League restarts 6 February

[lo36789]

They are not "quids in". No clubs are "quids in" right now trust me.

We have made about 10x more from our FA Cup run than the money National League clubs get from BT over a season.

Us and Chorley are potentially the most "quids in" of any clubs across the divisions when it comes to excess revenue this season. That still does allow us to operate with no income for another 4-5months.

[My opinion]

Again, you know what I mean.
The clubs are quids in compared to the North and South.

[My opinion]

They are not "quids in". No clubs are "quids in" right now trust me.

We have made about 10x more from our FA Cup run than the money National League clubs get from BT over a season.

Us and Chorley are potentially the most "quids in" of any clubs across the divisions when it comes to excess revenue this season. That still does allow us to operate with no income for another 4-5months.

The grant money we got plus the money made from the cup runs will not equal the near £250000 grant money the National league clubs got... Some got even more.

[lo36789]

I do. You are still wrong. They are not quids in relative to anyone. They have higher expenses to play at that level

Higher revenues, higher costs many of them would be guaranteed by contracts which they were told wouldnt kick in without grant funding to match lost revenue.

The difference is ownership structure.

That is why York, Brackley and Fylde are absolute fine to carry on in our league.

I would bet that NL clubs will incur higher losses this season than clubs in NLN and NLS irrespective of grant money received.

[jjljks]

Did read somewhere that Wrexham could not count on future funding from Parliament as they are Welsh so should be asking the Welsh Assembly for dosh

[lo36789]

Loans are issued via Sport England (I think) as a result they are not eligible.

I think Scotland have provided grants for the SPL & Championship.

[Vodka_Vic]

To me the big question is what happens if the league tries to force clubs against their will to take out loans?

There's been a lot of balls up and unfairness with this issue but leaving that to one side surely forcing us to play when we can't make any money is wrong in so many ways, and of course carries risk for the players and volunteers.

If the worst comes to the worst clubs must be allowed to pull out of the league temporarily with no sanctions at all. To do my little bit I wrote to Peter Gibson MP about this particular point. He did offer up a short reply but I'm not allowed to share it

Unfortunately I can't see the National League providing an a la carte menu and allowing clubs to pick and choose when they play it would throw the league into more chaos than its already in.

If there is a majority vote to continue the season those clubs opposed to taking on loans are going to face some very difficult decisions as they will surely be expected to complete the season. Refusal to play and failure to fulfil fixtures will likely result in points deductions, fines and eventually expulsion the only other realistic alternative beyond that is resignation.

Commonsense must prevail here.

Not necessarily, and this is where it could go nastily legal. DJ has said on a few occasions that you can't force teams to take loans because if it means that they 'trade insolvent', i.e take on debt with no guarantee of it being paid back, then that's illegal. If the League tries to kick teams out or relegate or fine them then it may be deemed that the competition rules are forcing teams to break the law, which they/their lawyers will deem illegal.

[lo36789]

If the League tries to kick teams out or relegate or fine them then it may be deemed that the competition rules are forcing teams to break the law, which they/their lawyers will deem illegal.

That isn't true though is it. The competition rules are just being applied. The response ie taking on debt to pay is down to a single business.

If we start to incur debts through not playing (via fines) which we cannot pay the obligation will fall in us to declare insolvency.

It's a conduct issue, ie should they be compounding the problem, but it is not illegal.

It is illegal for us to take on the debt. It is not illegal for a party to issue us with a fine which we seek to avoid by taking on debt. The offence is basically taking on credit you know you can't pay back so trading on someone else's losses.

Punitive charges when someone is in financial distress is more usually associated with the FS industry, there is no Football Conduct Authority unfortunately. It would be unchartered territory for the FA to be regulating the conduct of leagues...which is what this would boil down to.

[Vodka_Vic]

So you're agreeing with me. Somewhere in there you said it's illegal for us to take on the debt. Glad that's sorted.

[lo36789]

Yes, but you seemed to imply that the league would be breaking the law by applying their competition rules.

[theoriginalfatcat]

If the League tries to kick teams out or relegate or fine them then it may be deemed that the competition rules are forcing teams to break the law, which they/their lawyers will deem illegal.

That isn't true though is it. The competition rules are just being applied. The response ie taking on debt to pay is down to a single business.

If we start to incur debts through not playing (via fines) which we cannot pay the obligation will fall in us to declare insolvency.

It's a conduct issue, ie should they be compounding the problem, but it is not illegal.

It is illegal for us to take on the debt. It is not illegal for a party to issue us with a fine which we seek to avoid by taking on debt. The offence is basically taking on credit you know you can't pay back so trading on someone else's losses.

Punitive charges when someone is in financial distress is more usually associated with the FS industry, there is no Football Conduct Authority unfortunately. It would be unchartered territory for the FA to be regulating the conduct of leagues...which is what this would boil down to.

lo, I'm sorry but I can't understand any of that!!

If the league make us play
(by threat of punishment if we don't)
we will be playing without any money coming in
money always has to come to pay bills and wages
otherwise we go bust
so we will have to borrow money
so the league are making us borrow money

D.J didn't say that borrowing money is breaking the law, he said borrowing money if you don't know how you are going to pay it back is.

And he doesn't know this. So I can see his point.

[lo36789]

They can't make us play. They can apply competition rules if we don't. We still make the decision over whether to play or not.

We can't take on debts that we can't repay (that is illegal). It is not illegal for the league to apply their competition rules.

It would be out responsibility, if we cannot afford to play, to say we can't play and then be subject to whatever punishment that entails.

[theoriginalfatcat]

Well if that's the case lo it DAMN WELL SUCKS.

And it looks bad on football too.

[en passant]

Perhaps we should stop playing football and enjoy a nice game of heads I win tails you lose.

[Vodka_Vic]

OK, so lo you're playing Devil's Advocate here, and semantically you're right. The competition rules aren't illegal, nor has someone literally got a loaded gun at our heads forcing us to play. However, the NL have a metaphorical one. If we don't play we don't satisfy the competition rules, therefore we can get expelled from the league which affects our future. So we'd in essence be forced to play, which would mean taking on debt and being put in a position where we trade insolvent. DJ himself back in October actually turned the situation round and said that clubs had a 'loaded gun' themselves against the NL because they can't be forced to take on debt. So in this particular case ,to satisfy the competition rules, clubs will be put in a position where they are essentially forced to take on debt and trade insolvently, therefore the competition rules should not apply in this particular circumstance. Even a back of a fag packet lawyer will argue that one comes from the other. So, no, semantically the competition rules themselves are not illegal, but applying them in these set of circumstances would put clubs in a position where they are in breach of the law. I am sure the rules are not written for times of plagues and pandemics, but that's why they shouldn't apply here and flexibility must be applied. By the same token, if you apply the same argument to the voting system, under normal circumstances having a democratic vote would be fine, but in this particular set of circumstances there's a strong legal argument to say that you shouldn't be able put this particular matter to a vote for the same reasons as above.

[lo36789]

So we'd in essence be forced to play, which would mean taking on debt and being put in a position where we trade insolvent.

No. We would have to cease (pause) trading as we are no longer able to.

No business is required to continue trading in all circumstances.

It would mess up the integrity of the competition, but our responsibility would be to stop.

If you can't afford car insurance, but want to continue driving, it is not illegal for the police to issue you with a fine if you drive just because you can't afford it.

[wizardofos]

Worst case scenario: we refuse to continue (for sound business reasons) and are punished by relegation / expulsion from the league.
I would hope we would have the opportunity to fund raise to make up the ongoing shortfall before accepting any relagation / expulsion event.
If there isn't an appetite for that amongst the owners, fair enough.
Let's hope it doesn't come to that anyway.

[real_darlo_85]

How can we be expelled when there is no football below the Conference North/South? I'm glad we are sticking to our guns over this, plus the basic moral issues of playing as this pandemic continues - it's highlighting how broken the football pyramid is, the selfish and the mismanagement of the league. Hopefully we aren't the only ones with this attitude.

[theoriginalfatcat]

OK, so lo you're playing Devil's Advocate here, and semantically you're right. The competition rules aren't illegal, nor has someone literally got a loaded gun at our heads forcing us to play. However, the NL have a metaphorical one. If we don't play we don't satisfy the competition rules, therefore we can get expelled from the league which affects our future. So we'd in essence be forced to play, which would mean taking on debt and being put in a position where we trade insolvent. DJ himself back in October actually turned the situation round and said that clubs had a 'loaded gun' themselves against the NL because they can't be forced to take on debt. So in this particular case ,to satisfy the competition rules, clubs will be put in a position where they are essentially forced to take on debt and trade insolvently, therefore the competition rules should not apply in this particular circumstance. Even a back of a fag packet lawyer will argue that one comes from the other. So, no, semantically the competition rules themselves are not illegal, but applying them in these set of circumstances would put clubs in a position where they are in breach of the law. I am sure the rules are not written for times of plagues and pandemics, but that's why they shouldn't apply here and flexibility must be applied. By the same token, if you apply the same argument to the voting system, under normal circumstances having a democratic vote would be fine, but in this particular set of circumstances there's a strong legal argument to say that you shouldn't be able put this particular matter to a vote for the same reasons as above.

Good post.

This problem has been made by the government and the league between them. We don't know in what proportions to pin the blame, as the minutes to the crucial meeting don't seem to exist but in any case if the league should not punish clubs for trying to survive financially.

[onewayup]

You cannot take a loan and trade insolvent, would be illegal ,
As for the voting system used in this case it appears skewed to the national league management making a final decision that suits their agended, But this is the national league and it's now an expected scenario from them, trust, honesty,common sence, all awall ,

[theoriginalfatcat]

So we'd in essence be forced to play, which would mean taking on debt and being put in a position where we trade insolvent.

No. We would have to cease (pause) trading as we are no longer able to.

No business is required to continue trading in all circumstances.

It would mess up the integrity of the competition, but our responsibility would be to stop.

If you can't afford car insurance, but want to continue driving, it is not illegal for the police to issue you with a fine if you drive just because you can't afford it.

Here's a question for you lo (or anyone come to that) re the original meeting between the league and the government, where the deal was struck about the initial phase of grants.

Where did it take place?
Who's responsibility was it to take minutes, as in a record of who said what?

[onewayup]

They say there's no minutes record, at a meeting of this level, I believe that to be illegal in itself,
As someone is accountable, minutes taken at these meetings show who is accountable
Absolutely rubbish for them to say no minutes taken, who,a telling lies.
They are covering up for their bad decision,

[lo36789]

So we'd in essence be forced to play, which would mean taking on debt and being put in a position where we trade insolvent.

No. We would have to cease (pause) trading as we are no longer able to.

No business is required to continue trading in all circumstances.

It would mess up the integrity of the competition, but our responsibility would be to stop.

If you can't afford car insurance, but want to continue driving, it is not illegal for the police to issue you with a fine if you drive just because you can't afford it.

Here's a question for you lo (or anyone come to that) re the original meeting between the league and the government, where the deal was struck about the initial phase of grants.

Where did it take place?
Who's responsibility was it to take minutes, as in a record of who said what?

I obviously don't know the answer to the first question. I would imagine by Zoom given the different locations of the people who attended and the current climate.

Whoever chaired it would usually be responsible, that is just good practise though if it was a meeting of two parties then it would be down to their own secretarial practises.

I thought that board meetings were the only ones by law that needed minutes but I could be mistaken.

There would be a difference between meetings attended by the board and 'board meetings'.

[Quaker85]

They say there's no minutes record, at a meeting of this level, I believe that to be illegal in itself,
As someone is accountable, minutes taken at these meetings show who is accountable
Absolutely rubbish for them to say no minutes taken, who,a telling lies.
They are covering up for their bad decision,

A couple of MPs have written to Huddleston at DCMS requesting copies of the minutes. Should be interesting


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[theoriginalfatcat]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EtPLWzvXYAE ... ame=medium

Copy of Interesting letter. Once politicians start to be informed, things could move.

[Alfie]

Darlo are a signatory to this statement


https://guiseleyafc.co.uk/national-leag ... statement/

[theoriginalfatcat]

So we'd in essence be forced to play, which would mean taking on debt and being put in a position where we trade insolvent.

No. We would have to cease (pause) trading as we are no longer able to.

No business is required to continue trading in all circumstances.

It would mess up the integrity of the competition, but our responsibility would be to stop.

If you can't afford car insurance, but want to continue driving, it is not illegal for the police to issue you with a fine if you drive just because you can't afford it.

Here's a question for you lo (or anyone come to that) re the original meeting between the league and the government, where the deal was struck about the initial phase of grants.

Where did it take place?
Who's responsibility was it to take minutes, as in a record of who said what?

I obviously don't know the answer to the first question. I would imagine by Zoom given the different locations of the people who attended and the current climate.

Whoever chaired it would usually be responsible, that is just good practise though if it was a meeting of two parties then it would be down to their own secretarial practises.

I thought that board meetings were the only ones by law that needed minutes but I could be mistaken.

There would be a difference between meetings attended by the board and 'board meetings'.

If the meeting was by Zoom or similar won't it have been recorded?

[lo36789]

If the meeting was by Zoom or similar won't it have been recorded?

Only if it was recorded. It wouldn't be automatically recorded.

[bga]

Darlo are a signatory to this statement


https://guiseleyafc.co.uk/national-leag ... statement/

So isn't that only 17 out of 42 NLN NLS clubs who have signed? Not a real call to arms but am pleased we have signed it.

[chandkumar3g]

I suspect it is more a case the NL assume fixtures restart on the 6th unless the clubs all vote to null and void I guess.