Bowtime on Talksport

[Robsondinho]

Durham only acts like that to get a reaction which is for people to ring in and keep talksport going.

[paulmason]

Well then who are you to tell someone else to ignore legal advice and take a course of action that may cost them a huge amount of money?

Good point.

That means the fit and proper person test, is not really a fit and proper person test, its a test where if they fail it and promise they wont sue they will be banned, otherwise they pass it ?

[Bernie's Barnet]

Good point.

That means the fit and proper person test, is not really a fit and proper person test, its a test where if they fail it and promise they wont sue they will be banned, otherwise they pass it ?

Well the weakness in the test as I see it is that it fails to adequately address what do where there is a change in circumstances regarding current directors or shareholders.

They would not be damaging a club by refusing to allow a new director/investor on board if he fails the F&P test. But they clearly could be by forcing out an owner if there is no one else ready to buy him out or to step forward and fund the running of the football club. And given that the F&P test is supposed to protect a club rather than ruin it, that would be completely counterproductive anyway.

And legally, I don't know what power the FL have got to demand that a privately owned company should change ownership just because they decide they now don't like one of the owners. There is no law that states Flav must sell his shares because F1 have made a ruling about his suitability to compete in their competitions. My guess is that this may be the issue that has put the FL on the back foot. In which case, their F&P test is almost certainly proven to be a failure in regulating existing club owners.

[Robbo]

Durham only acts like that to get a reaction which is for people to ring in and keep talksport going.

Hmmm.

.......Nah, I'll leave it.

[paulmason]

Well the weakness in the test as I see it is that it fails to adequately address what do where there is a change in circumstances regarding current directors or shareholders.

They would not be damaging a club by refusing to allow a new director/investor on board if he fails the F&P test. But they clearly could be by forcing out an owner if there is no one else ready to buy him out or to step forward and fund the running of the football club. And given that the F&P test is supposed to protect a club rather than ruin it, that would be completely counterproductive anyway.

And legally, I don't know what power the FL have got to demand that a privately owned company should change ownership just because they decide they now don't like one of the owners. There is no law that states Flav must sell his shares because F1 have made a ruling about his suitability to compete in their competitions. My guess is that this may be the issue that has put the FL on the back foot. In which case, their F&P test is almost certainly proven to be a failure in regulating existing club owners.

Re: "There is no law that states Flav must sell his shares because F1 have made a ruling about his suitability to compete in their competitions"

Thats the problem, there is. It's supposed to be the FL's F&P test, which all owners and major shareholders sign up to. It states if you are banned by another sport you cant own the majority of the shares in a FL team. Which seems now just to be ink on a piece of paper.

[Factamondo]

true story.......i was at a media'awards; evening and durham was there and made a rather untoward comment to my 'date' for the evening......i politely enquired as to wish he'd like to comment further at the entrance of the venue............to which he hastily 'declined'......w.......anchor!

[Bernie's Barnet]

Re: "There is no law that states Flav must sell his shares because F1 have made a ruling about his suitability to compete in their competitions"

Thats the problem, there is. It's supposed to be the FL's F&P test, which all owners and major shareholders sign up to. It states if you are banned by another sport you cant own the majority of the shares in a FL team. Which seems now just to be ink on a piece of paper.

Quite possibly it might not be Flav who is contesting the FL ruling. Perhaps it's one of the other shareholders who perceives they have done nothing wrong, yet the FL ruling might damage the value of their shareholding, ever thought about that?

[brightonr]

Good point.

That means the fit and proper person test, is not really a fit and proper person test, its a test where if they fail it and promise they wont sue they will be banned, otherwise they pass it ?

Unless of course it is a ' fit & proper person ' test and they only act upon someone failing it, which as yet he has not done.

I know how disappointed you must be feeling Paul.

[Bernie's Barnet]

Unless of course it is a ' fit & proper person ' test and they only act upon someone failing it, which as yet he has not done.

I know how disappointed you must be feeling Paul.

And here's yet another perspective.

I know how concerned many rangers fans have been over recent weeks about the importance of ethics, morality and cheating in F1 and how it is all to be stamped out in every corner of every circuit in every continent.

Supposing the FL ban Flavio and force him to sell his shares. Supposing then that F1 decide next week it would suit their purposes to lift the ban on Flav and welcome him back into the fold. Do we think that the powers that be in F1 will give a toss about any subsequent law suits that may then head the way of the FL? I'd say the proverbial two hopes there; Bob & None.

[Fawny]

Durham only acts like that to get a reaction which is for people to ring in and keep talksport going.

Is the correct answer...........

I realised this years ago and gave up on talkshyte, one night Durham was saying Cantona "wasn't all that" and lo, the phone lines were jammed with ManU fans protesting.............job done. The man's a tw*t.