Unofficial Halesowen Town FC Forum

Steven Lynch, Halesowen Town FC
Three breaches of FA Rules – (i) it is alleged that Lynch breached signed undertakings in that he failed to disclose that he remained ‘interested’ in Halesowen Town FC; (ii) it is further alleged that contrary to the Owners’ and Directors’ Test Regulation 3.1.3 Lynch acted as a Director/Officer at times between January 2012 and January 2015 without written confirmation being given to the club by the Association; and (iii) it is further alleged that Lynch acted in an improper manner on 3 February 2012 when entering into a loan agreement on behalf of Halesowen Town FC.

Lynch has until 9 December 2016 to respond.

Halesowen Town FC
Nine breaches of FA Rules:
1. Breach of FA Rule E1 (f) – it is alleged that the club, having given signed undertakings to The FA, breached those requirements in that it failed to disclose that Steven Lynch remained ‘interested’ in the club.
2. Six breaches of FA Rule E1 (e) – alleged breaches in relation to participation in competitions when Steven Lynch or his associate was ‘interested’ in the club as well as a second club without prior written consent.
3. Breach of FA Rule E1 (b) – it is further alleged that contrary to FA Rule I (1) (g), the club entered into a loan agreement on 3 February 2012 without the documentation being signed by the two club officials or management committee members independent of the party extending the loan.
4. Breach of FA Rule E1 (b) – it is further alleged that contrary to FA Rule I (1) (c) (i), the club prepared company accounts for the period 1 October 2011 to 30 March 2013 in which items on the balance sheet did not include the corresponding amount for the immediately preceding financial year.

Halesowen Town FC has until 9 December 2016 to respond.

RaidenYeltz wrote:I guess the above would explain the recent apparent cost cutting in playing staff.

RaidenYeltz wrote:I guess the above would explain the recent apparent cost cutting in playing staff.

Noggin wrote:I understand that Graham Bean's charges are not exactly low

HalesowenHarry wrote:Considering the FA are involved, you're very unlikely to get a reply on here I'd have thought. It could leave him open to more charges. So, yes, I imagine silence is the answer. Doesn't stop supporters maybe thinking about working together again? Remember 8 years ago?