Punishment for the Boston game

Open now for discussion of all things Darlo!

Moderators: mikkyx, uncovered

lo36789
Posts: 9360
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 8:22 am

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
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then result in appeal with mitigating circumstances "valid reason", and possibly, hopefully result in the penalty being withdrawn.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.
They will but we didn't even respond to the charge. You have to respond before you get a hearing.

Clubs who responded were fined £1400 per game those who didn't got £2000.

A response is just guilty / not guilty to the charge ie. "Failing to fulfill" hearings come post response to a charge. At least that is what FA charges appear like.
Last edited by lo36789 on Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:29 am, edited 1 time in total.

lo36789
Posts: 9360
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 8:29 am

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:15 am
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.
Fulfill isn't incorrect it is just a bit of an Americanisation (thought it is a bug bear of mine as the consultancy houses always produce materials in American English I think much costs is grammatically correct. Means large volume of.

I don't know the intricacies - transparency is a problem - but what is clear is we were fined £2000, Farsley were fined £1,400 on basis of responding to the charge if you don't respond you can't have submitted evidence or had a hearing.

lo36789
Posts: 9360
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 8:36 am

Basically;

It real simple to blame people. People make errors, people are oddly human actually when it comes down to it. I've never found much value in anger towards people in those circumstances - do you know what you would do in the same situation, do you know what you could legally do.

It's why I hate at work when things are blamed on human error, discipline for junior staff for making errors, and then reset until it happens again. If the error can be made the system needs to be improved to prevent it being able to be made. Just replacing the humans capable of errors won't fix it.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4973
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Tue Mar 30, 2021 9:40 am

lo36789 wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:29 am
theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:15 am
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.
Fulfill isn't incorrect it is just a bit of an Americanisation (thought it is a bug bear of mine as the consultancy houses always produce materials in American English I think much costs is grammatically correct. Means large volume of.

I don't know the intricacies - transparency is a problem - but what is clear is we were fined £2000, Farsley were fined £1,400 on basis of responding to the charge if you don't respond you can't have submitted evidence or had a hearing.
I thought Farsley were fined £1400 because they didn't contest it. In other words they pleaded guilty.

The others went to hearings, giving their reasons for not playing (as outlined in some of the statements I've read online) and were found guilty and fined.

Are you sure about this?
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: 9360
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 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". Not sure a personal hearing was an option seems to be via submission of statements.

The thing we could be challenged on we've been charged with "failing to fulfil a fixture" and we pleaded not guilty, when we were factually guilty of it. We are guilty but we have mitigating circumstances.

I still can't see any of this sticking...whatever happens.

spen666
Posts: 2003
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 9:12 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by spen666 » Tue Mar 30, 2021 12:57 pm

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". Not sure a personal hearing was an option seems to be via submission of statements.

The thing we could be challenged on we've been charged with "failing to fulfil a fixture" and we pleaded not guilty, when we were factually guilty of it. We are guilty but we have mitigating circumstances.

I still can't see any of this sticking...whatever happens.
You raise a good point.

Every club will have had different mitigating factors depending on individual circumstances, and finances eg its not unreasonable to think a £2000 fine for a club like York is far less punitive than a £2000 for Curzon


given all clubs were fined the same amount either the "guilty fee" or the "not guilty fee", it could be argued the tribunal have not dealt with clubs considering their individual circumstances and not considered individual mitigating circumstances

lo36789
Posts: 9360
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 2:14 pm

I'm intrigued were Boston charged as well?

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4973
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Tue Mar 30, 2021 3:02 pm

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". Not sure a personal hearing was an option seems to be via submission of statements.

The thing we could be challenged on we've been charged with "failing to fulfil a fixture" and we pleaded not guilty, when we were factually guilty of it. We are guilty but we have mitigating circumstances.

I still can't see any of this sticking...whatever happens.
"Failing to fulfil a fixture without just cause" D.J. is adamant we have about 5 just causes.
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: 9360
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 4:48 pm

Was that the charge or was it just failure to fulfil?

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4973
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:03 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:48 pm
Was that the charge or was it just failure to fulfil?
I'm going by memory here as I can't be bothered to hunt for quotes but I'm positive D.J always puts in the "just cause" bit.

I also picked up something interesting from his last interview with Ray. He said that the League are now calling the stopping of the league a "curtailment" but when the vote took place the clubs voted on the wording of "null and void". I expect this point to raise it's head shortly.
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: 9360
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 5:11 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:03 pm
lo36789 wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:48 pm
Was that the charge or was it just failure to fulfil?
I'm going by memory here as I can't be bothered to hunt for quotes but I'm positive D.J always puts in the "just cause" bit.

I also picked up something interesting from his last interview with Ray. He said that the League are now calling the stopping of the league a "curtailment" but when the vote took place the clubs voted on the wording of "null and void". I expect this point to raise it's head shortly.
Yep agreed. It doesn't take much to see the resolutions proposed were for N&V.

jjljks
Posts: 2215
Joined: Thu Oct 29, 2015 10:25 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by jjljks » Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:24 pm

NL Board did not seem to understand what the 1st offer actually meant then assumed it would be repeated in January. They also completely missed the full implication of "null & void", hence now trying to weasel out of responsibilities.

JE93
Posts: 1528
Joined: Sun Nov 29, 2009 2:48 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by JE93 » Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:15 am

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 5:03 pm
lo36789 wrote:
Tue Mar 30, 2021 4:48 pm
Was that the charge or was it just failure to fulfil?
I'm going by memory here as I can't be bothered to hunt for quotes but I'm positive D.J always puts in the "just cause" bit.

I also picked up something interesting from his last interview with Ray. He said that the League are now calling the stopping of the league a "curtailment" but when the vote took place the clubs voted on the wording of "null and void". I expect this point to raise it's head shortly.
The rule does state 'without just cause':

8.39Where a match has been postponed for any reason, the two Clubs concerned must agree within seven (7) days of the postponement a
new date (which shall, save in exceptional circumstances, be within 42 days of the original date) and in default the Board is empowered to order Clubs to play on a date it considers suitable. The Competition Secretary shall determine the new date.

Any Club without just cause failing to fulfil an engagement to play a Competition match on the appointed date shall for each offence be liable to expulsion from the Competition and/ or such other disciplinary action the Board may determine, including the deduction of up to a maximum of three points from the offending Club’s record, any expenses incurred by their opponents, and a fine.

In the event of a Club being in breach of the previous paragraph of this Rule then the Board may award points to the Club not at fault as if the match had been played and the League table shall reflect the position as if the match had been played with the result awarded by the Board


I still cannot understand how you can be punished for failing to play a game that never happened due to being declared null & void.

LoidLucan
Posts: 3467
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by LoidLucan » Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:25 am

It looks deliberately obtuse, provocative and plain ludicrous to rule that there wasn't just cause in the middle of a global pandemic with a huge number of cases locally, no organised testing in place, no income for clubs and the failure to meet promises of continued grant funding as well as complete fixture chaos. Never mind saying you've got the right of appeal, this ruling was an utter disgrace in all the extreme circumstances that clubs found themselves in. Common sense should have been applied.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4973
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:55 am

Has anyone seen Brian Barwick? I had a look in my garden last night but he wasn't there. I'm going out shortly so I will keep my eyes peeled.

Perhaps the weight of his O.B.E. has swelled his head to the degree that he can't leave his house?
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: 9360
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by lo36789 » Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:39 am

LoidLucan wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 8:25 am
Common sense should have been applied.
Common sense is great but also utterly irrelevant in court if you have not fulfilled your role as a company director.

Personal financial and criminal liability and being banned from being a company director in future. Dead easy if it's not you in that position.

Comms can be better, could have been avoided (extra special resolutions accordingly) but "just apply common sense" once in a certain position may not have been an option.

It is pretty obvious there have been mistakes otherwise there wouldnt be the calls of not being confident in the board which would mean resolutions are required to regain that confidence.

Ghost_Of_1883
Posts: 851
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2018 9:33 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by Ghost_Of_1883 » Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:02 am

lo36789 wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:39 am

Common sense is great but also utterly irrelevant in court if you have not fulfilled your role as a company director.

Personal financial and criminal liability and being banned from being a company director in future. Dead easy if it's not you in that position.
Are you claiming that the league board are failing to fulfil their role as company directors if they don't issue fines, as per their rules?
#Arenaherewecome

LoidLucan
Posts: 3467
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 11:29 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by LoidLucan » Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:38 am

They could very easily and on good, factual, solid ground have found that there was just cause in this particular case when you consider the very many extraordinary circumstances facing clubs.

Lo originally said he fully expected the charges to be cancelled and now they have been enforced seems to be suggesting the board had no option but to go ahead with them because of their duties as directors. They had every right to define what happened as having just cause, as covered in the rules.

lo36789
Posts: 9360
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by lo36789 » Wed Mar 31, 2021 1:59 pm

Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:02 am
lo36789 wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:39 am

Common sense is great but also utterly irrelevant in court if you have not fulfilled your role as a company director.

Personal financial and criminal liability and being banned from being a company director in future. Dead easy if it's not you in that position.
Are you claiming that the league board are failing to fulfil their role as company directors if they don't issue fines, as per their rules?
I think they possibly had to issue the charges to start with.

I am not sure on what came next or when appeals / mitigating circumstances are 'considered' within the NL processes.

If your company has articles which say directors must behave in certain ways (ie in line with the competition rules) then if they didn't behave in line with those rules they would potentially have a problem.

The fines / charge / just reason is an interpretation/process point.

lo36789
Posts: 9360
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by lo36789 » Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:03 pm

LoidLucan wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:38 am
Lo originally said he fully expected the charges to be cancelled and now they have been enforced seems to be suggesting the board had no option but to go ahead with them because of their duties as directors.
Yep. I still can't believe that clubs will actually have to pay these fines.

I don't believe anyone volunteers to be a board member of the league because they like issuing fines to clubs. They are all club chairmen and football people.

So maybe, just maybe there are underlying reasons? Maybe I am glass half full on people but that is a personal preference "why could you legitimately behave like that" rather than "I don't agree therefore you are wrong"

Darlogramps
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Punishment for the Boston game

Post by Darlogramps » Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:48 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:02 am
lo36789 wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:39 am

Common sense is great but also utterly irrelevant in court if you have not fulfilled your role as a company director.

Personal financial and criminal liability and being banned from being a company director in future. Dead easy if it's not you in that position.
Are you claiming that the league board are failing to fulfil their role as company directors if they don't issue fines, as per their rules?
I think they possibly had to issue the charges to start with.

I am not sure on what came next or when appeals / mitigating circumstances are 'considered' within the NL processes.

If your company has articles which say directors must behave in certain ways (ie in line with the competition rules) then if they didn't behave in line with those rules they would potentially have a problem.

The fines / charge / just reason is an interpretation/process point.
I’m really not sure what you’re trying to argue here, and to be honest, I don’t think you do either. I think you’re puking up a word salad from the first things that come into your head, as you usually do.

First you said they would cancel the charges. Now you’re saying they had no choice. Then you’re saying it won’t stick, even though Farsley (and I think Gateshead) accepted the charges and therefore have been punished. Your position is so inconsistent.

Are you saying the National League’s plan is to overturn everything on appeal? They’ve already charged, found guilty and taken fines from clubs so you’re in a weird state of denial if you think that.

Are you saying they were justified in issuing the punishments because of Da Rulez? Because everyone in this thread will rip your argument apart if you think that.

Your defence of the National League board is cute though. Wholly misguided and incorrect, but sweet.

You’re once again siding with the figures of authority though, as you ALWAYS do.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

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

lo36789
Posts: 9360
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by lo36789 » Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:25 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:48 pm
You’re once again siding with the figures of authority though, as you ALWAYS do.
We've had this debate before. Siding versus trying to understand or put into perspective why things may have been done.

HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services made some remarks along this line yesterday. Effectively along the lines of that people have a tendency to rush quickly to judgements on people and actions without letting due process play out and often the actions taken are justified when you know the full picture.

Let due processes play out. Don't get angry. Assume the best of people. If you want change put yourself forward to be the change...

There is actually the cold hard facts side of it as well. 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.

I still...still...think these things won't stick but in my approach of "can see why they came to the conclusion they did" I am not actually sure our just cause actually stacks up that strongly beyond a wider "what's the point in incurring unnecessary costs"

lo36789
Posts: 9360
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by lo36789 » Wed Mar 31, 2021 5:58 pm

Ghost_Of_1883 wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 11:02 am
lo36789 wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 9:39 am

Common sense is great but also utterly irrelevant in court if you have not fulfilled your role as a company director.

Personal financial and criminal liability and being banned from being a company director in future. Dead easy if it's not you in that position.
Are you claiming that the league board are failing to fulfil their role as company directors if they don't issue fines, as per their rules?
Weirdly, and timely, Dorking Wanderers get at what I was suggesting...

https://www.dorkingwanderers.com/post/representations

They quote the articles of association.

The Articles of Association of TFCL (AOA)

9. Pursuant to Article 25 (‘ALTERATIONS TO RULES’):

9.1 Article 25.1 provides that the activities of the Competition shall be administered by the Company(i.e. by TFCL)in accordance with the Rules to which all clubs shall adhere

https://companieshouse.blog.gov.uk/2019 ... -director/

"As a director, it’s important to be familiar with the articles of association as they may constrain your decision-making powers in certain ways. If you exceed your powers, then related decisions could be reversed and you might even have to compensate the company for any resulting financial losses"

So the articles of association state they must apply the rules and the board are duty bound to operate in line with the articles.

The fact that clubs like Dorking Wanderers are going down this route, could, explain why the directors are sticking to the letter of the rules and not just applying "common sense".

Darlogramps
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Punishment for the Boston game

Post by Darlogramps » Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:19 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 2:48 pm
You’re once again siding with the figures of authority though, as you ALWAYS do.
We've had this debate before. Siding versus trying to understand or put into perspective why things may have been done.

HM Inspectorate of Constabulary and Fire & Rescue Services made some remarks along this line yesterday. Effectively along the lines of that people have a tendency to rush quickly to judgements on people and actions without letting due process play out and often the actions taken are justified when you know the full picture.
Or letting a police-backed organisation tell the police they’d done nothing wrong. Like a Government-appointed race commission telling the Government the country isn’t “institutionally” racist.

Nothing like marking your own homework. Two of the “Independent” Panel were from the same FA administration department as Mark Ives. Hardly independent.

It’s a pretty dim person who accepts everything authority tells them. But evidently you do....

You’re not waiting to see how something plays out. It has played out. And you’re saying you agree with the National League. Once again you side with authority. Do yourself the honour of being honest about it.
lo36789 wrote: 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.

lo36789 wrote: I still...still...think these things won't stick but in my approach of "can see why they came to the conclusion they did" I am not actually sure our just cause actually stacks up that strongly beyond a wider "what's the point in incurring unnecessary costs"
So you agree with the National League. You’re trying to make out we could afford to lose £50K a month, with no guarantee of income, which is ludicrous.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

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

lo36789
Posts: 9360
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by lo36789 » Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:29 pm

Darlogramps wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:19 pm
lo36789 wrote: 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.
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.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4973
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:03 pm

It’s Johnston lo - he has no “e” and there’s more than one reason why we had just cause, we’re going for a multi pronged attack.

Personally I think there’s no doubt that the league decision makers have been found to be asleep at the wheel. That’s for over a year don’t forget. They could have and should have set up an emergency group this time last year, in fact I think this was suggested to them, but no.

They have made too many big mistakes for too long. They are a bad bunch and need to go. Some of their actions and decisions are indefensible.
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: 9360
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by lo36789 » Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:17 pm

theoriginalfatcat wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 7:03 pm
They have made too many big mistakes for too long. They are a bad bunch and need to go. Some of their actions and decisions are indefensible.
I don't know enough to be honest about what role each played to make any judgement on them personally. From what Jim Parmenter has said, and the revelation that another two have resigned it doesn't suggest the board were a particularly strong 'collective' or in anyway in agreement with one another.

Probably explains why decision making has always taken so long as they have been seeking consensus where there was none.

Some decisions are questionable from the outside looking in. Are they justifiable, who knows, there would need to be a justification given before making a call on whether it is defensible.

Darlogramps
Posts: 5492
Joined: Sun Sep 05, 2010 10:47 am
Team Supported: Darlington

Punishment for the Boston game

Post by Darlogramps » Wed Mar 31, 2021 10:37 pm

lo36789 wrote:
Darlogramps wrote:
Wed Mar 31, 2021 6:19 pm
lo36789 wrote: 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.
lo36789 wrote:
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.
If ever you're bored or miserable:

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

lo36789
Posts: 9360
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 10:58 pm
Team Supported: Darlington
Location: Liverpool

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by lo36789 » Thu Apr 01, 2021 6:00 am

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.

User avatar
theoriginalfatcat
Posts: 4973
Joined: Wed Jul 15, 2009 7:40 pm
Team Supported: Darlington

Re: Punishment for the Boston game

Post by theoriginalfatcat » Thu Apr 01, 2021 5:05 pm

I read through Dorking's legal mumbo jumbo statement and it's really funny (to me anyway)

There are so many points in it that even if 10% of them hold water then it's a hat full :D

Something like.

Resolution number one should never have been called as by rule blah blah blah 67.9 they should have done this first but even if it was legal (which it isn't for previously stated 7 reasons) then it would be illegal anyway - but in any case it would be illegal because blah blah blah rule of 777.93, and without this being enforced then resolutions 5, 15, 76, and 1 are not legal, and because they are not legal and (insert Latin word) that means it must have been written after 6 o clock when (as we all know) nothing counts anyway blah blah.

It just goes on and on. Some points are legal, some points are just gripes and moaning :shock:

But in any case Dorking's Marc White is stirring up as much trouble as he possibly can in what seems to be an act of revenge, and it makes me wonder if he'll call off the dogs if the League's board all get chucked out? He might consider this 'job done'
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