Punishment for the Boston game

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

Darlogramps
Posts: 5484
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Punishment for the Boston game

Post by Darlogramps » Thu Apr 01, 2021 11:01 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:37 pm
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.
Agree. Rigid rules dont work now. But also rigid rules, potentially, bound their legal obligation.

As Dorking have called out. The articles of association say the rules must be applied. Directors must operate within the bounds of the articles OR they can be liable for any losses any party incurs if they don't.

I'm suggesting that could have been a factor in their decision. Not that it was the reason, not that it means it is still the only option available, just simply that when you are in an appointed role you cannot just do what you like because "common sense" there are real world impacts of doing that.
That’s not fully what Dorking have said. You’ve homed in on one tiny bit. I don’t have the inclination to explain it to you because I’ll just be banging my head against a brick wall, but there’s a lot more to what Dorking are arguing. And you know that anyway.

Moreover, it’s not as if the pandemic is a new thing. The league had a year to sort its rules out, or come up with emergency articles for the duration.

You seem to think they should be reactive, sitting around until a crisis happens and then go “Hey, how about that?”

Not reacting to something that’s been ongoing for 13 months now is the height of incompetence. For that alone the board deserves to be booted out. And yet you my defend this! It’s cringey and embarrassing to see you fawning over any authority figure to lick their boots.

Moreover, you’re willing to misrepresent the argument clubs like ourselves have made (according to you we argued playing v Boston would cause us to become insolvent), and suggest we were just seeking to keep costs down, when actually we were trying to keep the club alive.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZlZohZoadGY

Richie_darlo
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Aug 07, 2009 11:10 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by Richie_darlo » Sat Apr 03, 2021 1:31 am

He also claimed that - quoting verbatim - "we didn't even respond to the charge", which any number of public statements show to be untrue. Think what you like about the governance of the club (for my part it seems to be better now than it ever has been in my 25-odd years as a supporter, although that's only my opinion), but don't come up with passive-aggressive lies like this in order to further some strange pro-NL agenda.

lo36789
Posts: 9339
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by lo36789 » Sat Apr 03, 2021 7:14 am

Richie_darlo wrote:
Sat Apr 03, 2021 1:31 am
He also claimed that - quoting verbatim - "we didn't even respond to the charge", which any number of public statements show to be untrue. Think
To be fair me and originalfatcat went through this before and held my hands up. Had interpretted not accepting as not acknowledging being the distinction between £1400 and £2000 fines.

Not going to lie I still find it a bit that some clubs accepted without pleading mitigating circumstances (eg. Farsley) based on Farsley statement think they would just expecting a token fine in the circumstances and based on previous NL comms on the matter (ie. was a mandatory admin thing)
lo36789 wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 12:46 pm
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:40 am
I thought Farsley were fined £1400 because they didn't contest it. In other words they pleaded guilty.
Ah. You might be right - just been through the statements and it does state "accept the charge" which you are right could be "plead guilty to the charge".
Richie_darlo wrote:
Sat Apr 03, 2021 1:31 am
but don't come up with passive-aggressive lies like this in order to further some strange pro-NL agenda
Not particularly pro anybody. Just not set my default to actively against, in fact default setting is assume that people have reasons for their actions.

My summation was "admin requirement" + "comp rules" + "articles of association" + "legal directors duties"...that only explains the series of events mind, not the magnitude of the fines.

With that in mind, and the o/s questions "what was the just cause specifically for not playing games prior to official suspension" + "when are precedents set / created".

I am almost certain they would have received legal advice on what could / couldn't be done. My main conclusion is if things seem odd maybe there is more to it...and should only make judgement on the conduct of individuals with the benefit of all the information they had when making the judgement.

I am not even sure enough board members left to make quorum decisions based on recent revelations!

onewayup
Posts: 2101
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 6:02 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by onewayup » Sun Apr 04, 2021 3:45 pm

The national league management have made an absolute mockery of the rules and fairness went out of the window with the disgraceful disproportionate distribution disparity of the 11millon lottery funding, more to come re- this issue, the F A are now involved I believe.

JE93
Posts: 1518
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:48 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by JE93 » Sat Apr 10, 2021 11:03 am

I see in recent days. Chippenham Town and Slough Town have both confirmed that they have appealed the fines they received for failing to fulfill fixtures. Wonder if we will confirm if we've appealed or not.

Post Reply