Punishment for the Boston game

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4967
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Sat Mar 27, 2021 10:09 am

I don't agree. They are useless.

They have ballsed up every decision and hidden the report about fund distribution. This latest 'error' just highlights their incompetence.

It would take a very special team of idiots to do a worse job.
lo36789 wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:51 am
I can't see it passing either way as I assume to get passed at an EGM you need 75% in favour and that would be in line with normal voting rights (1 per club at Step 1, 4 per division step 2)
If the majority of step 2 clubs wanted them out, even if they could technically stay - would this be a good look?

I respect your views about football lo as I know you're involved in it but I sometimes wonder if you are overfamiliar with
officialdom and can't see past it?
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

Darlofan97
Posts: 4674
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by Darlofan97 » Sat Mar 27, 2021 10:42 am

lo36789 wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:51 am
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 9:08 am
Darlofan97 wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 8:59 am
According to Ollie Bayliss, National League clubs are discussing proposing a vote of no confidence in the Chairman & Board of the National League.

The only snippet I’ve heard from Brian Barwick in all of this is speaking out in support of commercial deal. It’s absolutely shambolic.
Bring it on.

Maybe that's what they want?

Thinking about this further, it could work, because even the clubs who haven't been fined (16?) will have a gripe with Ives and co. The likes of Dorking and others who wanted to play on.
The only issue is careful what you wish for. You need willing volunteers to replace those removed from their positions.

Other chairmen have to be nominated to replace those removed from the board. ​I doubt DJ has the time to be on the NL board and CEO of DFC plus his other interests.

Ultimately people are saying the problem with the board is they don't have the experience etc. they all run football clubs.

I can't see it passing either way as I assume to get passed at an EGM you need 75% in favour and that would be in line with normal voting rights (1 per club at Step 1, 4 per division step 2)
That is probably the oddest take on the situation which I have read.

Have the last 6 months taught you nothing about the National League board, its Chairman, and how they operate? It simply cannot be allowed to continue. There is a shocking lack of governance and consequence to their actions, it's a rudderless dictatorship.

The vote of no confidence may not pass, especially as you have Step 1 continuing at the moment, but it is good to see some clubs stand up against the actions which we have seen over the last 6 months.

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 Mar 27, 2021 10:50 am

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 10:09 am
I don't agree. They are useless.

They have ballsed up every decision and hidden the report about fund distribution. This latest 'error' just highlights their incompetence.

It would take a very special team of idiots to do a worse job.
Not from the angle of better the devil you know.

But more who is going to put themselves forward.

I doubt DJ has the time to be on the NL board and our CEO and maintain his other business interests

Darlofan97
Posts: 4674
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:44 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by Darlofan97 » Sat Mar 27, 2021 11:31 am

lo36789 wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 10:50 am
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 10:09 am
I don't agree. They are useless.

They have ballsed up every decision and hidden the report about fund distribution. This latest 'error' just highlights their incompetence.

It would take a very special team of idiots to do a worse job.
Not from the angle of better the devil you know.

But more who is going to put themselves forward.

I doubt DJ has the time to be on the NL board and our CEO and maintain his other business interests
You cannot accept failure and crass decisions because "it could be worse". If everybody did, then nothing would ever improve and there would be no accountability. Failure would be accepted rather than challenged.

A very strange mentality to have in this situation.

Just because you don't know specifically who is going to put themselves forward, doesn't mean there aren't individuals with a bit of nous and expertise willing to step up and govern the National League properly.

joejaques
Posts: 2898
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 10:36 am
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Milford Haven

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by joejaques » Sat Mar 27, 2021 11:36 am

Thanks for that, Poppyfield. :roll:
Image

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 Mar 27, 2021 11:44 am

Darlofan97 wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 11:31 am
You cannot accept failure and crass decisions because "it could be worse". If everybody did, then nothing would ever improve and there would be no accountability. Failure would be accepted rather than challenged.
I just explicitly said it's not on that basis. Sort of agree but you should really have a plan for what comes next.

Removing the captain from a ship because you aren't happy with the direction only to discover none of the crew want to step up and steer it leaves you all in the middle of the ocean stranded.
Darlofan97 wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 11:31 am
Just because you don't know specifically who is going to put themselves forward, doesn't mean there aren't individuals with a bit of nous and expertise willing to step up and govern the National League properly.
It doesn't, but as I say you need the volunteers otherwise you end up without a board and actually I wouldn't be surprised if many thought it wouldn't be worth the aggro after the last two seasons.

Toby Macormack from Warrington has made an interesting point that the only solution might be externals rather than it being an internal members club appointed to the board. In those circumstances they would need to become paid roles, the money for which would obviously need to be found from the clubs. Again it would need 75% agreement to change articles though.

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 Mar 27, 2021 12:17 pm

FWIW the more influential parties in the NL aren't the members.

Hammer Vanarama and BT Sport about it - tarnish their name with the actions of the NL board and you might actually change something.

Just seen DCMS are appointing the head of football governance review for about £50k a year. Feels extremely junior for the role title to me.

Old Git
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:09 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by Old Git » Sat Mar 27, 2021 12:58 pm

Genuine question regarding the points deduction. When it says suspended does that mean suspended and only to be implemented if we transgress again or does it mean suspended until next season so that we will start on -2 points in August?
I had assumed it was the former but can not find clarification. If it is the latter the League table will look a bit strange with lots of clubs deducted points.

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

Punishment for the Boston game

Post by Darlogramps » Sat Mar 27, 2021 1:17 pm

Old Git wrote:Genuine question regarding the points deduction. When it says suspended does that mean suspended and only to be implemented if we transgress again or does it mean suspended until next season so that we will start on -2 points in August?
I had assumed it was the former but can not find clarification. If it is the latter the League table will look a bit strange with lots of clubs deducted points.
It’s suspended unless we skip games again. And if we do skip another game, presumably the same punishment would be added on top, so it’d be a four point deduction.

The current board are basically enforcing clubs have to play games or face points deductions, regardless of whether they can afford to keep playing amid a pandemic.

And that sets up a whole world of potential chaos if there’s a third COVID wave and the funding issues aren’t addressed.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

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

spen666
Posts: 2001
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by spen666 » Sat Mar 27, 2021 1:46 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 12:17 pm
FWIW the more influential parties in the NL aren't the members.

Hammer Vanarama and BT Sport about it - tarnish their name with the actions of the NL board and you might actually change something.

Just seen DCMS are appointing the head of football governance review for about £50k a year. Feels extremely junior for the role title to me.
The risk with tarnishing the name of the sponsors is that no one will want to be associated with the NL and therefore clubs will end up being worse off

I agree with you re the DCMS role - the salary band is relatively junior and indicates not a high priority in DCMS

en passant
Posts: 419
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 10:17 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by en passant » Sat Mar 27, 2021 1:53 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 1:17 pm
Old Git wrote:Genuine question regarding the points deduction. When it says suspended does that mean suspended and only to be implemented if we transgress again or does it mean suspended until next season so that we will start on -2 points in August?
I had assumed it was the former but can not find clarification. If it is the latter the League table will look a bit strange with lots of clubs deducted points.
It’s suspended unless we skip games again. And if we do skip another game, presumably the same punishment would be added on top, so it’d be a four point deduction.

The current board are basically enforcing clubs have to play games or face points deductions, regardless of whether they can afford to keep playing amid a pandemic.

And that sets up a whole world of potential chaos if there’s a third COVID wave and the funding issues aren’t addressed.
That last point is worth some dwelling on. If by autumn there is still the slightest signs that fans will be forced to miss games at some point, and there is no faith that there will be any grants to cover costs, then why would any club vote to start a season knowing that there would be a financial black hole to fill and that the League would be willing to be extremely punitive to any clubs that could not continue to play under such terms.

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

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by onewayup » Sat Mar 27, 2021 1:57 pm

I received a letter today from Nigel Huddlestone MP who clearly states that the national league were not told extra grants were forthcoming, it say the national league were wrong to tell clubs further grants were available.

Old Git
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:09 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by Old Git » Sat Mar 27, 2021 2:47 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 1:17 pm
Old Git wrote:Genuine question regarding the points deduction. When it says suspended does that mean suspended and only to be implemented if we transgress again or does it mean suspended until next season so that we will start on -2 points in August?
I had assumed it was the former but can not find clarification. If it is the latter the League table will look a bit strange with lots of clubs deducted points.
It’s suspended unless we skip games again. And if we do skip another game, presumably the same punishment would be added on top, so it’d be a four point deduction.

The current board are basically enforcing clubs have to play games or face points deductions, regardless of whether they can afford to keep playing amid a pandemic.

And that sets up a whole world of potential chaos if there’s a third COVID wave and the funding issues aren’t addressed.
Thanks Gramps

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4967
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Sat Mar 27, 2021 10:49 pm

I can't help notice that it's gone a bit quiet on the Spennymoor side of things. I'm sure they pulled out of the season before us.
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

Old Git
Posts: 979
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 9:09 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by Old Git » Sun Mar 28, 2021 9:18 am

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Sat Mar 27, 2021 10:49 pm
I can't help notice that it's gone a bit quiet on the Spennymoor side of things. I'm sure they pulled out of the season before us.
They did but I am guessing a fine of a few grand is small beer to Uncle Brad compared to what he puts in just to keep them ticking over.

jjljks
Posts: 2212
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by jjljks » Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:28 am

DJ has got plenty of good points to support the decision not to play Boston. Hopefully, the people hearing the appeal will realise what useless idiots there are on the NL Board and overturn the penalty, and many other clubs in a similar position will take heart.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4967
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:51 am

Out of the 18 (?) clubs charged, it's interesting to note that not one has been believed to have had 'just reason" to not play.

I find this somewhat strange and there is something rotten about this whole business.
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

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 » Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:52 am

jjljks wrote:
Mon Mar 29, 2021 9:28 am
DJ has got plenty of good points to support the decision not to play Boston. Hopefully, the people hearing the appeal will realise what useless idiots there are on the NL Board and overturn the penalty, and many other clubs in a similar position will take heart.
Tbf it doesn't sound like we responded to the charge itself which has meant our fine is £2000. If we didn't respond this will be the first time we have put across our reasons.

That said clubs that did respond (Farsley) have still been issued the sanction so suggests the "valid reason" isn't being accepted.

It is weird but I am actually glad we didn't play against Boston now. It probably would have been quite easy for us to do so, many on here wanted us to, given we had the Trophy game coming up. It feels more 'right' that we have been sanctioned along with many of the others, it wouldn't have been right to have been able to sit on the sidelines with this whilst others were being fined.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4967
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:30 pm

The E.G.M. letter has now been sent and it's a very good read. It presents multiple reasons why the board must go.

You can view it on Ollie's twitter page.
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

bga
Posts: 1704
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:18 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by bga » Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:31 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:30 pm
The E.G.M. letter has now been sent and it's a very good read. It presents multiple reasons why the board must go.

You can view it on Ollie's twitter page.
Based on DJs recent interview I presume we will certainly be signing the letter. Anyone know how many clubs need to sign it to force the EGM?

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 » Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:38 pm

bga wrote:
Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:31 pm
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:30 pm
The E.G.M. letter has now been sent and it's a very good read. It presents multiple reasons why the board must go.

You can view it on Ollie's twitter page.
Based on DJs recent interview I presume we will certainly be signing the letter. Anyone know how many clubs need to sign it to force the EGM?
10% it says in the letter. 66 clubs = 7 votes.

Tbf if they get a majority of NLN and a majority of NLS clubs that would give 8 votes.

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 » Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:46 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:30 pm
The E.G.M. letter has now been sent and it's a very good read. It presents multiple reasons why the board must go.
Was listening to an interview think it was Hemel Hempstead's chairman. He said a vote of no confidence isn't a vote for the board to actually go. It's to drive a change.

He feels they are all genuine people who have non league football interests at heart. The outcome he wants is an expansion of membership of the board (make it less male, more fan representation).

bga
Posts: 1704
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2011 7:18 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by bga » Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:25 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:46 pm
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:30 pm
The E.G.M. letter has now been sent and it's a very good read. It presents multiple reasons why the board must go.
Was listening to an interview think it was Hemel Hempstead's chairman. He said a vote of no confidence isn't a vote for the board to actually go. It's to drive a change.

He feels they are all genuine people who have non league football interests at heart. The outcome he wants is an expansion of membership of the board (make it less male, more fan representation).
Agree the vote of no confidence calls for a debate on the management issues over the last 12-months. As you say not necessarily for Board members to resign.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4967
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:47 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Mon Mar 29, 2021 5:46 pm
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Mar 29, 2021 1:30 pm
The E.G.M. letter has now been sent and it's a very good read. It presents multiple reasons why the board must go.
Was listening to an interview think it was Hemel Hempstead's chairman. He said a vote of no confidence isn't a vote for the board to actually go. It's to drive a change.

He feels they are all genuine people who have non league football interests at heart. The outcome he wants is an expansion of membership of the board (make it less male, more fan representation).
I listened to it too and I didn't interpret it that way. He did say everyone involved were genuine but he was critical of the board and pointed out some of their failings. I interpreted what he said as a vote of no confidence isn't necessarily a vote for the board to go.

They must go though. If you lose the respect of 20 plus clubs, how can you remain? It's not a dictatorship.
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

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 » Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:56 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Mar 29, 2021 6:47 pm
They must go though. If you lose the respect of 20 plus clubs, how can you remain? It's not a dictatorship.
Not sure that is the definition of a dictatorship tbh.

Ultimately that will be down to the members to decide. As the Hemel guy said maybe it's less about the individuals and wanting to point fingers at them and maybe it's more indicative of the system being flawed.

Expecting the CEOs of member clubs to double hat and volunteer to also be the league board. Maybe it's time for the board to not be club representatives but to be independent.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4967
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:39 pm

Lo, anything would be better than this present board. If you read the letter that has gone in, the list of gripes/complaints/reasons is ridiculous!

Point after point illustrating their incompetance. They double down on the rules that suit them but completely ignore the fact that they've broken their own rules numerous times and made the crisis 10 times worse by their mistakes and ineptness. I'd copy the letter on to here but it won't let me.

At this stage whether they are volunteers or not is irrelevant - that can be sorted later, what's relevant now is getting this present lot out and replaced by some people who actually have brains and common sense. People who have nothing to hide. People who can calm the situation down and get all clubs back running harmoniously again. People who don't want to inflict financial penalties onto 18 (I think) clubs who already have money problems due to a global pandemic and the failure of the league to look after there interests.
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

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 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:51 am

To be honest I think a majority have already left based on the letter. There is barely a board left.

1. The CEO has gone and been replaced
2. Jim Parmenter has gone and hasn't been replaced
3. The letter states two more have left without being publicly announced

If all that happens from this is that the 5 club chairmen who currently make up the board are replaced by 5 different club chairmen then demanding an EGM is an absolute waste of time and effort. The AGM is in about 8 weeks when there will be new ballots anyway.

I know people love attaching names to blame and it excites to have people removed from office - makes it much easier to comprehend and even better you can hold it against that individual for the rest of their lives, but the reality is the individuals themselves are a small part of the issue here.

This has failed if all that happens is board leaves and new board replaces then. Chances are it will be Messrs Dorking Wanderers and Gloucester City who put themselves forward. I am concerned it will be seen as job done.

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 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:44 am

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Mon Mar 29, 2021 7:39 pm
People who don't want to inflict financial penalties onto 18 (I think) clubs who already have money problems due to a global pandemic
Playing devils advocate on this one. Did they have a choice?

They are company directors. Company directors are duty bound to abide by the articles of that organisation, if they do not then as I understand it they can be held personally liable. The articles will effectively require that the competition rules are applied, and the competition rules are absolute.

They issued the charges (as I believe duty bound to do so). Issue charge ("you have been charged with not fulfilling this fixture" - guilty or not guilty) issue penalty, and that would then result in appeal with mitigating circumstances "valid reason", and possibly, hopefully result in the penalty being withdrawn. Charges were issued, it has been effectively confirmed most clubs didn't respond, as a result they will have had to wait until the prescribed time (probably 28 days) to elapse before being able to then issue the penalties and the next stage can take place.

This episode is perhaps, rather ironically, an example of them actually adhering to and fulfilling their governance duties in full. As I say the punishment for not doing so as I understand it can be personal liability.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4967
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:01 am

LO, You've forgotten Barwick. He has disappeared. I've been looking all over for him but he's not around - if anyone sees him let us know.

The previous CEO did go. D.J. said he should have given a long notice period of maybe three months but he went virtually overnight, another example of double standards but leaving that aside Mark Ives is even worse. He is the one who has made mistake after mistake and he definitely is not up to the job.

And why wait 8 weeks. We need to get sorting this out ASAP to get ready for next season, and of course there are pressing issues right now too.
lo36789 wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:51 am
I know people love attaching names to blame and it excites to have people removed from office - makes it much easier to comprehend and even better you can hold it against that individual for the rest of their lives, but the reality is the individuals themselves are a small part of the issue here.
These people have been involved in the fiasco of this season and are they not helping to keep the Bernstein report buried? Get a new board in THEN look to change the system in the future because this will take time.

Why do you think a new board will be as bad as the present one? I don't understand this logic.


Here’s a theory which might explain the fines...

Step 2 doesn’t matter to Ives and co but step 1 does and step 1 is still playing.

If Dover were not punished hard for the crime of halting their season then most likely another 7 or 8 clubs in Nat League step one would do likewise. These clubs have minimal chance of reaching the playoffs and are simply running up debts for no reason. They could wrap up and say “you never punished Dover so you can’t punish us” so at this point the league would become a farce.

So to follow this on, the clubs at step 2 have to be punished likewise, otherwise Dover could say “you never punished step 2 clubs so why punish us”

At step 1, bit by bit clubs will fall away from the play off race and as soon as they do they will simply coast to the end of the season because there is no relegation, but better this than stop playing as it keeps up the pretence of a proper competitive league. Which it won't be.
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
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4967
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:15 am

lo36789 wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 7:44 am
They issued the charges (as I believe duty bound to do so). Issue charge ("you have been charged with not fulfilling this fixture" - guilty or not guilty) issue penalty, and that would then result in appeal with mitigating circumstances "valid reason", and possibly, hopefully result in the penalty being withdrawn. Charges were issued, it has been effectively confirmed most clubs didn't respond, as a result they will have had to wait until the prescribed time (probably 28 days) to elapse before being able to then issue the penalties and the next stage can take place.

I may be wrong? I thought the clubs had "hearings" in which they gave their reasons, their 'just reasons' for not playing.

Dover gave financial information as the league said in their statement ... "The Panel had regard to financial information provided by Dover Athletic and fully respected the responsibility of the Club’s Directors under Company Law.
However, the Panel also had to consider the integrity of the Competition and the actions of Dover Athletic in relation to the other 22 Clubs that continue to incur much costs as they fulfill their fixtures."

It should read "fulfil" but the League can't spell :shock: And "much costs" doesn't make sense either.
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

Post Reply