Kettering Town

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

lo36789
Posts: 9223
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Kettering Town

Post by lo36789 » Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:38 pm

spen666 wrote:
Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:07 pm
LoidLucan wrote:
Fri Feb 05, 2021 11:59 am
They probably felt playing one practice match wouldn't threaten their survival in the way that playing the rest of the season without income or with crippling loans would.
Why play the practice match- travelling to a club in NLS to play it and then less than 48 hours later refuse to play any games in the NLN.
They were happy to incur the costs of playing a meaningless friendly in the middle of a suspension of the league season

Seems a tad inconsistent.
There are different costs from playing a friendly than a competitive fixture.

a) players may not be paid for friendlies
b) match officials will have been local. Many do friendlies for free.
c) no hospitality / security / stewarding

A friendly BCD is a glorified training match.

User avatar
Makka Pakka
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:27 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Newton Aycliffe

Re: Kettering Town

Post by Makka Pakka » Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:57 pm

dfcdfcdfc wrote:
Fri Feb 05, 2021 10:41 am
This will be the same Fylde who wanted last season to be Null and void when they were about to be relegated :oops:
I trawled through the news stories on the Fylde website and didn't pick up this vibe. They were unhappy about being relegated on ppg and considered legal action about that decision but didn't take it in the end.
"At a meeting held at the Grammar School on Friday last - Mr Phillip Wood M.A., in the chair - it was resolved to form an Association Football Club for Darlington and neighbourhood. The opinions of those present were so unanimous as to the desirability of this step, that a committee was formed to complete the organisation of the club, and Mr Craven, 17, Garden Street, was appointed secretary pro tem." - The Northern Echo, Monday 23rd July 1883

LoidLucan
Posts: 3449
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by LoidLucan » Fri Feb 05, 2021 1:13 pm


User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Fri Feb 05, 2021 1:17 pm

LoidLucan wrote:
Fri Feb 05, 2021 12:37 pm
You need to read their statement. The main thrust of it is the very real financial threat to their future if the league carries on without income or with crippling loans. You're making too much of a one-off fitness match requested by Oxford. It didn't threaten Kettering's future.

It was Spen's biblical hyperbole that annoyed me. He can be annoying.
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

User avatar
Makka Pakka
Posts: 1252
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:27 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Newton Aycliffe

Re: Kettering Town

Post by Makka Pakka » Fri Feb 05, 2021 1:31 pm

Fair enough. Thought he'd have put that opinion on his own wesbite.

Think we should throw these statements at Fylde.....
“I think to continue trying to play when there’s no end in sight of this terrible disease is just wrong. We need to get things into perspective. Yes, we potentially have a lot to lose – if they decide to freeze the league and all positions stand, we’d get relegated.


“I’d be very unhappy about that because we have nine games to go and that’s a hell of a lot. We were starting a good run and were always confident we’d get out of it.

“Everyone will accuse me of bias but I think the season should finish and be declared null and void, with no relegation or promotion.

“That’s really the only fair way because so many combination of results could have happened.”
"At a meeting held at the Grammar School on Friday last - Mr Phillip Wood M.A., in the chair - it was resolved to form an Association Football Club for Darlington and neighbourhood. The opinions of those present were so unanimous as to the desirability of this step, that a committee was formed to complete the organisation of the club, and Mr Craven, 17, Garden Street, was appointed secretary pro tem." - The Northern Echo, Monday 23rd July 1883

Darlo_Pete
Posts: 13194
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by Darlo_Pete » Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:49 pm

How can they expect the league games to be played when some sides are refusing to play their fixtures? What a complete and utter mess.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:09 pm

Can anyone put names to the people who run The National League?

To say they need to 'get a grip' is an understatement, they're just letting the whole situation drift out of control.
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

Darlopartisan
Posts: 999
Joined: Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:49 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by Darlopartisan » Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:38 pm

Spennymoor not playing again this season

Darlofan97
Posts: 4641
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by Darlofan97 » Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:21 am

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:09 pm
Can anyone put names to the people who run The National League?

To say they need to 'get a grip' is an understatement, they're just letting the whole situation drift out of control.
Of course.

I believe they are:

Interim General Manager: Mark Ives (replaced CEO Michael Tattersall at the end of 2020).

Chairman: Brian Barwick

Board Member: Anthony Kleathous (Barnet FC)
Board Member: Shahid Azeem (Aldershot Town FC)
Board Member: Jim Parmenter (Dover Atheltic FC)
Board Member: Mike Coulson (Blyth Spartans)
Board Member: Richard Parsons (Hampton & Richmond Borough)
Board Member: Stephen Thompson (Dagenham & Redbridge)
Board Member: Tim Murphy (Solihull Moors)

There may be more individuals involved, but the above is to the best of my knowledge.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Sun Feb 07, 2021 6:02 pm

Darlofan97 wrote:
Sat Feb 06, 2021 8:21 am
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Fri Feb 05, 2021 4:09 pm
Can anyone put names to the people who run The National League?

To say they need to 'get a grip' is an understatement, they're just letting the whole situation drift out of control.
Of course.

I believe they are:

Interim General Manager: Mark Ives (replaced CEO Michael Tattersall at the end of 2020).

Chairman: Brian Barwick

Board Member: Anthony Kleathous (Barnet FC)
Board Member: Shahid Azeem (Aldershot Town FC)
Board Member: Jim Parmenter (Dover Atheltic FC)
Board Member: Mike Coulson (Blyth Spartans)
Board Member: Richard Parsons (Hampton & Richmond Borough)
Board Member: Stephen Thompson (Dagenham & Redbridge)
Board Member: Tim Murphy (Solihull Moors)

There may be more individuals involved, but the above is to the best of my knowledge.
One overboard now, Jim from Dover has quit.
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

jjljks
Posts: 2159
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by jjljks » Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:06 am

Hope Boris takes this opportunity to level up by appointing someone from the North to replace Jim Parmentier, who was obviously cheesed off.

eddie-rowles
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri Jan 24, 2014 7:51 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by eddie-rowles » Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:59 am

jjljks wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:06 am
Hope Boris takes this opportunity to level up by appointing someone from the North to replace Jim Parmentier, who was obviously cheesed off.
If he had the time would love DJ to be on the board and get dome positive business acumen and common sense in use

lo36789
Posts: 9223
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Kettering Town

Post by lo36789 » Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:05 am

jjljks wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:06 am
Hope Boris takes this opportunity to level up by appointing someone from the North to replace Jim Parmentier, who was obviously cheesed off.
Wonder what the restrictions are around appointments.

Assume chairmen decide to put their name in the hat and then it's a vote of other chairmen? As with everything is it one vote per NL club and 4 per NLN / NLS?

Or is there a mandatory coverage between step 1 and step 2 clubs?

Darlofan97
Posts: 4641
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by Darlofan97 » Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:26 am

It’ll probably be weighted in favour of Step 1, as usual.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:32 am

jjljks wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:06 am
Hope Boris takes this opportunity to level up by appointing someone from the North to replace Jim Parmentier, who was obviously cheesed off.
Imagine the Fylde chairman with a bit of power. :thumbdown:
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

spen666
Posts: 1985
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by spen666 » Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:46 am

jjljks wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:06 am
Hope Boris takes this opportunity to level up by appointing someone from the North to replace Jim Parmentier, who was obviously cheesed off.
I am not sure it has anything at all to do with Boris who is a member of the NL Management Board

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:47 am

I think it was a joke Spen.
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

Darlo_Pete
Posts: 13194
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 10:13 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by Darlo_Pete » Mon Feb 08, 2021 1:32 pm

Clearly the NL will want to appoint one of their own, rather than give more power to the lower leagues.

spen666
Posts: 1985
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by spen666 » Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:07 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:47 am
I think it was a joke Spen.
The post or the NL Management Board?....or both? Nah, the NL Management Board isn't funny...its tragic



Here is a scenario that is possible

NLN/S vote to suspend the season, but many clubs voted to suspend before the NL announced about covid testing kits being provided.

A club like York that want the season to carry on, would have a very good claim to take ot court that the voting is invalid, because after some clubs voted, the NL moved the goalposts ( re the testing).
I would think such an argument had a good chance of succeeding. The result would be a new vote needs to be held. As we have learned 28 days needs to be allowed for the voting. Thus, even if York got a court hearing and judgement next week, it would be middle of March at earliest before new vote re finalised.

Imagine trying to play all remaining games in season between end march ( after allowing for "pre season" ) and end of April/ early May

A complete farce whichever way you look at it

lo36789
Posts: 9223
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Kettering Town

Post by lo36789 » Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:13 pm

spen666 wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:07 pm
A club like York that want the season to carry on, would have a very good claim to take ot court that the voting is invalid, because after some clubs voted, the NL moved the goalposts ( re the testing).
I would think such an argument had a good chance of succeeding.
Not sure this would be much of a claim.

Who is the claim against? The National League for applying their rules at the time they were applicable or all the clubs who York dispute that they voted in the 'right' way?

The resolutions mention nothing of testing / funding. They are absolute decisions "what do you want to do"?

As I understand it any time the league can ask it's members that question if they are prompted to do so by a member (that will be in the league rules somewhere). In fact the stronger case would be if the resolutions werent put to members as that would likely be against the organisations rules.

That sounds like a very thin claim to me.

spen666
Posts: 1985
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by spen666 » Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:53 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:13 pm
spen666 wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:07 pm
A club like York that want the season to carry on, would have a very good claim to take ot court that the voting is invalid, because after some clubs voted, the NL moved the goalposts ( re the testing).
I would think such an argument had a good chance of succeeding.
Not sure this would be much of a claim.

Who is the claim against? The National League for applying their rules at the time they were applicable or all the clubs who York dispute that they voted in the 'right' way?

The resolutions mention nothing of testing / funding. They are absolute decisions "what do you want to do"?

As I understand it any time the league can ask it's members that question if they are prompted to do so by a member (that will be in the league rules somewhere). In fact the stronger case would be if the resolutions werent put to members as that would likely be against the organisations rules.

That sounds like a very thin claim to me.
The claim would be a strong claim, because the league asked clubs to vote on something, then halfway through voting changed the position.

The claim would be against the NL Management Board.

The claim would almost certainly be bound to succeed on its merits. York could rightly argue that the provision of testing was one of main objections of clubs, and it now being available would affect how clubs voted. The NL should have made the announcement before the voting started.

The remedy would be for the voting to be re run. The voting is a farce when half the clubs vote on one basis of facts, then the facts are changed by the poll organiser

It cannot be a fair poll when the poll organiser changes the facts halfway through voting after clubs have started voting

The problem is to re run the voting takes time and if clubs in re run vote decided to carry on season, the clubs have very little time to finish season unless playing 3-4 games a week.

Its a stupid action by the NL Management and one that opens up a legal challenge that would not have existed if they hadn't made the announcement part of the way through voting

lo36789
Posts: 9223
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Kettering Town

Post by lo36789 » Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:22 pm

Were the league not just making a special resolution on behalf of their members?

Aren't any organisations required if per the constitution a member wants a new resolution to put forward, if it is supported by another member then they have to propose it to the members?

Surely if York propose a resolution and it is backed by another club wouldn't that achieve the same outcome rather than a court case?

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:14 pm

Am I right in thinking the test kits on offer are the ones that work on 50% accuracy levels?

Are they the same ones used in the EFL?
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

jjljks
Posts: 2159
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by jjljks » Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:30 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 9:47 am
I think it was a joke Spen.
Glad someone got it! 😁

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Mon Feb 08, 2021 10:01 pm

Here is Jim's statement to explain why he's left the board of the National League.


Dover Chairman, Jim Parmenter has today resigned as a Director of the National League.

In a letter sent to National League Chairman, Brian Barwick and members of the board, Mr Parmenter said: “I can no longer support the direction of travel that the board is taking and I’m afraid I can no longer be seen to be a party to actions which I absolutely disagree with.

“I accept that the board is a collective and whilst as a member, it is a prerequisite that, in public, the board and its Chairman are supported. I have therefore chosen to resign, in order to say what I really believe publicly.

“The lack of grant funding should have been properly addressed in late December or at least very early January. As it stands it is likely to be two months with no funds for clubs before any sort of resolution is forthcoming.

“I am in particular disagreement that the executive appears to be encouraging clubs to take large loans to complete the season, as I have said twice at board meetings I believe that the competition rules are being broken by allowing the proposed loans, let alone encouraging them. (Page 155 Appendices 08 of the rule book).

“The league has for ten years insisted that clubs manage their financial affairs prudently and has had great success and received much praise for the results, now that is all to be thrown to the dogs and for what?

“I understand why the bigger, richer clubs with chances of promotion are pushing hard to continue, but in a sense they are asking smaller clubs with no crowds or income who are playing for no reason to take large loans and probably overstretch themselves with dire consequences, to subsidise the larger clubs ambitions. I do not agree with that position.

“The board has very little credibility as an organisation within our clubs and I believe the decision to send letters to clubs who find it difficult to play, threatening sanctions was ill-conceived and will do nothing to unite the competition in what continues to be a very divisive time. Even if the vote is to continue I do not believe that the league will be able to continue in any credible form or with integrity for another five months.

“There are some very good people on the board and I do not seek to criticise individuals, but as a body, I do not believe we have shown strong, relevant leadership. Our governance has descended into chaos and some decisions made by the board seem to change when interpreted by the executive.”
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

poppyfield
Posts: 1801
Joined: Fri Apr 20, 2012 11:36 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by poppyfield » Mon Feb 08, 2021 10:15 pm

A pretty damming indictment from the Dover chairman, what a lot of fans alluded to, but here is the truth of it.
Help get the club back to Darlo by helping to spread the word about the "Back to Darlo!" fund. The image on the right will be constantly updated with the latest total so please feel free to use the image link below the thermometer on your own signatures, blogs, websites, etc.Image
Image link: http://www.mydarlo.co.uk/img/BTD-therm-350x100.jpg

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4865
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:30 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 10:01 pm
“I am in particular disagreement that the executive appears to be encouraging clubs to take large loans to complete the season, as I have said twice at board meetings I believe that the competition rules are being broken by allowing the proposed loans, let alone encouraging them. (Page 155 Appendices 08 of the rule book).

It's all interesting - but the above bit intrigues me the most and I reckon Spen will love it.

A League threatening to take out sanctions and impose fines for clubs not agreeing to break competition rules, so Jim reckons - and he knows his stuff.
Mr Singh said this " I'm not expecting to get back any of the money I've already put in, I'm prepared to write it off for the future of the club. I'm not hanging in to make any kind of financial gain in the short or long term - if someone was prepared to come in and take the club off my hands, I'd be more than willing to discuss it"

Tamworth matchday programme 26 Nov 2011

Richie_darlo
Posts: 25
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:10 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by Richie_darlo » Tue Feb 09, 2021 2:24 am

spen666 wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:53 pm
lo36789 wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:13 pm
spen666 wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:07 pm
A club like York that want the season to carry on, would have a very good claim to take ot court that the voting is invalid, because after some clubs voted, the NL moved the goalposts ( re the testing).
I would think such an argument had a good chance of succeeding.
Not sure this would be much of a claim.

Who is the claim against? The National League for applying their rules at the time they were applicable or all the clubs who York dispute that they voted in the 'right' way?

The resolutions mention nothing of testing / funding. They are absolute decisions "what do you want to do"?

As I understand it any time the league can ask it's members that question if they are prompted to do so by a member (that will be in the league rules somewhere). In fact the stronger case would be if the resolutions werent put to members as that would likely be against the organisations rules.

That sounds like a very thin claim to me.
The claim would be a strong claim, because the league asked clubs to vote on something, then halfway through voting changed the position.

The claim would be against the NL Management Board.

The claim would almost certainly be bound to succeed on its merits. York could rightly argue that the provision of testing was one of main objections of clubs, and it now being available would affect how clubs voted. The NL should have made the announcement before the voting started.

The remedy would be for the voting to be re run. The voting is a farce when half the clubs vote on one basis of facts, then the facts are changed by the poll organiser

It cannot be a fair poll when the poll organiser changes the facts halfway through voting after clubs have started voting

The problem is to re run the voting takes time and if clubs in re run vote decided to carry on season, the clubs have very little time to finish season unless playing 3-4 games a week.

Its a stupid action by the NL Management and one that opens up a legal challenge that would not have existed if they hadn't made the announcement part of the way through voting
This is fascinating. We're so lucky to have somebody who is able to provide such a detailed and accurate legal analysis.

"The claim would almost certainly be bound to succeed on its merits."

What claim, exactly? What is the cause of action? Breach of contract? Tort?

"The remedy would be for the voting to be re run."

So now we're into the realms of asking a court to order declaratory relief or some sort of specific performance against the National League for having enforced its own rules? By all means explain to me how that would work: I'm all ears. I also assume that, given your clear statements, you know the details of all of the relevant contractual dispute resolution procedures, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

We can, I think, all agree that the NL has been a joke in how they have handled this. What we don't need is a conniving arsehole from Spennymoor claiming that he understands the legalities of the position better than anybody else.

That is all the more so when that very same conniving arsehole was, until very recently, claiming that the NLN clubs (and, by implication, DFC) were actually responsible themselves for the current situation.

"Spen666", two questions:

1. Do you now accept that you were utterly wrong when you repeatedly claimed that the NLN clubs had voted for the situation in which they currently find themselves;

2. Do you accept that Brad Groves has already funded Spennymoor Town in a seven figure sum, and that his funding as a benefactor is ongoing?

spen666
Posts: 1985
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by spen666 » Tue Feb 09, 2021 7:54 am

Richie_darlo wrote:
Tue Feb 09, 2021 2:24 am
spen666 wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:53 pm
lo36789 wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:13 pm
spen666 wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:07 pm
A club like York that want the season to carry on, would have a very good claim to take ot court that the voting is invalid, because after some clubs voted, the NL moved the goalposts ( re the testing).
I would think such an argument had a good chance of succeeding.
Not sure this would be much of a claim.

Who is the claim against? The National League for applying their rules at the time they were applicable or all the clubs who York dispute that they voted in the 'right' way?

The resolutions mention nothing of testing / funding. They are absolute decisions "what do you want to do"?

As I understand it any time the league can ask it's members that question if they are prompted to do so by a member (that will be in the league rules somewhere). In fact the stronger case would be if the resolutions werent put to members as that would likely be against the organisations rules.

That sounds like a very thin claim to me.
The claim would be a strong claim, because the league asked clubs to vote on something, then halfway through voting changed the position.

The claim would be against the NL Management Board.

The claim would almost certainly be bound to succeed on its merits. York could rightly argue that the provision of testing was one of main objections of clubs, and it now being available would affect how clubs voted. The NL should have made the announcement before the voting started.

The remedy would be for the voting to be re run. The voting is a farce when half the clubs vote on one basis of facts, then the facts are changed by the poll organiser

It cannot be a fair poll when the poll organiser changes the facts halfway through voting after clubs have started voting

The problem is to re run the voting takes time and if clubs in re run vote decided to carry on season, the clubs have very little time to finish season unless playing 3-4 games a week.

Its a stupid action by the NL Management and one that opens up a legal challenge that would not have existed if they hadn't made the announcement part of the way through voting
This is fascinating. We're so lucky to have somebody who is able to provide such a detailed and accurate legal analysis.

"The claim would almost certainly be bound to succeed on its merits."

What claim, exactly? What is the cause of action? Breach of contract? Tort?

"The remedy would be for the voting to be re run."

So now we're into the realms of asking a court to order declaratory relief or some sort of specific performance against the National League for having enforced its own rules? By all means explain to me how that would work: I'm all ears. I also assume that, given your clear statements, you know the details of all of the relevant contractual dispute resolution procedures, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

We can, I think, all agree that the NL has been a joke in how they have handled this. What we don't need is a conniving arsehole from Spennymoor claiming that he understands the legalities of the position better than anybody else.

That is all the more so when that very same conniving arsehole was, until very recently, claiming that the NLN clubs (and, by implication, DFC) were actually responsible themselves for the current situation.

"Spen666", two questions:

1. Do you now accept that you were utterly wrong when you repeatedly claimed that the NLN clubs had voted for the situation in which they currently find themselves;

2. Do you accept that Brad Groves has already funded Spennymoor Town in a seven figure sum, and that his funding as a benefactor is ongoing?
Oh Richie, it must be do wonderful living in a world where no matter what they do you and football clubs have no responsibility for your actions.


So in answer to your questions

1. No

2. Ask Brad Groves or Spennymoor Town about that. I do not have the information to confirm or deny that. I am not privy to the details of arrangements between the two parties.

spen666
Posts: 1985
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Kettering Town

Post by spen666 » Tue Feb 09, 2021 7:58 am

spen666 wrote:
Tue Feb 09, 2021 7:54 am
Richie_darlo wrote:
Tue Feb 09, 2021 2:24 am
spen666 wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:53 pm
lo36789 wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:13 pm
spen666 wrote:
Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:07 pm
A club like York that want the season to carry on, would have a very good claim to take ot court that the voting is invalid, because after some clubs voted, the NL moved the goalposts ( re the testing).
I would think such an argument had a good chance of succeeding.
Not sure this would be much of a claim.

Who is the claim against? The National League for applying their rules at the time they were applicable or all the clubs who York dispute that they voted in the 'right' way?

The resolutions mention nothing of testing / funding. They are absolute decisions "what do you want to do"?

As I understand it any time the league can ask it's members that question if they are prompted to do so by a member (that will be in the league rules somewhere). In fact the stronger case would be if the resolutions werent put to members as that would likely be against the organisations rules.

That sounds like a very thin claim to me.
The claim would be a strong claim, because the league asked clubs to vote on something, then halfway through voting changed the position.

The claim would be against the NL Management Board.

The claim would almost certainly be bound to succeed on its merits. York could rightly argue that the provision of testing was one of main objections of clubs, and it now being available would affect how clubs voted. The NL should have made the announcement before the voting started.

The remedy would be for the voting to be re run. The voting is a farce when half the clubs vote on one basis of facts, then the facts are changed by the poll organiser

It cannot be a fair poll when the poll organiser changes the facts halfway through voting after clubs have started voting

The problem is to re run the voting takes time and if clubs in re run vote decided to carry on season, the clubs have very little time to finish season unless playing 3-4 games a week.

Its a stupid action by the NL Management and one that opens up a legal challenge that would not have existed if they hadn't made the announcement part of the way through voting
This is fascinating. We're so lucky to have somebody who is able to provide such a detailed and accurate legal analysis.

"The claim would almost certainly be bound to succeed on its merits."

What claim, exactly? What is the cause of action? Breach of contract? Tort?

"The remedy would be for the voting to be re run."

So now we're into the realms of asking a court to order declaratory relief or some sort of specific performance against the National League for having enforced its own rules? By all means explain to me how that would work: I'm all ears. I also assume that, given your clear statements, you know the details of all of the relevant contractual dispute resolution procedures, but do correct me if I'm wrong.

We can, I think, all agree that the NL has been a joke in how they have handled this. What we don't need is a conniving arsehole from Spennymoor claiming that he understands the legalities of the position better than anybody else.

That is all the more so when that very same conniving arsehole was, until very recently, claiming that the NLN clubs (and, by implication, DFC) were actually responsible themselves for the current situation.

"Spen666", two questions:

1. Do you now accept that you were utterly wrong when you repeatedly claimed that the NLN clubs had voted for the situation in which they currently find themselves;

2. Do you accept that Brad Groves has already funded Spennymoor Town in a seven figure sum, and that his funding as a benefactor is ongoing?
Oh Richie, it must be do wonderful living in a world where no matter what they do you and football clubs have no responsibility for your actions.


So in answer to your questions

1. No

2. Ask Brad Groves or Spennymoor Town about that. I do not have the information to confirm or deny that. I am not privy to the details of arrangements between the two parties, so would suggest you ask one or both of the two relevant parties who will be able to give you first hand information.

Post Reply