the key events period?
During the key events period at the EGM/AGM on 1st June, he was twice asked to advise if he took a pay rise in the financial year in question and twice replied between 10 and 15%, both answers challenged by a resigned Director.
54. ...Moreover, although the commission has read all relevant material, and taken into account everything which could FAIRLY have a bearing on our decisions on sanctions (and costs), there is a huge amount of detail which need not be mentioned at all in this decision.
147. ...the commission accepts..(iv) the good character references WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN CHALLENGED IN THESE PROCEEDINGS
What is the likelihood that the huge amount of detail contained conflicting references? I doubt very much that the Club would not have provided information contrary to what Ms or Mr Anon provided, yet this was admitted and included in the decision of the disciplinary commission.
Something about the FAIRNESS element in clause 54 is just not right. No way the club would not challenge - given the opportunity - character references.
Why is the former CEO deemed to have made oversights. But a current director is deemed to have deliberately misled the EFL and there is no doubt that this is the case? I know it refers to different scenarios. But seems unfair DB can use the oh silly me I forgot defence and others can't.
'Only happy when you've got it often makes you miss the journey'
EFL verdict in full on 18:28 - Oct 21 by James1980
Why is the former CEO deemed to have made oversights. But a current director is deemed to have deliberately misled the EFL and there is no doubt that this is the case? I know it refers to different scenarios. But seems unfair DB can use the oh silly me I forgot defence and others can't.
It has occurred to me that Tony Pockney may have been stitched up here.
Grindrod was a Bottomley acolyte and left the board.
Tony Pockney bought into what shareholders voted for and I would imagine refused to sell to MH when others did.
It's just a thought that there is more to this than meets the eye.
It has occurred to me that Tony Pockney may have been stitched up here.
Grindrod was a Bottomley acolyte and left the board.
Tony Pockney bought into what shareholders voted for and I would imagine refused to sell to MH when others did.
It's just a thought that there is more to this than meets the eye.
Probably stating the obvious here. Surely an urgent meeting between the trust and club is needed with Tony present. I expect one is already being arranged.
'Only happy when you've got it often makes you miss the journey'
I'm still wrestling with the relative imbalance in this case.
On the one hand, the Club pleaded guilty to a breach, which was inadvertently committed because it was bound by the incompetence of its then CEO. The shareholders acted to halt matters, but it seems the 'Club' is regarded as the same as the 'CEO' - his actions were its actions. The counter-actions of the Club's owners - the hundreds of shareholders - were utterly disregarded.
On the other hand we have the then-CEO, who also pleased guilty to a breach, but which seemed to be mitigated by the guilty plea and the craven acceptance by the panel that, because the man 'forgot' or 'thought he had already submitted' the forms, is treated more favourably.
A character reference should have been rendered inadmissible in this matter.
Others have commented about Bottomley's attempted ingratiation into the EFL over the years, some of which was quite obvious even ahead of this fiasco. This does seem to have elements of the EFL marking its own homework.
I do take your point about the length of the punishment ban.
I am just pointing out that among all the soft-soaping emotive obfuscation are the facts that the regulatory body has deemed his actions as a SERIOUS breach and that they consider it requires a SUBSTANTIAL ban.
Do not lose sight of the dim view taken amidst all that dewy-eyed narcissism.
Now, regulatory bodies and heavy sanctions do tend to feature prominently on some CVs, do they not?
Indeed they do
And i take your point about the serious nature of the ban
Taking those two points together, it'd be highly unlikely that Bottomley's snakeoil would be swallowed by any other football club (and we're here to remind any potential fools) so in effect, he's finished
And not just in football. In the end, that's all that matters
the headline is bottomley has a 2 year ban from football. that for now is a result and a good one. few will read the minor details and the headlines will haunt him as that's what others will see. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
3
EFL verdict in full on 14:29 - Oct 24 with 3231 views
The more I read that report... the more I am inclined to believe Tony Pockney.
Time to move onwards and upwards... hopefully!
What do you mean by believe, Marjorie? I’ve a bad short term memory so I only remember parts of the report so has Mr Pockney made a statement elsewhere that I’ve missed?
0
EFL verdict in full on 16:58 - Oct 24 with 2964 views
What do you mean by believe, Marjorie? I’ve a bad short term memory so I only remember parts of the report so has Mr Pockney made a statement elsewhere that I’ve missed?
I don't think he's made a statement elsewhere...
Freda and I, over a glass of sherry of course, have chatted long and hard about the report and we can't get over how much it leans towards casting David Bottomley as some sort of victim. It's quite sycophantic in places and I feel nepotism or the dark forces of fraternal organisations in full flow. Plus the fact that Mr. Bottomely was also on an EFL working group.
Yet the report castigates Mr Pockney, calls him a liar and informs us he misled the investigation by stating he wasn't aware of Currans involvement until the bomb went off in July 21.
We don't know what the EFL had in terms of physical evidence, e.g. an email that Mr. Pockney had replied to acknowledging Curans involvement. The report states they obviously interviewed Mr. Bottomley and his very good friend, Mr. Grindrod. They both stated Mr. Pockney was aware, which they would do wouldn't they. The allegation by many was that Mr. Bottomley acted alone with AJ & MH in those negotiations, so they both would want to tell the EFL everyone else was aware.
I know I'm old and doddery but we both agree that there's something niggling us.
0
EFL verdict in full on 17:18 - Oct 24 with 2908 views
It was Tony Pockney who, not long after being appointed to the Board, made the presentation to a Fan's Forum regarding the facts and figures behind the belief that only an influx of funds from a source external to the club could put us on a stable financial footing
It was viewed at the time in quite a positive light, since he (Pockney) came across as having a refreshingly honest and frank approach. There were posts made on here to that effect; i made one of them
Whatever Bottomley was up to as CEO between that point and the Spring of 2020, it was his remit to be fully involved in any negotiations. I find it incredulous that he would have no involvement with whichever parties Bottomley was touting the club around to
If it is indeed the case that he didn't, he was negligent on the job, just as Rawlinson was in other regards. (It can be accepted that Andrew Kelly's ill health meant his attention was elsewhere)
So which is it? Was Pockney negligent, or was he involved with the takeover talks? If it's neither, how?
I've taken on board the points made in his favour, not least his actions since the new board was constituted under Simon Gauge, including his contribution to the securing of the rogue shares. I wasn't aware of their friendship, but that shouldn't have any bearing on the running of the football club, of which we as fans and more importantly shareholders all have a stake
If Pockney remains the right man in the right place, the above issue needs - imo - to be settled in a satisfactory manner. We can then move forward in the way we need to do without any lingering suspicions
Freda and I, over a glass of sherry of course, have chatted long and hard about the report and we can't get over how much it leans towards casting David Bottomley as some sort of victim. It's quite sycophantic in places and I feel nepotism or the dark forces of fraternal organisations in full flow. Plus the fact that Mr. Bottomely was also on an EFL working group.
Yet the report castigates Mr Pockney, calls him a liar and informs us he misled the investigation by stating he wasn't aware of Currans involvement until the bomb went off in July 21.
We don't know what the EFL had in terms of physical evidence, e.g. an email that Mr. Pockney had replied to acknowledging Curans involvement. The report states they obviously interviewed Mr. Bottomley and his very good friend, Mr. Grindrod. They both stated Mr. Pockney was aware, which they would do wouldn't they. The allegation by many was that Mr. Bottomley acted alone with AJ & MH in those negotiations, so they both would want to tell the EFL everyone else was aware.
I know I'm old and doddery but we both agree that there's something niggling us.
We certainly do Marjorie. I’m very uncomfortable with some of the posts on this thread from some people but I’ll keep it to myself for now.
1
EFL verdict in full on 17:28 - Oct 24 with 2885 views
I appreciate the status quo is 2 a season, and we've already had one - but since that time we have:
- A new manager & assistant manager - New director(s) on the board - Share issue resolved - EFL outcome delivered - Mortgage on the ground settled (I can't remember if that was before or after the last forum)
I'd really like to see a well advertised forum, free entry and available to watch online, less 'sanitised / filtered' questions and the full board & management team in attendance.
The unbelievable work from the board and a united fanbase to save the club now needs to be capitalised on. Warts & all being discussed at a forum, challenges raised and answered, and an opportunity to thank the board / trust too, can only be a good thing. Transparency and integrity are key pillars of our club moving forward, and a brilliant forum gives an opportunity to nip any outstanding niggles in the bud.
0
EFL verdict in full on 17:30 - Oct 24 with 2880 views
It was Tony Pockney who, not long after being appointed to the Board, made the presentation to a Fan's Forum regarding the facts and figures behind the belief that only an influx of funds from a source external to the club could put us on a stable financial footing
It was viewed at the time in quite a positive light, since he (Pockney) came across as having a refreshingly honest and frank approach. There were posts made on here to that effect; i made one of them
Whatever Bottomley was up to as CEO between that point and the Spring of 2020, it was his remit to be fully involved in any negotiations. I find it incredulous that he would have no involvement with whichever parties Bottomley was touting the club around to
If it is indeed the case that he didn't, he was negligent on the job, just as Rawlinson was in other regards. (It can be accepted that Andrew Kelly's ill health meant his attention was elsewhere)
So which is it? Was Pockney negligent, or was he involved with the takeover talks? If it's neither, how?
I've taken on board the points made in his favour, not least his actions since the new board was constituted under Simon Gauge, including his contribution to the securing of the rogue shares. I wasn't aware of their friendship, but that shouldn't have any bearing on the running of the football club, of which we as fans and more importantly shareholders all have a stake
If Pockney remains the right man in the right place, the above issue needs - imo - to be settled in a satisfactory manner. We can then move forward in the way we need to do without any lingering suspicions
[Post edited 24 Oct 2022 17:22]
If you take into account the EFLs view of our weak/absent corporate governance at the time, it would be no surprise that things were hidden.
Should the exchange of funds between MH and the shareholders been subject to money laundering guidelines?
How can anyone think DB genuinely loved the club. When he was prepared to facilitate the sale people who were quickly shown to be somewhat dubious with a few internet searches?
Also if he loved the club why did he sell his shares? Why did the director who is being a cited as mendacious mis-leader of the EFL keep hold of his share holding?
'Only happy when you've got it often makes you miss the journey'
EFL verdict in full on 08:29 - Oct 25 by James1980
Somethings I was thinking about.
Should the exchange of funds between MH and the shareholders been subject to money laundering guidelines?
How can anyone think DB genuinely loved the club. When he was prepared to facilitate the sale people who were quickly shown to be somewhat dubious with a few internet searches?
Also if he loved the club why did he sell his shares? Why did the director who is being a cited as mendacious mis-leader of the EFL keep hold of his share holding?
Hospitality?
1
EFL verdict in full on 18:11 - Oct 25 with 2088 views
Freda and I, over a glass of sherry of course, have chatted long and hard about the report and we can't get over how much it leans towards casting David Bottomley as some sort of victim. It's quite sycophantic in places and I feel nepotism or the dark forces of fraternal organisations in full flow. Plus the fact that Mr. Bottomely was also on an EFL working group.
Yet the report castigates Mr Pockney, calls him a liar and informs us he misled the investigation by stating he wasn't aware of Currans involvement until the bomb went off in July 21.
We don't know what the EFL had in terms of physical evidence, e.g. an email that Mr. Pockney had replied to acknowledging Curans involvement. The report states they obviously interviewed Mr. Bottomley and his very good friend, Mr. Grindrod. They both stated Mr. Pockney was aware, which they would do wouldn't they. The allegation by many was that Mr. Bottomley acted alone with AJ & MH in those negotiations, so they both would want to tell the EFL everyone else was aware.
I know I'm old and doddery but we both agree that there's something niggling us.
The more I read this report the more I think the Fact the EFL have ignored the events surrounding the EGM (point 29 says it had no bearing) totally baffles me.
It seems the whole board were involved in trying to sell the club in April /May. They were touting that they could sell 51% shares to give potential owners control.
Now that on its own there’s nothing wrong with that, but in order to get this through they needed to get approval via a motion at an EGM. They advertise the fact and put it to shareholders. It seems that the EFL give a lot of weight on those events as part of a deal with Curran.
However that deal died with the EGM. Shareholders refused to give their backing to the motion. Indeed it was pulled. Therefore Morton house had no deal.
The other event at that EGM was the removal of botters as a director. This was due to concerns by shareholders about events at the club. This it appears the EFL deems irrelevant.
What happens next for me is the key. Curran does deals with individual shareholders with a view to getting 51% of EXISTING shares without the backing of the club. This is a completely different deal to the original negotiations with the club. The question should be who knew what about the 2nd deal. Botters knew, if he was still dealing with Jarvis , it was against the shareholders wishes.
Kelly knew as he was going to sell. Did he tell the new directors? There were directors on board who knew of Currans interest in May, they even met him, but as far as they were concerned that deal was dead. Did they know of the other deal?
The EFL seem to see the obtaining of the shares in July to be a continuation of the negotiations in May and it isn’t. To me what happened at the EGM has a massive bearing.
Before the EGM the club was trying to sell 51% the EGM stopped that after EGM the club wasn’t.
We may never know who knew what. What we know is who sold to Curran Andrew Kilpatrick, the yanks, botters and rawlingson. None on the board, none at the club. All individual deals, all profited.
Others could have cashed in but when push comes to shove they didn’t. Maybe that’s enough that we can draw a line?
[Post edited 25 Oct 2022 21:16]
0
EFL verdict in full on 20:35 - Oct 25 with 1908 views
Fans Forum March 10 2021, Pockney mentions Inbound finance at about 40m in but there is no suggestion that any of the schemes or people involved are particularly serious and indeed he dismisses them. So was Bottom continuing to talk to some ridiculous people and didn't mention it to Pockney knowing he didn't like them and wasn't interested?
Pockney....."We have had some ridiculous offers from some ridiculous people and marched them down the road"
0
EFL verdict in full on 20:57 - Oct 25 with 1868 views
The more I read this report the more I think the Fact the EFL have ignored the events surrounding the EGM (point 29 says it had no bearing) totally baffles me.
It seems the whole board were involved in trying to sell the club in April /May. They were touting that they could sell 51% shares to give potential owners control.
Now that on its own there’s nothing wrong with that, but in order to get this through they needed to get approval via a motion at an EGM. They advertise the fact and put it to shareholders. It seems that the EFL give a lot of weight on those events as part of a deal with Curran.
However that deal died with the EGM. Shareholders refused to give their backing to the motion. Indeed it was pulled. Therefore Morton house had no deal.
The other event at that EGM was the removal of botters as a director. This was due to concerns by shareholders about events at the club. This it appears the EFL deems irrelevant.
What happens next for me is the key. Curran does deals with individual shareholders with a view to getting 51% of EXISTING shares without the backing of the club. This is a completely different deal to the original negotiations with the club. The question should be who knew what about the 2nd deal. Botters knew, if he was still dealing with Jarvis , it was against the shareholders wishes.
Kelly knew as he was going to sell. Did he tell the new directors? There were directors on board who knew of Currans interest in May, they even met him, but as far as they were concerned that deal was dead. Did they know of the other deal?
The EFL seem to see the obtaining of the shares in July to be a continuation of the negotiations in May and it isn’t. To me what happened at the EGM has a massive bearing.
Before the EGM the club was trying to sell 51% the EGM stopped that after EGM the club wasn’t.
We may never know who knew what. What we know is who sold to Curran Andrew Kilpatrick, the yanks, botters and rawlingson. None on the board, none at the club. All individual deals, all profited.
Others could have cashed in but when push comes to shove they didn’t. Maybe that’s enough that we can draw a line?
[Post edited 25 Oct 2022 21:16]
Sorry but I’m not having this “we should draw a line under it “ and “the club is ok now and that’s all that matters”.
If that’s the case why are we still mentioning Botters (rightly so btw) and Curran etc? Are we forgetting how fans were spoken to when Botters’ pay rise was mentioned at the AGM? Something stinks here.
0
EFL verdict in full on 21:15 - Oct 25 with 1802 views
Sorry but I’m not having this “we should draw a line under it “ and “the club is ok now and that’s all that matters”.
If that’s the case why are we still mentioning Botters (rightly so btw) and Curran etc? Are we forgetting how fans were spoken to when Botters’ pay rise was mentioned at the AGM? Something stinks here.
It wasn’t meant to read like we should draw a line under it. I meant that last statement as a question.(my mistake and have edited).
I am fuming the EFL seems to think the club knew about this deal all along.
My points were:
Why did the EFL not treat what happened before and after the EGM as different incidents? Who knew what was happening after the EGM and why didn’t they speak up if they had the interest of the club at heart? AND if they knew is not selling enough to draw a line under it?
I don’t know if there’s a case for further people to leave the club but for me what is important is the full story needs to come out. This EFL report almost gives Bottemley a ‘it was a technicality and the club knew what I was doing’ get out of jail card.
[Post edited 25 Oct 2022 21:17]
0
EFL verdict in full on 21:26 - Oct 25 with 1773 views
It wasn’t meant to read like we should draw a line under it. I meant that last statement as a question.(my mistake and have edited).
I am fuming the EFL seems to think the club knew about this deal all along.
My points were:
Why did the EFL not treat what happened before and after the EGM as different incidents? Who knew what was happening after the EGM and why didn’t they speak up if they had the interest of the club at heart? AND if they knew is not selling enough to draw a line under it?
I don’t know if there’s a case for further people to leave the club but for me what is important is the full story needs to come out. This EFL report almost gives Bottemley a ‘it was a technicality and the club knew what I was doing’ get out of jail card.
[Post edited 25 Oct 2022 21:17]
Wasn’t a pop at you mate, but I’m really struggling to understand this Pockney love in. It’s in the report that he “deliberately mislead the EFL” and defended Botters’ self awarded pay rise during a time when people were really, really struggling due to the aftermath of covid lockdowns.
As said, I’m really uncomfortable with it but if it’s the choice of the board and him that he continues in his role there’s not much I can say that will change their mind. I doubt I’ll see anything that will change my mind and, as ever, time will tell if I’m correct.
0
EFL verdict in full on 21:53 - Oct 25 with 1721 views
Wasn’t a pop at you mate, but I’m really struggling to understand this Pockney love in. It’s in the report that he “deliberately mislead the EFL” and defended Botters’ self awarded pay rise during a time when people were really, really struggling due to the aftermath of covid lockdowns.
As said, I’m really uncomfortable with it but if it’s the choice of the board and him that he continues in his role there’s not much I can say that will change their mind. I doubt I’ll see anything that will change my mind and, as ever, time will tell if I’m correct.
Anyone who was present at the infamous June 1st EGM will have been horrified at his performance.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
