Stephen Bettis speaks to local Media

[ISZA ⚔️]

Overseas in pre season

Bochum was a success. Looking to do similar trip next season but probably not in Europe.

If it’s not in Europe it’s surely USA. If it’s USA how is it similar to Bochum

 

[Berkshire Blade]

If it’s not in Europe it’s surely USA. If it’s USA how is it similar to Bochum

Think that was in regards to the fans event in a local bar beforehand being part of the plan. So rules Saudi out

 

[ComedyClub]

If it’s not in Europe it’s surely USA. If it’s USA how is it similar to Bochum

Who knows, we might venture to Scotland. Will be good being outside Yorkshire/Derbyshire.

 

[Bladesman]

He was only critical of the owners. There’s more to the current problems than them. He could have put his neck on the line (when he did he pretty much got slapped down) but chose not to.

Look at the questions he picked regarding Wilder they were unnecessarily adversarial. Which would still mean Bettis who has a decent relationship with Wilder will still give a defence for.

 

[FMBlade1]

Was there anything about overseas scouting network/recruitment?

 

[RandomBlade]

If it’s not in Europe it’s surely USA. If it’s USA how is it similar to Bochum

Maybe Argentina then.

 

[Rufus T. Firefly]

The companies he’s the CEO of aren’t responsible for reporting the transfers.

Nothing wrong with asking his advice as a former director though, after admitting that they don't know about how things work on this side of the pond.

 

[Deadbat]

Again, SUFC Limited aren’t transferring any shares. (In fact the shares being transferred were those of Blades Leisure Limited)


As he wasn’t a board member of COH maybe they relied on other advice? I don’t know. If Staton hadn’t been trying to confirm - incorrectly - that the authorities were NOT informed, he should maybe have had a follow up on why the day late issue and how did that happen, but he quickly left that issue because his question and oft repeated claim was wrong.

Maybe he’ll use the FH Team account to clarify.

I think however it is dressed up, essentially the shares have been transferred from one company to another, companies that had, or have ownership of the football club, or Blades Leisure Limited. To say Bettis is nothing to do with COH is correct in terms of directorship but surely if the company he is CEO of, has such a significant change, in terms if transfer of shares, he would be involved or know - especially with his long tenure. And know we had to have things approved/agreed with the EFL?

As you say Staton should have followed up by asking why were they not informed (or agreed) before it happened.

It was unclear if the EFL had agreed to it and we just told them a day late or if we did it without agreement? It said we were in talks with the EFL for months. That gives me some hope we have not just bypassed everything?

Its just another mess where the owners seem to think they are above the rules and can just lawyer up to get away with not doing things properly. I think they have shown ao much naivety, maybe arrogance in so many decisions since they arrived.

 

[Pedro Verde]

He was only critical of the owners. There’s more to the current problems than them. He could have put his neck on the line (when he did he pretty much got slapped down) but chose not to.

What questions should he have asked with regard to Wilder ?

He asked about Wilders job is it safe (which you thought was naff)
He asked about recruitment with mentioning Wilders little black book and in particular the signing of Ayew

 

[Sean Thornton]

Nothing wrong with asking his advice as a former director though, after admitting that they don't know about how things work on this side of the pond.

Of course. As l said though, if Staton hadn’t believed and claimed more than once what Bettis has clearly said on air was false information there would have been an opportunity for a very good follow up question. However, the point was made about SUFC Ltd. No SUFC limited shares were transferred and so the football club would not be required to inform the EFL. That was for the owners/COH.

 

[Sean Thornton]

What questions should he have asked with regard to Wilder ?

He asked about Wilders job is it safe (which you thought was naff)
He asked about recruitment with mentioning Wilders little black book and in particular the signing of Ayew

He read out questions from fans. Did you believe he has no opinion or questions on the shitshow on the pitch as well as the boardroom?

It’s naff because everyone knows the answer.

 

[crucialkneeligaman]

Basically I took the interview to mean we have absolutely jackshit to be optimistic about in the near future.

 

[Rufus T. Firefly]

I know for a fact that the questions put to Bettis about Wilder were from a Man City fan.

 

[diplomat]

Summary,

Best moment when SB said Tortosa Ex Pats (aka El Accounto)s question about charges being levied against the Club by PA was a load of bollocks.

Legal/ EFL/IFR issues

IFR stated they did not feel it necessary to be informed of change to structure i.e 1919 share transfer provided owners remained in situ at top of family tree.

EFL were told 24 hours after 1919 share transfer occurred. They take the opposite view to IFR feel they should have been allowed to sign it off. They have stopped asking questions. They have known about this for 4 months. SB view if regulations have been breached charges would have been made by now. Legal advice remains confident no case to answer but still a risk of sanctions until EFL finally respond.

SB rightly dismissed the Southampton scenario where 10 points were deducted. COH was not insolvent whilst part of SUFC group. Saints holding company was hence the sanction. Owners will fight hard any sanction imposed.

Tim Ryan passed the EFL O and D Test again refuting media misinformation. Another fact the media got wrong is that the EFL are not concerned about Rosen and his previous company being liquidated.

The contractual dispute between United World and Rosen and co is a contractual dispute. Monies are owed. Owners feel it should be a lesser sum than the £35m quoted as outstanding. Parties continue to talk. SB has met with PA in the last 10 days.

Unfortunately no questions were raised about Tom Page action.

Club revenue/ recruitment

Club aim was to bring in £20m from player sales to meet SCR and bring down wage bill by £7m. That has been achieved. No need for player sales in JTW unless silly offers come in.

Talks with players/agents ongoing about contract extensions.

1 Loan available if team doing well owners would consider providing funds for new players otherwise its frees and loans.

Owners are discussing with 2 parties potential for new investment.

Dore

£1 million spent last 12 months. High level costings for planning application and public consultations ongoing. Land secured its now the cost of buildings. Designs completed.

Academy has been staffed up to CAT 1 standard.

BL Stand

Structural issues. Spent £500k so far to make it structurally safe. Will require extensive alterations next Summer.

Decision not to reopen for the moment in view of current attendances.

Alan Knill

It was a collective decision. SB and CW discussed it. Desire to provide a pathway for younger new coaches hence Mcsheffery and Collins being promoted.

Overseas in pre season

Bochum was a success. Looking to do similar trip next season but probably not in Europe.

Owners not looking to sell

No plans for this. Talking to potential investors. Value of club will have diminshed no reason to want to sell at moment.

A similar trip to Bochum but not in Europe. . . So not similar at all then !

 

[WORKSOPBLADE]

A similar trip to Bochum but not in Europe. . . So not similar at all then !

Istanbul.. Asian side ?? Morocco .. Africa.

Surely nearest to us.

 

[Sean Thornton]

I think however it is dressed up, essentially the shares have been transferred from one company to another, companies that had, or have ownership of the football club, or Blades Leisure Limited. To say Bettis is nothing to do with COH is correct in terms of directorship but surely if the company he is CEO of, has such a significant change, in terms if transfer of shares, he would be involved or know - especially with his long tenure. And know we had to have things approved/agreed with the EFL?

As you say Staton should have followed up by asking why were they not informed (or agreed) before it happened.

It was unclear if the EFL had agreed to it and we just told them a day late or if we did it without agreement? It said we were in talks with the EFL for months. That gives me some hope we have not just bypassed everything?

Its just another mess where the owners seem to think they are above the rules and can just lawyer up to get away with not doing things properly. I think they have shown ao much naivety, maybe arrogance in so many decisions since they arrived.

Firstly l agree to a great extent to the final paragraph. I’m not certain some decisions won’t come back to bite us.

There is no change whatsoever to SUFCL. The ownership hasn’t changed. BLL owners have changed by virtue of a share transfer. That’s the only change affecting them. BLL’s day to day running is exactly the same. As is the football clubs.

Bettis seemed willing to play down any animosity (my word) saying they were “talking”. A court case will no doubt turn into a cat fight as we saw in McCabe v UW.

 

[Bartleby]

Overseas in pre season

Bochum was a success. Looking to do similar trip next season but probably not in Europe.


Isle of Wight Is lovely in July…

yeah I was unsure how to interpret it - further afield than Europe or staycation?

 

[Rudders]

yeah I was unsure how to interpret it - further afield than Europe or staycation?

Moon. To fetch Simmo’s pen.

 

[William Large]

Staton has clearly got the tit on because the owners wont talk directly to him. Im not a Bettis fan at all, but thought he fended hog off quite well.

Staton definitely is mardy that the owners won’t speak to him.
Love how he tried to make an issue out of Rosen not adequately answering a question about points deduction. Bettis pointed out that he gave a clear reply that we would not face one.
I thought it was a fairly decent interview on the whole.

 

[Deadbat]

Firstly l agree to a great extent to the final paragraph. I’m not certain some decisions won’t come back to bite us.

There is no change whatsoever to SUFCL. The ownership hasn’t changed. BLL owners have changed by virtue of a share transfer. That’s the only change affecting them. BLL’s day to day running is exactly the same. As is the football clubs.

Bettis seemed willing to play down any animosity (my word) saying they were “talking”. A court case will no doubt turn into a cat fight as we saw in McCabe v UW.

But aren't SUFCL owned by Blades Leisure Ltd?

The Parent Company of SUFCL is 1919 is it not?

This is the company whom Eltoukhy and Rosen set up to transfer shares from COH.

I think the defence will be its the same owners and as you say, no changes to the day to day running but its clear there are issue with how it has been done or Bettis wouldn't have been so cagey on points deductions/action. Why didnt we get approval or why did we tell them after we transferred the shares / told them a day later? Essentially thats the issue seemingly and there has to be qs asked of all of the board, including Bettis, if the EFL sanction us for that.

I think the duspute between Abdullah and the new owners over what is owed and alleged discrepancies with what they found related to finances, will run and run. Not sure thats really relevant to EFL as is a commercial dispute.

 

[Silky Sabella]

This whole thread is more intense than reading War and Peace!
In a nutshell, what is the conclusion going forward regarding the owners and wilder.
Answers on a postcard will do nicely thank you!

 

[Silky Sabella]

This whole thread ismore intense than reading War and Peace!
In a nutshell, what is the conclusion going forward regarding the owners and wilder.
Answers on a postcard will do nicely thank you!

 

[Sean Thornton]

But aren't SUFCL owned by Blades Leisure Ltd?

The Parent Company of SUFCL is 1919 is it not?

This is the company whom Eltoukhy and Rosen set up to transfer shares from COH.

I think the defence will be its the same owners and as you say, no changes to the day to day running but its clear there are issue with how it has been done or Bettis wouldn't have been so cagey on points deductions/action. Why didnt we get approval or why did we tell them after we transferred the shares / told them a day later? Essentially thats the issue seemingly and there has to be qs asked of all of the board, including Bettis, if the EFL sanction us for that.

I think the duspute between Abdullah and the new owners over what is owed and alleged discrepancies with what they found related to finances, will run and run. Not sure thats really relevant to EFL as is a commercial dispute.

You’ve moved on to the actual transfer from what was originally a point about Bettis responsibility as CEO of SUFC.

The shares of BLL were the subject of a transfer. The limited company itself played no part in it.

 

[RandomBlade]

This whole thread is more intense than reading War and Peace!
In a nutshell, what is the conclusion going forward regarding the owners and wilder.
Answers on a postcard will do nicely thank you!

Listen to the interview. Its fairly straight forward.

 

[FriethBlade]

I was surprised as on the whole I thought it was a decent interview. Staton pressed Bettis on a number of issues and I thought Bettis largely held his own and explained the issues related to the potential points deduction well.

One question that Staton should have asked when Bettis talked about sales being down to complying with the SCR rules was although selling Gus, Brooks and COH adds to the allowable income surely any cost savings of their wages disappearing have been more than offset by bringing in Phillips, BBD, Jairo, Choudhury, Doherty etc and does Bettis believe bringing this kind of player in is a good use of the wage bill.

 

[CaptainMorgans]

You’ve moved on to the actual transfer from what was originally a point about Bettis responsibility as CEO of SUFC.

The shares of BLL were the subject of a transfer. The limited company itself played no part in it.

Without getting into the technicalities of your original discussion, I do think it's a valid question to be asked of Bettis as CEO.

 

[Darlington82]

my summary

EFL may have face on with us, but Yanks lawyers think we are ok. Betis did not give his personal view.

Prince and Yanks squable is Yanks wanting to renegotiate and pay less. Betis did not give a view, but interestingly he did meet the Prince last week. My guess to try and smooth things over, sound out the Prince on getting involved again in some capacity.

No need to sell anyone else this season. But I guess any good offer would be considered as there will be a shortfall next season.

Wilder will be here unless things get real bad , again my view, but Betis did make the point about the injuries and there is no doubt we would be better with One, Serki and Burrows available, who all had offers made of them in the closed season.

BL upper and Dore will progress slowly until we find some cash.

Personally I hate how Yanks do business in general, thinking they are smart (like Trumpty Dumpty) and I hope the Prince does them over.

On the pitch its going to be a long season, unless someone clicks (One for example).

 

[Snowflake]

Racking my brain over pre-season but not in Europe. Could they be heading for America?

Curaçao ?

 

[Champagneblade]

Not one question on Wilder, don't be fooled by Rob's pressing. You can see Radio Sheffield agenda from the outset.

This is why I don't rate the local press, not that we didn't get some answers from Bettis but they are all most likely similar ones he had just given Danny Hall.

There is a limit though isn’t there.

Rob “just how long has the manager got left if we lose against Lincoln?”

Also Rob “so, Chris me old mucker, any news for the weekend? Mood in the group? Feeling positive?”

Not going to cut their own throats with the manager are they?

 

[Sean Thornton]

Without getting into the technicalities of your original discussion, I do think it's a valid question to be asked of Bettis as CEO.

Ask his opinion yes (whether you’d get one is another matter) but the actual responsibility would appear not to be his. Ask if he knows why it was a day late yes. Ask if he was tasked to do the work rather than just assuming he’s not acted properly.

Asking him why Ryan is a director on the official site and as confirmed by him accepted as fit and proper by the EFL but not registered at Companies House. He’s not listed at the EFL directors list either but that’s so far out of date it includes the other gang who resigned months ago, would also be relevant.