Sheff6

William Shawcross has been at this since May 2nd this year. That's five months ago. How long does he need to conduct his inquiry into someone who faced a pre-appointment grilling by a cross party committee in May where the subject of his past donations were dealt with, concluding in the chairman saying:- "Excellent. Thank you very much Mr Kogan, it has been a great pleasure to meet you today. Thank you for answering all our questions. For me, Shawcross is making a mountain out of a molehill and moving at a snails pace whilst our situation's going from bad to worse with DC doing as he damn well likes. You can tell from Clive Betts' wording of the Early Day Motion that he and his fellow MPs are tearing their hair out at the situation.

Apparently 'Secondary Legislation' needs to be passed to allow the regulator to fully enforce the Football Governance Act. If you cut and paste into Google:- when will secondary legislation be passed to fully enforce the Football Governance Act ...it will give you chapter and verse on it

I'd say yes it is, especially if, in the next few days, he somehow finds money he owes creditors who loaned him millions on the surety of the ground. It's due end of this month + 7 days grace. So if he finds money for that, to retain his assets, but not to pay wages due to players and employees ......

Yes you're right. I've lived and worked in the area for 44 years and can confirm that both Cleethorpes Town and Grimsby Town play away every week. Grimsby's ground is in the borough of Cleethorpes and Cleethorpes' ground is in the borough of Grimsby.

Cretins who did that to you

So many to think of unfortunately. Probably the worst was watching us lose to Everton in the FA Cup final when I was 15. My Dad died less than two years later aged only 43. At least he enjoyed Wednesday winning the FA Cup when he was 11 in 1935 but I so wish he'd witnessed us winning the Cup again in what was to be his last few years of life.

It's a misconception that DC can't be touched by the IFR under the Governance Act because he now seems to be paying his way and has back-paid his dues to HMRC and wages to staff and players The obvious harm he's caused to the club and what SWFC and we the fans right now have to endure, and live through, cannot be rowed back in time. He's many things but he's not a time traveller and neither are we In just one aspect alone, the harm extends to 2027 and we still have the expected points deduction penalty to come. We may also yet enter administration. His policy of selling his best players to pay wages is unsustainable and has contributed to the stock of the club entering freefall on a number of levels. Our very existence is now very much on the line because of him. The Football Governance Act is predicated on football clubs being financially soundly managed and that the interests of fans are central to the running of the club. There are more to cite, but those are key red lines you now don't cross if you're an owner and expect to get away with it. We can pontificate all we like about the IFR not being able to do this or that to DC, but instead of talking the IFR down we need to be talking them up and engaging with them in their consultation. There's a section in the form to choose the club you support. The more of us joining in as Owls fans will send them a message about what their number 1 priority should be, if that was ever in doubt. There's a final section to add any further comments about the IFR's approach. Just let them know what you're going through and how you want the Regs to have teeth and be implemented to put an end to that kind of misery. There's nothing more powerful or stimulating to a legislator, about to go into battle, than getting what the cause is all about through knowing the feelings of the people they'll be fighting for

Chansiri was still in default on late payments to his players and employees when the Football Governance Act became law on 21st July. He'd not back-paid by then, so he was still carrying this baggage with him when he walked through that 'time gate', consequently becoming liable for it, at that point, under the new law. And if there was any lingering doubt about the law being applicable to him only after coming into force by 21st July, he defaulted again at the end of July on payments on time and in full to staff and players. This allows the IFR to investigate root causes and effects and take them into account i.e. the history of late payments to HMRC and late wages payments four months out of five in 2025 directly related and linked, in cause and effect, to what he was instantly liable for when the Act became law. The IFR can enforce the law (in building a case for an owner removal order) by itemising his explicit non compliances with the Act but they are also permitted to take the line, as written into the Act, 'or are treated as having determined' that a person is unsuitable to be an owner or officer of a regulated football club. This is a catch-all provision which allows obviously harmful mismanagement acts and omissions to be taken into account, not explicitly stated in the Act, but obvious in fact. It's very similar to the legal doctrine used to prove negligence in accident and injury cases, Res Ipsa Loquitur, which means that 'it speaks for itself' the harm caused by the actions of the person whom we hold accountable.

Don't know why this didn't come up as an active link when you typed it out in full above. I've done the insert-link thing with the text if that helps.

Yeh I meant it as his deliberate avoidance strategy which is execrable behaviour. No doubt he's suffered not one bit of change in lifestyle through all this.

That's what I read too. We continue to be kicked while we're down, as a club and fan base, whilst the culprit's living under a rock somewhere away from it all

I do hope you're right mate. I'm only going on a figure from a regular poster on company finances, some time ago, but I'd be happy if it was more than that

He must have paid something back on this in the past because the debt went up by £161.7k in 2021, down by £440k in 22, up by £590k in 23 and up by 578.7k in 24; payable total of £7.3m in Sept. 25. Difficult to work out what is going on exactly with Charges going up and down like a fiddler's elbow but he clearly owes on this and he might yet suffer a permanent stubbed toe if he tries kicking the can again

I was thinking exactly the same. If I remember rightly, from a post some time ago, the interest is going to be about £1m isn't it? So I think he's also stuffed even if he does somehow pay it because the IFR will clock that, in their case about him being an unsuitable owner They'll see he's capable of finding money to protect his assets all of a sudden but not such a priority to pay his staff and players' wages on time and in full

How does a Premier League side lose to a team of kids from a club that's a tier of football below them?? Farke knows!!

That process of new ownership may begin as soon as 30th September if events on that key date line up

I think so too. When the Football Governance Act became law on 21st July 2025, DC was still in a state of default on the June payment of due wages to his full-time employees (FTE's), his fixed term contractors (players) and monies owed to other football clubs and the HMRC. He'd not put any of it right by then. So this was culpable baggage in real time he was carrying with him as he went through the 21st July 'time gate' of the Governance Act being made law, that made him liable for it. He then goes and does the same thing, end of July, not paying staff nor creditors what they were owed. This lets the IFR in, at least from when the law was passed 21st July. They will investigate forensically to establish the root causes of the mess. Those causal roots extend a long way back, but they can still cite them, in evidence, where relevant to the present day mess he's responsible for. It will all add to the case against him of being an unsuitable owner, warranting an Owner Removal Order.

Come 30th Sept this year, it may not be Chansiri's ground to sell. Not talking about any new bid for club-and-ground combined, or what IFR can and can't do. - but what's revealed in the 11 pages of the New Avenue Projects Ltd thread on here. Includes knowledgeable input from members on Corporate Finance matters related to DC's ownership of Hillsborough via Sheffield 3. What DC set up 5 yrs ago and he (and others) said 'was not an issue', then, is shaping up to be a major one for DC now, to quote Owlstalk. Won't take you long to zip thru it and if you've not seen it before, the info' in there is a revelation and all relevant to the topic of this thread.

Have you read through the 11-page Topic on here entitled: New Avenue Projects Ltd? It's of direct relevance to your OP. I would especially recommend looking at the specialist input from Kobayashi and the ensuing interaction on that thread. I'd also focus on Companies House extracts on Sheffield 3 on thread pages 8 and 10, related to a growing debt, stemming from what DC did 5 years ago. What was stated as "not a problem", 5 yrs ago. appears to be now as very much a potential problem to DC. From Section 9 in one of those extracts, it shows that what happens on September 30th, plus an allowance of 7 days, is key to the ownership of Hillsborough.

These are Sections 38 and 39 of the Law as written in the new Football Governance Act 2025. I'd also recommend you read Section 43 on Ownership Removal Orders. When the Football Regulator makes an assessment of an owner's suitability to remain an owner, in plain speak, they judge them on their honesty, integrity and financial soundness as defined in Section 28 which also applies to prospective New Owners. If you fail the assessment on these legal requirements, you are determined as being an unsuitable owner. You will be served with an owner removal order and will have to obey that by a due date. Trustees being appointed in your place by the IFR. An honest owner with integrity doesn't fail to pay wages and taxes, on time and in full, on multiple occasions, and deny payment to creditors, including other clubs etc - all the while keeping everyone in the dark and in misery about what's going on. Doesn't matter if DC has eventually paid up. They still remain as strikes against him in terms of honesty and integrity within the legal definitions of the Act. And that leads to question marks about his financial soundness. There's chapter and verse on that and according to a statement by Clive Betts MP, in Parliament, DC's business ventures, such as they are, are all making a loss. Then there's the additional 'catch-all' phrase in Section 38(1), about the IFR being "treated as having determined" that an owner is unsuitable. This means that the Football Regulator can disqualify a club owner not only when they directly conclude the owner is unsuitable, under Section 28, but also where the owner's circumstances or actions logically and rationally define him as unsuitable. It's like saying his very obvious negligent actions speak for themselves, warranting the serving of a removal order.

This is exactly what I think To me he's the Prince Andrew of the Chansiri family, with a sense of entitlement and respect he feels he's due that's off the scale He 's as badly behaved and spoilt as PA, treating people like dirt in the same way and he's going to hard crash land in the same way. Just a matter of time.

It's amazing we've functioned at all as a football club under Chansiri. If you think of him as a total negative force, which he is, how much positivity has everyone had to put in, just to exist day to day The most remarkable achievement the club has accomplished these past years is survival under this piece of work

Captain Scarlet says Expect The Unexpected whilst he and his chums take cover behind the sofa to watch the match from there Be like Captain Scarlet and friends!

You too brother. If, on that point, NAP can't do the necessary on DC, I don't mind who the lender legitimately instructs to pull the financial trigger on him, on the lender's behalf. In that happy event, we can only hope that DC cannot come good on his promissory note, which will land him right in the barbed wire and sticky stuff. Our only restraint on unbounded joy, if that comes about, is the potential 'iceberg' that Kobayeshi refers to in the screen shot of his post below. I don't know how to pull a quote from another thread any other way than this. He's referring to the fact that it will be an unknown quantity whom the ground will be sold to, in the above scenario. I don't intend to discuss that on here. Best left to and followed up in the New Avenue Projects thread, but it's something to think about.

I really don't know where you're coming from with this. You are arguing against yourself about where the loan would show up in accounts from what you've said before and stating in other places what is accepted already as though it's countering what I say. For clarity: DC, in his own words, needed to spend some money in 2020 so he borrowed (£6.4m) via a finance intermediary New Avenue Projects Ltd. He was required to provide surety on the loan in the event he couldn't pay it back, so he put his asset - the ground - up as this surety. The debt was allowed to be rolled from one year to the next with just the interest on it being paid by DC. On Sept. 30th this year, it comes due again to the tune of £7m+. The Lender(s) have a choice to make. Do they roll it over again and allow DC to just pay interest or do they call in the whole of the loan? We don't know what they're going to do but in Chansiri's current financial circumstances, they could well call in the whole debt. The hope is that they will do because the terms of the charge on the ground in Companies House are clear to see below in Section 9 of the document on this charge. Link takes you to the page on which a 7-page pdf needs to be opened. It allows the Lender to sell the surety DC used on the loan (the ground) in order to obtain the money owed to them if DC cannot repay the debt on time and in full This would in effect place DC outside any negotiation in selling the ground. The hope is that this will play out in this way because what he'd be left with would be the ability to negotiate on the sale of the club only, not club and ground. Anything that can place DC in a worse position than he's in already, would be a good thing, which is what this thread was about in the first place.