Latest National League farce

[Nathan]

 

?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ?  ? 

[Reading Rebel]

Oh dear, the farce continues.

An independent panel set up by the NL has found all the step 2 clubs who failed to fulfill their fixtures guilty and fined £2,000 per game not played.

A 30% reduction was offered to the clubs who accepted the charge ahead of the hearing.

Clubs can appeal to the FA.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2021 by Reading Rebel

[Irishadrian]

Also given a two points deduction per game suspended They charged us  over four games I suppose we get a £8000  fine

Edited March 26, 2021 by Irishadrian

[Irishadrian]

Hit hardest is Dover  fined £40000 and must start next season on minus 12 points

[Irishadrian]

All the Dover  results have been expunged but they were so poor it hasnt changed  the top or bottom of the table

[Sir Rebel1965]

"An independent panel set up by the NL" - of puppets to do the NL's dirty work for them - this stinks!

 

Can STFC apply to go back to level 3 and away from this bunch of cowboys who put players and staff safety at the bottom of the list of priorities, after money and egos!

 

The NL are a discrace!

[Kaiser Gibbs Batman (KGB)]

Contribution to a current Ollie Bayliss Twitter thread on this subject,

"If clubs really can't find 8K they have no business playing in National League"

 

[Reading Rebel]

8 minutes ago, Kaiser Gibbs Batman (KGB) said:

Contribution to a current Ollie Bayliss Twitter thread on this subject,

"If clubs really can't find 8K they have no business playing in National League"

 

Of course some clubs could find 8k whether it's by taking it out of next seasons budget or by taking a loan but why should they when this situation has come about through no fault of the clubs.

The NL keep harping back to the fact that they have had to take these measures because those are the rules and to protect the integrity of the league but the rules seem to have been bent when it's suited the NL and as far as the integrity of the league goes that flew out of the window a long time ago starting with the farce when the grants were unfairly dished out and more recently with clubs being allowed to furlough players and play weakened sides.

 

[Reading Rebel]

For those interested this is the Dover Chairman having his say on the farce created by the NL.

He say's they won't be paying the fine and will be taking legal action.

http://www.doverathletic.com/news/chairman-on-radio/

[Sir Rebel1965]

"If clubs really can't find 8K they have no business playing in National League"

 

So it is all about money and not about football or player safety!

 

 

[glyn]

Who was on the independent panel  or are we not allowed to ask

[Rebellier]

34 minutes ago, glyn said:

Who was on the independent panel  or are we not allowed to ask

Exactly, who are they and did they contact any clubs to get their side of the saga?

[Reading Rebel]

4 hours ago, glyn said:

Who was on the independent panel  or are we not allowed to ask

Just have to trust the integrity and honesty of the league to have selected a totally independent panel that were not family members or friends who were rewarded handsomely for their totally unbiased decision. 

Edited March 28, 2021 by Reading Rebel

[sdelaney]

Not once in the National League statement on our official website does it say we understand that the country was in lockdown due to a pandemic especially Slough who  from October to February were in the highest tier and because of this the fine will be suspended and not inforced.

I.m sure the National League board have been living on another planet over the last year.

[Reading Rebel]

There was a really simple and easy way out of this for the NL under their own constitutional wording of clubs having to have 'just cause' for not playing a game.

Plenty of valid reasons to apply the 'just cause' scenario but for some reason they've chosen to just ignore it.

   

[Curtis]

If my understanding is correct (and please let me know if I have got this wrong) the NL are saying that clubs who cancelled matches (for whatever reason) incurred less costs than those who followed their requests to continue fulfilling matches. And as such, the clubs who cancelled matches would have received a financial advantage over those who complied with their instructions.

Is that a reasonable conclusion by the NL? Would we, for example, have saved costs on ground usage, salaries, travel etc by cancelling these matches?

If so, then there probably should be some method of redress, but issuing fines to clubs that had valid just cause for cancelling the matches is not the right way to do it.

[SloughFlyer]

Couple of points I'd say are -

1. If a global pandemic, health and safety of players and serious financial issues (possibly affecting the survival of a club) are not "just cause" I wonder what would be?

2. As per Oly Bayliss twitter there is a letter arranged by Maidstone and Dorking looking at a vote of no confidence in the NL board and looking at an EGM being held. Are we as a club getting on board with that vote?

 

[Reading Rebel]

7 hours ago, Curtis said:

If my understanding is correct (and please let me know if I have got this wrong) the NL are saying that clubs who cancelled matches (for whatever reason) incurred less costs than those who followed their requests to continue fulfilling matches. And as such, the clubs who cancelled matches would have received a financial advantage over those who complied with their instructions.

Is that a reasonable conclusion by the NL? Would we, for example, have saved costs on ground usage, salaries, travel etc by cancelling these matches?

If so, then there probably should be some method of redress, but issuing fines to clubs that had valid just cause for cancelling the matches is not the right way to do it.

Of course it goes without saying that once the grant money finished at the end of December clubs who played on until the season was null and voided would have incurred more costs than those who decided to end their season. This was obviously a choice that individual clubs made according their own particular circumstances.

Certainly no advantage as far as income coming into the club because there wasn't any.

As far as us saving money on ground usage, I would imagine that would depend on what agreement we have with the council in as far as paying the ground rent whilst the ground has not been in use. 

Edited March 29, 2021 by Reading Rebel

[Shredding Green]

5 hours ago, Reading Rebel said:

Of course it goes without saying that once the grant money finished at the end of December clubs who played on until the season was null and voided would have incurred more costs than those who decided to end their season. This was obviously a choice that individual clubs made according their own particular circumstances.

Certainly no advantage as far as income coming into the club because there wasn't any.

As far as us saving money on ground usage, I would imagine that would depend on what agreement we have with the council in as far as paying the ground rent whilst the ground has not been in use. 

National League clubs asked to back no confidence motion against board and Brian Barwick

By Simon StoneBBC Sport

Last updated on7 hours ago7 hours ago.From the sectionNational League

Seven of 23 National League clubs wanted to end the season early when they voted on the issue in February

National League clubs have been asked whether they will back a no confidence motion against the league's board and chairman Brian Barwick.

The proposal has been made by Maidstone United, and seconded by National League South side Dorking Wanderers.

It comes amid growing discontent about numerous decisions involving the National League which have created huge controversy.

All 66 member clubs have been asked to respond by 12:00 BST on Wednesday.

A letter sent by Maidstone and Dorking says it needs 10% of clubs to back an emergency general meeting at which the no confidence vote would be taken.

It lists 11 areas of contention, including Friday's decision to fine clubs who refused to abide by a National League request to fulfil fixtures until the outcome of resolutions into the determination of the 2020-21 season were known.

Earlier this month National Leagues North and South were declared null and void after many felt it was impossible to continue the campaign while matches had to be played behind closed doors.

Having started the season thanks to a £10m National Lottery grant, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said from January onwards, funding to continue the season would be in the form of loans.

"Football at our level is in major crisis at present," said the letter.

"The management of the crisis by the National League board has been inadequate from the beginning. It is now the subject of widespread anger and ridicule."

The National League has been approached for a response.

[Shredding Green]

Just now, Shredding Green said:

National League clubs asked to back no confidence motion against board and Brian Barwick

By Simon StoneBBC Sport

Last updated on7 hours ago7 hours ago.From the sectionNational League

Seven of 23 National League clubs wanted to end the season early when they voted on the issue in February

National League clubs have been asked whether they will back a no confidence motion against the league's board and chairman Brian Barwick.

The proposal has been made by Maidstone United, and seconded by National League South side Dorking Wanderers.

It comes amid growing discontent about numerous decisions involving the National League which have created huge controversy.

All 66 member clubs have been asked to respond by 12:00 BST on Wednesday.

A letter sent by Maidstone and Dorking says it needs 10% of clubs to back an emergency general meeting at which the no confidence vote would be taken.

It lists 11 areas of contention, including Friday's decision to fine clubs who refused to abide by a National League request to fulfil fixtures until the outcome of resolutions into the determination of the 2020-21 season were known.

Earlier this month National Leagues North and South were declared null and void after many felt it was impossible to continue the campaign while matches had to be played behind closed doors.

Having started the season thanks to a £10m National Lottery grant, the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport said from January onwards, funding to continue the season would be in the form of loans.

"Football at our level is in major crisis at present," said the letter.

"The management of the crisis by the National League board has been inadequate from the beginning. It is now the subject of widespread anger and ridicule."

The National League has been approached for a response.

I think I am correct that this is the first time that the name of National League chairman Brian Barwick has been publicly mentioned during this crisis. To me, he appears to have been a totally non-operational figurehead overseeing this crisis. I suspect that he is taking the Rugby League World Cup is much more seriously.