Is This Why the Essex Senior League Are Supporting Vince McBean?

I have read, with some amusement and disbelief, the twitter exchanges between the Essex Senior League account @essexsenior and various others (mainly, but not exclusively, supporters of Clapton) concerning Vincent McBean’s club and I was particularly interested in the exchanges relating to it's actual constitution.

What is apparent that many supporters and indeed, even the Essex Senior League, have very little understanding of what the actual position is.

This is hardly surprising in the case of the former, as Mr McBean has run and collapsed a number of limited companies that purported to have been Clapton FC, since he arrived.

Some years ago, supporters wrote to the Essex Senior League asking for clarification on the legal entity that was playing in their competition as Clapton Football Club.  It was a league rule that clubs should disclose this either on their website or in the match day programme.  Needless to say, at the time, McBean’s club did neither.

The response from the ESL was less than helpful and, in essence, they refused to enforce their rule.   One wonders why this was such a guarded secret.

In the twitter thread, a supporter talks of fans not being able to influence the club because they were not shareholders.  This would be correct if McBean’s club was a Limited Company and, given the on-going confusion on who or what is Clapton FC, this error is perfectly understandable.

It should be said that McBean’s website now describes his entity as an unincorporated association.

But the response from the ESL was quite interesting. "This is one of the main issues - being a fan, paying an entrance fee - does not entitle you to a share in any decision making and/or profits unless you’re a shareholder.”

With respect to whoever is running the ESL twitter account, (said to be ‘the Committee’) ‘shares and shareholders’ are not an issue in the Clapton case.  An unincorporated association would normally have members but, as we know, Vince McBean closed the membership six years ago for “restructuring”.  One may speculate that his was clearly to protect his position within the entity as its been the same old same old, ever since.  (Note : he has posted a written on-line denial that he was the owner of Clapton FC)

But I can fully understand why the Essex Senior League Committee are so confused in thinking that shareholders are an issue as far as Clapton Football Club are concerned..

This is because not so long ago the Essex Senior League were accepting and banking cheques from the Santander bank account of Clapton Football Club Limited. At the time they should have been fully aware that this was not the legal entity of the ‘member club’.

Nonetheless, the Essex Senior League continued to bank cheques from the company after it had been struck off, dissolved and no longer legally existed.

The assets of any struck off/dissolved company immediately becomes ‘bona vacantia’ (property of the Crown) and therefore this money was not theirs to accept.

This use of shell companies, and fraudulent transactions such as this, clearly smacks of money laundering, and is most certainly, false accounting and tax evasion.  A casual inspection of the bank statements of McBean’s Clapton FC Limited, reveals that the company traded quite actively before and after dissolution, although it never actually filed accounts at any time.

Nonetheless the Santander bank account in the name of Clapton Football Club Limited remained active until 2014.

Given the amount of unbridled support for Mr McBean in the Essex Senior League twitter feed, is it just a co-incidence that their determination to keep him afloat, not enforce their own rules, and consistently bat away any criticism of him, is founded more on the concern that their financial transactions with Clapton Football Club Limited, if revealed, may implicate them in future investigations regarding Mr McBean?

One thing is for sure, such behaviour, whether it be naivety, or by assisting or failing to disclose/report such financial misconduct, is not that which should be expected, at the very least, of a Senior League.  (described at page of this season's ESL Handbook as a 'Senior Attitude'.)

One wonders what sanctions and financial penalties the Essex Senior League would have meted out to other member clubs if those clubs had been involved in such financial skullduggery?

The Clapton Petition. Why Would I Sign?

I think most of us with an interest in non league football in London and Essex are aware of the recent developments at the Spotted Dog ground. Simply put, the landlords, Heineken UK, have repossessed the ground because the rent has not been paid. For me, that's totally understandable and straight forward enough.

In response, an on-line petition has been launched, addressed to Heineken UK, asking people to sign in support of Keeping Clapton Football Club at the Old Spotted Dog Ground.

At the time of writing just over 400 people have signed the petition.  However, I wonder how many of those signatories are actually mis-informed or have signed due to sentiment.

The first fear to allay is that Heineken have clearly stated that they have no intention of the ground being used for any other purpose than leisure and sporting activities which benefit the local community.  So we can forget yuppie housing being built on the site. It should also be remembered that the football ground has been designated as an Asset Of Community Value, and as such, is safe from developers.

Therefore the question is, who will occupy the ground as tenants/lessees?  The petition asks you to sign to show support for Vincent McBean's Clapton FC.  However, his club are entwined with the recently evicted company, Newham Community Leisure Limited who Mr McBean also mismanaged and took into liquidation.

The script of the petition page is interesting for a number of reasons.  

• There is no mention of Vincent McBean the CEO of Clapton FC  who was a director of Newham Community Leisure Limited before he placed it into liquidation.  In addition, Clapton club secretary Shirley Doyle and team manager Wilfred Thomas signed documents as members of NCL to support this action.
• The Charity Commission launched a statutory inquiry into Newham Community Leisure Limited in 2013 and I cannot imagine this is undertaken lightly and it could only have been done in the face of serious allegations of misconduct by trustees/directors/ members, who include Mrs Doyle, Mr Thomas and Mr McBean.
• The petition blames the Charity Commission for not allowing the terms of the lease to be met (payment of rent).  This is also misconceived, as Vince McBean, Shirley Doyle and Wilf Thomas will know that the assets of the company are under the control of the liquidator who was appointed by Mr McBean to administer the liquidation.

As for terms of the lease, Mr McBean will need no reminding that he, and other trustees, have been fined by Newham Council for causing, and the continuance of, public nuisance to neighbours and local residents through loud music being played in the early hours of the morning.  This, of itself, is a breach of the terms of the lease and could result in forfeiture. 

Licensing is not a strong suit for the Vincent McBean's Clapton as, older supporters will know, there was no liquor licence at the ground until 2009.  So that's at least four years of Essex Senior League officials, players and supporters enjoying hospitality at Mr McBean's 'illegal drinker'.  This is a breach of the terms of the lease and could result in forfeiture.

Putting this aside, were McBean's club good tenants?  Judging by what I have seen of the clear up at the ground since the repossession, I don't think so.  Rubbish skips are bursting to the seams with refuse, some looking like it had been previously fly tipped.  I also recall the old urinals piled behind the scaffold stand and imagine that they have also found their way into the skip. Keeping the ground is such a lamentable state is breach of the tenant's covenants in the lease and could result in forfeiture.

I am also aware that Newham Council visited the ground in August 2017 and served notices on Mr McBean due to the dangerous state of the ground due to building spoil littering the public areas.  Once again, this is a breach of the lease and could result in forfeiture.

So, had the landlords been aware of the above, they could have reasonably removed the lease from Newham Community Leisure at any time.

But, fellow non league supporters, let's be honest, were it not for the location, (an oasis of old school football in the middle of a residential area) and the history connected with the name of Clapton Football Club, would we be as unforgiving of a ground in such a poor and potentially dangerous state of repair.  For example, imagine if there was a pile of old urinals stacked at the side of the stand at Cricklefields or Wadham Lodge or a pile of hardcore and glass in the spectator areas of Oakside or Catons Lane?  Would the ground grading gods sit back and ignore it as they clearly have for some time at the Spotted Dog..

I have purposely not referred to Vince McBean's personal antecedents in running charities and companies  That is all over the internet and on public record.

As for the demise of the 140 year old club, this is total folly as Vincent McBean suspended Clapton Football Club in 2000.  He formed a new entity, Clapton Members Club whose constitution is that which is lodged with the Football Association. The interest in Clapton FC, a members' club, has remained with the life members of that organsiation.

So, I hope those who propose to sign the petition understand why I will not do so.  I appreciate the sentiment behind wishng to sign the petition, but be assured, the ground is safe and is not longer being used for personal gain as opposed to being a community asset.  Its a case of the landlords finding a responsible, democratic, local community based entity to run it, for the good of Newham.

To reinstall Mr McBean and his friends as tenants would be like inviting guests to your home who, when they previously stayed with you, defecated and then wiped it up the walls.

I'm not sure that is what any responsible landlord would want to happen.  One can only imagine what the cost of the clear up and making secure has cost them on this occasion and I am sure they would not want to repeat the process.