Coventry City eviction notice


I've mentioned one case in which the purchasers, regardless of personal dealings, got through on money and money alone. The O&D test is non existent if if can be circumvented with money.
which case?
money is one of the main criteria for passing the test..there are no ethical considerations..why would there be?
Bassini was banned retrospectively after selling Watford if I recall it right, I did see you posted some other examples though.
yes banned after selling watford but trued to buy other clubs subseuqntly
 
which case?
money is one of the main criteria for passing the test..there are no ethical considerations..why would there be?

yes banned after selling watford but trued to buy other clubs subseuqntly
Why then was Abramovich forced to sell up? Wasn’t money, it was ethics.
If Bull Shitter William was minted but achieved that money through dodgy dealings he could pass the test?
 
Why then was Abramovich forced to sell up? Wasn’t money, it was ethics.
If Bull Shitter William was minted but achieved that money through dodgy dealings he could pass the test?
the league didnt force abramavhich to sell up..
and it wasnt ethics it was legalities...
Why then was Abramovich forced to sell up? Wasn’t money, it was ethics.
If Bull Shitter William was minted but achieved that money through dodgy dealings he could pass the test?
if william storey had achieved through didgy dealinsgs and not been convicet he would pass...but he hasnt the money he is bankrupt...
 
cellino failed the test during his ownership because he for a conviction..ie he passed because he had no conviction..then got a convictions o failed and so sold up
east street investment smight have covered up why they couldnt buy the club by saying it was a different issue..but three of them failed the test

Wrong. His disqualification was defered after he appealed. He was then acquitted of the tax invasion offence so he returned to the board at Leeds. He sold his stake in Leeds willingly. IIRC, he said he would sell his stake because he didn't think he could fund them for a push into and survival in the PL. He offered shares to the LUST but there was a big hoo-ha over it and in the end Cellino ended up buying the rest of the shares making him sole owener. It was only when Radrizzani offered him a crazy amount of money that he sold.
 
Wrong. His disqualification was defered after he appealed. He was then acquitted of the tax invasion offence so he returned to the board at Leeds. He sold his stake in Leeds willingly. IIRC, he said he would sell his stake because he didn't think he could fund them for a push into and survival in the PL. He offered shares to the LUST but there was a big hoo-ha over it and in the end Cellino ended up buying the rest of the shares making him sole owener. It was only when Radrizzani offered him a crazy amount of money that he sold.
so he did fail the test because of a conviction? when he won his appeal that meant he was eligible to pass the test again so did?
ie he did fail the tes..which was an example i was asked to provide.
 
so he did fail the test because of a conviction? when he won his appeal that meant he was eligible to pass the test again so did?
ie he did fail the tes..which was an example i was asked to provide.

You said loads had failed it. There's no evidence that "loads have failed it." You also said Cellino was forced to sell Leeds because he failed the test. He wasn't and actually went on to buy more shares from GFH Capital making him the sole owner before he willingly sold (50% at first) Leeds to Radrizzani
 
You said loads had failed it. There's no evidence that "loads have failed it." You also said Cellino was forced to sell Leeds because he failed the test. He wasn't and actually went on to buy more shares from GFH Capital making him the sole owner before he willingly sold (50% at first) Leeds to Radrizzani
so i cited multiple examples including cellino who failed it...
others dont fail because they are advisedby lawyers in advance to not even attempt to...or who realise they dont want to be investigated...
 
so i cited multiple examples including cellino who failed it...
others dont fail because they are advisedby lawyers in advance to not even attempt to...or who realise they dont want to be investigated...

The multiple (three) cases you cited, 2 actually passed the test on more than one occasion, one actually bought more shares in a club becoming the sole owner after you said he was forced to sell the club after failing the O&DT. Incorrect.

Just admit that you got it wrong man. :lol:
 
The multiple (three) cases you cited, 2 actually passed the test on more than one occasion, one actually bought more shares in a club becoming the sole owner after you said he was forced to sell the club after failing the O&DT. Incorrect.

Just admit that you got it wrong man. :lol:
eh? all three failed the test. thats all I was asked. And sho me evidence the east street people passed it?
the test is a constant..ie if the owner of a club got a conviction tomorrow...they would brech it...there is no permanent pass or indeed permamnent fail.
 
eh? all three failed the test. thats all I was asked. And sho me evidence the east street people passed it?
the test is a constant..ie if the owner of a club got a conviction tomorrow...they would brech it...there is no permanent pass or indeed permamnent fail.

Show me evidence that "loads have failed it". Show me evidence that Cellino was forced to sell Leeds after failing the test. You can't because you're making it up.
 
The multiple (three) cases you cited, 2 actually passed the test on more than one occasion, one actually bought more shares in a club becoming the sole owner after you said he was forced to sell the club after failing the O&DT. Incorrect.

Just admit that you got it wrong man. :lol:
He never will. Complete delusional rsole.
 

Back
Top