Maurice Watkins Should Be Removed From His Position With Immediate Effect

He can deny it all he wants, but representing clubs who are challenging FFP is a conflict of interest and as I think this something he would give more of his time to, there is no possible way he can act in the best interests of a club who support FFP.

 

100% agree

 

Or resign from the case. Either way definite conflict of interest here

 

He's a lawyer. Lawyers defend murderers and rapists, doesn't mean they support the acts they have done.

 

Not good
He needs to decide either way.

 

Not the point I'm making.

It's about a conflict of interest. By challenging FFP he is taking action that is detrimental to the best interests of his employer.

This example doesn't work that well but if you are talking about murderers it would be like defending a murderer and the victim was a family member.

 

Correct

 

No but a lawyer defending pardophiles couldn't be the figurehead of a children's charity

 

Agree completely. He should pick a side and have nothing more to do with the other side.

 

You're bang on. IF our position is the same as it was a couple of years ago. I hope it is, I hope we still support the financial fair play initiative and I hope we intend to stay within its parameters. If we do, then I can't see how Maurice Watkins can be our chairman and represent clubs who want FFP scrapped. I don't know whether it constitutes a conflict of interests, it certainly seems like it to me, but I'm sure some legal bod could weasel their way out of it. However, in the real world, it makes no ******* sense. Mr Watkins cannot act in our best interests and of those wanting FFP abolished at the same time. He just can't. If he succeeds in helping to overthrow the FFP rules then his actions would be detrimental to our club and who wants a chairman who does that?

That's all assuming we still support the FFP rules. Maybe we don't. We made a big song and dance about it a couple of years ago, but that was with a different board structure and a different CEO. Maybe we've changed our mind. In which case, no problem. Well, no problem apart from WTF?

 

It does seem a little impolitic of Mr Watkins though I doubt whether his firm are doing represents a conflict of interest in legal terms but in practical everyday folks terms it's not the best course of action given our stated support for FFP.

 

I'm not sure the club does (or even should) support FFP as it currently stands.

Yes, we made a big song and dance about it as an excuse to get rid of Robins and to slash the budgets but has anything actually improved as a result of it being in place? There's too many loopholes and no meaningful penalty for non-compliance (basically a fine, which is meaningless to a club determined to buy success).

Look at the numbers being reported by the likes of Bolton, QPR, etc and it seems to me like FFP is having no impact whatsoever, in which case it's possibly more detrimental to clubs like BFC who can't use the loopholes available to teams with a sugar-daddy benefactor or a complex corporate structure where the club is separated from a holding company.

I can appreciate the sentiment regarding the perceived conflict of interest. I just don't think it's all as clear cut as that, as I no longer see FFP as being good for BFC due to the flaws in its implementation.

 

I think it's too late for that as the conflict has already been established.

If he was forced to pick a side I think I know which one he would go for!

 

Support the interests of your wealthy clients and feather your nest accordingly? The other option would require a pair of giant balls.

 

The club needs to come out with a very clear statement explaining exactly where we stand.

Watkins is keen to point out there is no conflict as FFP may no longer be in our best interests. I don't agree with this. I was not aware of this but originally any money received from fines was to be shared amongst the FL clubs. This is no longer the case and is the reason why FFP might no longer be in our interests. To me this is irrelevant. The sole benefit of FFP for clubs like ours is that other clubs will not be able to rack up millions and millions of ponds of debt while we struggle on. That's all there is to it. A cash bonus is immaterial.

Time for Ben Mansford to comment.

 

Indeed it would. Does he have them?

 

FFP is not part of the law firms interests. They are representing clients who are wanting to challenge it. Lawyers will take on any case win or lose as it still commands a fee.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Get divorced and try to appoint the same solicitor as your wife.

 

I completely agree CT, he has to make a choice one way or another.

 

I'd like us to clarify the situation too. I agree with you about FFP and agree that where the fines go makes little or no difference (I'd prefer them to go to lower league clubs and keep the money within the game, but I'm not totally against the money going to charity). I want our club to continue supporting it. If they don't, I won't be happy about that, but it will mean that Mr Watkins is doing nothing wrong. And if they have changed their mind I'd like a full and frank explanation of why.