delay as to where

onewayup · Post by **onewayup** » Tue May 15, 2012 5:17 pm

i heard that we will not get to know where we are playing league wise till next friday, i wonder why.

Post by **loan_star** » Tue May 15, 2012 5:26 pm

What Denis Pinnegar said on tees tonight was slightly worrying!

Post by **mikkyx** » Tue May 15, 2012 5:27 pm

loan_star wrote:What Denis Pinnegar said on tees tonight was slightly worrying!

Do tell.

Post by **loan_star** » Tue May 15, 2012 5:29 pm

Something to do with rule 63 which places us in the northern league, unless rule 62 applies which means just the one extra relegation.
Basically they have been told rule 63 does apply to us but we can plead our case for rule 62 to apply instead.

MikeinBlack · Post by **MikeinBlack** » Tue May 15, 2012 5:33 pm

Does anyone know what Rules 62 and 63 actually are? Is it to do with Grounds? License? Financial irregularities? I have the feeling that things are being made up as we go along here.

Post by **loan_star** » Tue May 15, 2012 5:36 pm

Its to do with liquidated clubs and whether we are a phoenix or not, I guess its what they class as a phoenix as to where we end up.

MikeinBlack · Post by **MikeinBlack** » Tue May 15, 2012 5:38 pm

Hope they aren't taking advise from BBC Tees then!

Hilly · Post by **Hilly** » Tue May 15, 2012 5:38 pm

Given that we dont have a football share, it leaves us open to these sort of issues.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

onewayup · Post by **onewayup** » Tue May 15, 2012 5:43 pm

i think this is again down to raj holding on to the football share he said he'd signed to 1883.clearly not so.otherwise why are we asking for a new one.if he has signed it away where is it.

Hilly · Post by **Hilly** » Tue May 15, 2012 6:00 pm

onewayup wrote:i think this is again down to raj holding on to the football share he said he'd signed to 1883.clearly not so.otherwise why are we asking for a new one.if he has signed it away where is it.

Unfortunately he never said he had, he said he would. Unfortunately, like his 'loan', he didn't say that it was going to come with major stipulations.

Northern soul KTF · Post by **Northern soul KTF** » Tue May 15, 2012 6:06 pm

Think we're gonna start the next season with 25 point deduction for failing to complete CVA. Plus Two Division drop. That's on a good day, bad news delivered on a Friday oh dear!

Enigma · Post by **Enigma** » Tue May 15, 2012 6:13 pm

Hilly wrote:
onewayup wrote:i think this is again down to raj holding on to the football share he said he'd signed to 1883.clearly not so.otherwise why are we asking for a new one.if he has signed it away where is it.
Unfortunately he never said he had, he said he would. Unfortunately, like his 'loan', he didn't say that it was going to come with major stipulations.

He did though on radio tees the night before (I think) the original cva meeting was to be held, must have been a Thursday as it was the fans panel when our fan backtracked somewhat. Raj said he'd signed the letter which was with his solicitor - maybe it had conditions attached

I've been thinking all along that we'd be treated as a pheonix as we are all but in name and the FA will have seen through this smokescreen - you can't argue (or plead) the facts are plain for all to see which doesn't bode well. When have the FA acted leniently, at least where a small team are involved

al_quaker · Post by **al_quaker** » Tue May 15, 2012 6:19 pm

Northern soul KTF wrote:Think we're gonna start the next season with 25 point deduction for failing to complete CVA. Plus Two Division drop. That's on a good day, bad news delivered on a Friday oh dear!

Why 25 points?

AIDO · Post by **AIDO** » Tue May 15, 2012 6:21 pm

The FA ... they through everything but the kitchen sink at Southampton for two years running and look where they are now!

Darlo is Darlo ... The lower they put us, the more impressive our fight back will be. Decision day will be the first day of the rest of our footballing lives as Darlo fans. Bring it on, and let's get on with, what will be the inevitable resurgance to come.

Just think how good it will be to storm back with our community club and stuff it up the lot of em .... Evostick, Blue Square Yonder or even bloomin No Nails North.... put us where you like and watch us go.

Northern soul KTF · Post by **Northern soul KTF** » Tue May 15, 2012 6:26 pm

Very good archive article in the Gaurdian regarding Leeds. Interesting because the circumstances seem the same. Maybe the FA are taking a stance makes sence.

AIDO · Post by **AIDO** » Tue May 15, 2012 6:32 pm

Northern soul KTF wrote:Very good archive article in the Gaurdian regarding Leeds. Interesting because the circumstances seem the same. Maybe the FA are taking a stance makes sence.

... which is more than can be said for your posts fella ....

... It is "sense" by the way ... !

Northern soul KTF · Post by **Northern soul KTF** » Tue May 15, 2012 6:45 pm

Oh dear me. Thanks for that

Fibonacci0112358 · Post by **Fibonacci0112358** » Tue May 15, 2012 7:17 pm

MikeinBlack wrote:Does anyone know what Rules 62 and 63 actually are? Is it to do with Grounds? License? Financial irregularities? I have the feeling that things are being made up as we go along here.

Rule 63 is about contracted players registration.

Nothing to do with league placements.

wellindarlo · Post by **wellindarlo** » Tue May 15, 2012 7:26 pm

63 Clubs Ceasing to be Members

http://www.football-league.co.uk/regula ... 33_2125731

But this is football league!

Fibonacci0112358 · Post by **Fibonacci0112358** » Tue May 15, 2012 7:32 pm

wellindarlo wrote:63 Clubs Ceasing to be Members

http://www.football-league.co.uk/regula ... 33_2125731

But this is football league!

Yes, but these are the rules that the FA follow in these circumstances.

m62exile · Post by **m62exile** » Tue May 15, 2012 7:41 pm

Northern soul KTF wrote:Think we're gonna start the next season with 25 point deduction for failing to complete CVA. Plus Two Division drop. That's on a good day, bad news delivered on a Friday oh dear!

Well, that would have been a good post if it was anywhere near accurate.

Leeds Utd were given a ten point penalty the year they went in to administration as a championship club. They were relegated by virtue of finishing bottom (they would have been relegated even without the ten points as it happens)

The following year they played in League one 07-08 after failing to agree a CVA and starting as a "newco" (as we have done) and had a further penalty imposed for this in that season of 15 points. There were no penalty relegations in that instance, so were you get the two divisions and 25 points is beyond me.

To follow your logic and using Leeds as an example - we'd be playing in the BSN next season starting on -15.

However, the BSP rules on administration are much tougher, which is where the mandatory relegation comes in to it for not agreeing a CVA.

The press release of Jan 3rd from the football conference seems pretty clear that if no CVA is agreed by the AGM we would incur a further relegation - I have to say that I'd find any further punishment to be unfair - although I'm not counting any chickens..

AnthonyP · Post by **AnthonyP** » Tue May 15, 2012 8:25 pm

It's rule 6.3, not 63. To do with not owning a footballing share at the time the old company is liquidated. It is the last thing rs can ever do to us. Ever. ......

Post by **loan_star** » Tue May 15, 2012 8:34 pm

Maybe HM can hold back on the liquidation until we get a new share?

Secretspy · Post by **Secretspy** » Tue May 15, 2012 8:38 pm

MikeinBlack wrote:Does anyone know what Rules 62 and 63 actually are? Is it to do with Grounds? License? Financial irregularities? I have the feeling that things are being made up as we go along here.

I think the rules they are referring to are 6.2 and 6.3 on page 169 of the following document. Warning this information may not be suitable for those of a nervous disposition.

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/RulesandRegu ... 011-12.pdf

We can only hope that the FA are not following these rules to the letter as we have almost certainly missed the deadlines for applications and if 6.2 does not apply we may have to start at level 5 anyway the season after next.

Northern soul KTF · Post by **Northern soul KTF** » Tue May 15, 2012 8:43 pm

It's all very worrying, reading other articles further 15 points on top of the ten points deduction and if they follow the route they took on Maidstone Utd, Hornechurch and Scarbrough. The FA can demote us pretty much where they want. It's not looking good.

AIDO · Post by **AIDO** » Tue May 15, 2012 8:48 pm

AIDO wrote:The FA ... they through everything but the kitchen sink at Southampton for two years running and look where they are now!

Darlo is Darlo ... The lower they put us, the more impressive our fight back will be. Decision day will be the first day of the rest of our footballing lives as Darlo fans. Bring it on, and let's get on with, what will be the inevitable resurgance to come.

Just think how good it will be to storm back with our community club and stuff it up the lot of em .... Evostick, Blue Square Yonder or even bloomin No Nails North.... put us where you like and watch us go.

just in case you missed it ... let em do it ... this is Darlo ... we expect the worst cos we always get it ...

DL5 · Post by **DL5** » Tue May 15, 2012 8:57 pm

Secretspy wrote:
MikeinBlack wrote:Does anyone know what Rules 62 and 63 actually are? Is it to do with Grounds? License? Financial irregularities? I have the feeling that things are being made up as we go along here.
I think the rules they are referring to are 6.2 and 6.3 on page 169 of the following document. Warning this information may not be suitable for those of a nervous disposition.

http://www.thefa.com/TheFA/RulesandRegu ... 011-12.pdf

We can only hope that the FA are not following these rules to the letter as we have almost certainly missed the deadlines for applications and if 6.2 does not apply we may have to start at level 5 anyway the season after next.

Deadline for step 5 was 1st March or within 21 days of the old club ceasing to trade. What's the score with the old club then? have we still got time?

darlo2001uk · Post by **darlo2001uk** » Tue May 15, 2012 9:45 pm

So how does this tie in with the comment from 1883 yesterday that the meeting with the FA had been 'very positive'?

Surely not another comment that should never have been made?

AnthonyP · Post by **AnthonyP** » Tue May 15, 2012 10:05 pm

The meeting was very positive. Do you know what, sometimes people can be given too much information. The interview was on to allay peoples fears, due to the new decision date of next friday, rather than tomorrow (this wednesday).

People always panic when there is no transparency, yet panic when transparency is there.

The FA have their own agenda, without doubt, but there is nothing DFC can do about that, other than accept that they gave us a chance to put our side across, as well as possible.

At least we understand why they are considering putting us as low as Level 5. To do so would be crazy, but they have to consider it, as technically we are applying for a new football share (thanks to AN other) like a phoenix club would have to. Our circumstances have been put to them and we can do no more, other than steady our ship, raise as much money as possible and have an intensive look at what needs doing to Shildon's ground to make it ready for either Step 3, 4 or 5.

m62exile · Post by **m62exile** » Tue May 15, 2012 10:10 pm

Don't worry AnthonyP, darlo2001uk works for an international sports PR agency. Such quotes wouldn't have been acceptable on his watch.

Seriously, WTF do you expect 1883 to say? Can hardly come back saying it was a disaster.

Darlo Uncovered

delay as to where

delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where

Re: delay as to where