lo36789 wrote: Darlogramps wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:19 pm
We are effectively saying our just cause for not playing Boston was it would make us insolvent yet played another game a week later and actually probably have enough money in the bank to cover the cost of the Boston game - so that game was no actual threat to our financial existence.
Our real 'reason' was cost avoidance for what could turn out to be a meaningless fixture not an actual risk of insolvency, had it been a meaningful fixture we would have incurred those costs.
This is an out and out lie. A blatant misrepresentation of the truth. We never said playing Boston would make us insolvent. We said carrying on the entire season would (and given we were losing 50k a month, that’s a cold hard fact).
We played a Trophy fixture which would have earned us prize money. That money would have
We didn’t think playing Boston would cause the club to go pop. That was never said.
But then you’ve always been happy to tell a lie to support your own position, and then try and take the moral high ground.
Hold on. Don't twist it. I did say "effectively".
I am questioning whether that is just cause to not play Boston when looked at in isolation.
David Johnstone has made many arguments about why we couldn't continue the season (which there was an active vote for), and he actually used the words that these were our just cause. The just cause is only relevant to the decision not to fulfil that single game .
By using the word “effectively”, YOU twisted it. You said our “just cause” was effectively playing the Boston game would make us insolvent. You said that.
That was never said by the club. You are lying and distorting facts to try and justify your argument. And you repeatedly do it.
Our whole reasoning was based on not financially being able to play the season out. You know this too. The game was simply the first one where circumstances meant we skipped it.
The just cause does not refer to one game, it refers to our inability to complete the season. This has been said by David Johnston quite clearly. Claiming it referred to the Boston game solely is another lie.
And that’s one of the big flaws here. The National League has treated each “offence” individually, apparently oblivious to the fact there’s a pandemic on. Sticking rigidly to the rules in the face of exceptional circumstances is moronic and bad governance. Their lack of flexibility is part of the reason they have failed so miserably.
Darlogramps wrote: ↑
Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:19 pm
So you agree with the National League. You’re trying to make out we could afford to lose £50K a month.
Now who is making blatant misrepresentations. At no point have the NL said we could afford to lose £50k a month - they have just said that there wasn't a just cause not to play Boston.
So I am not sure they have said it for me to agree to.
I am just theorising "why" they could have come to conclusion. What are the facts - what are their legal obligations.
Eh? When did I say that they did? You’re the one who’s making out we could afford £50K losses. You’re the one I was criticising. Here’s why:
You said: “I am not actually sure our just cause actually stacks up that strongly beyond a wider "what's the point in incurring unnecessary costs"
It wasn’t a case of “unnecessary costs”. Had the season continued, we wouldn’t have been able to afford it. Saving money to keep the club in business feels pretty necessary to me.
To me, this sounds like you think we were able to continue, but we’re trying to save money instead. We were losing £50K a month with no income, a wholly unsustainable position.
You’re not “theorising” anything. You’ve said they had a legal obligation to punish us. You’re not trying to see anything from the National League’s point of view. You are lock stock coming down on the National League’s side in this.
First you argue the National League board should stay because they could be replaced by something worse. Then you defend an indefensible ruling.
Keep licking those boots, fella.