Help Justice Be Done

[Liam_SCFC]

Hello everyone, Salisbury fan here!

Anyway, it has been difficult times for my club recently - last week we were told by the league we wouldn't be eligible for membership to the league next season. This after we've battled a 10 point penalty for entering administration, finished 12th (would have been 6th) with the youngest side in the league & improved out finances greatly under a new board!

We need to make a stand. It’s not fair that we are the scapegoats. It would have been much cheaper for us to go into liquidation and start two leagues down, where we’ll be next season. It’s not sending the right message across. I don’t see it happening to Saints and any recently relegated Football League club isn’t subject to ‘Appendix E’ – don’t believe me? Check the rule book!

So, please help make me and other 'Whites' happy by joining our petition:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=128570467155691

Thanks
All support is much appreciated!

 

[Berkshire Blade]

No.

Trust me i'm a non-league fan and i cant be arsed to go into why but rules are rules and the conference has got them SPOT on. Shame for the new board but they knew what they were taking on and if they claim they didnt then more fool them.

 

[SwissBlade]

Liam SCFC, sorry but I have no sympathy. Tough sh*t pal.

If only the PL and upper levels of football would take note from a stance like this. Its a victory for those teams that DO keep their house in order year in year out.

 

[Liam_SCFC]

But the rules aren't consistent. Say Grimsby went into administration next season, the rules wouldn't apply to them becaus they're an ex-league club, and if you don't believe me, check the rule book!

 

[Berkshire Blade]

Tell you what. I'll sign for making the rules equal for all but not for reinstating you lot.

 

[SwissBlade]

But the rules aren't consistent. Say Grimsby went into administration next season, the rules wouldn't apply to them becaus they're an ex-league club, and if you don't believe me, check the rule book!

Its not that I don't believe you. I just have no sympathy. You don't need to remind Sheff Utd fans about inconsistent rules.

Fair enough the rules need to be changed, but they should be changed in favour of well run clubs not to try and help poorly run clubs that thought they were getting off lightly by pressing the reset button - i.e going into admin and taking the 10 pt hit.

Move aside SCFC and let the clubs that have managed to work within their financial means take your place.

 

[Liam_SCFC]

Its not that I don't believe you. I just have no sympathy. You don't need to remind Sheff Utd fans about inconsistent rules.

Fair enough the rules need to be changed, but they should be changed in favour of well run clubs not to try and help poorly run clubs that thought they were getting off lightly by pressing the reset button - i.e going into admin and taking the 10 pt hit.

Move aside SCFC and let the clubs that have managed to work within their financial means take your place.

Forest Green...well run?
Considering they'e worked up £300,000 worth of debt up I don't think so!!!

 

[SheepdipBlade]

I'll sign.

The FA needs to get it's house in order and ensure that ALL clubs, whether they be Salisbury City or Portsmouth, have to abide by the same rules.

What's more - Appendix E - is also unfair (and possibly legally dubious as well). It stipulates that any club that enters administration must exit admin by the third Sat of the following May - AND THAT ALL FOOTBALLING DEBTS ARE PAID AT 100p IN THE POUND. This means that even if a club has agreed with it's creditors to settle at a lower lever (as every Football League team that has come out of admin has done - didn't Leeds once offer 8p in the pound?) and manages to come out of admin - the Conference will still bar that club from it's league for the following season for not paying 100p in the pound.

It seems really unfair that the Conference can destroy a club/business - even though that club/business has followed the letter of UK law. In amateur days the intransigence of the League may have been more acceptable - but the world has moved on.

It also seems really unfair that some of these clubs - such as Chester City - have gone under for as little as £20K - - the sort of money John Terry loses down the sofa. There's enough money in the game to secure the future of our smaller clubs - some of which have been around since before 1889, and all of which mean as much to their fans as the Blades do to us.

I'm not advocating that Clubs should be allowed to gain benefits by spending more than they can afford - I am saying that smaller clubs should have the same opportunities to survive administration as Football League sides - that smaller clubs are just as important to the game as clubs like ours - and that we had support from fans of many clubs following the Tevez Affair, and it'd be petty for us not to support Salisbury City in their time of need.

Go on - sign the damn petition!

Liam SCFC - can I sign your petition without joining Facebook?

 

[JohnDenver]

Hello everyone, Salisbury fan here!

Anyway, it has been difficult times for my club recently - last week we were told by the league we wouldn't be eligible for membership to the league next season. This after we've battled a 10 point penalty for entering administration, finished 12th (would have been 6th) with the youngest side in the league & improved out finances greatly under a new board!

We need to make a stand. It’s not fair that we are the scapegoats. It would have been much cheaper for us to go into liquidation and start two leagues down, where we’ll be next season. It’s not sending the right message across. I don’t see it happening to Saints and any recently relegated Football League club isn’t subject to ‘Appendix E’ – don’t believe me? Check the rule book!

So, please help make me and other 'Whites' happy by joining our petition:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=128570467155691

Thanks
All support is much appreciated!

Liam, I agree the rules are inconsistent and I've every sympathy.

But I'm a little confused as to why Salisbury went to the trouble and expense of saving themselves when in effect they were doomed by the rules anyway? Was it always the plan to campaign against the rules once you'd rescued the season? Or if you'd been liquidated would the club not have survived at all in any form?

A little more background would be appreciated. I'm trying to understand whether you were forced into making Hobson's Choice, or whether you simply misjudged your approach?

 

[SwissBlade]

Forest Green...well run?
Considering they'e worked up £300,000 worth of debt up I don't think so!!!

I don't know the individual debts of conference clubs, but Like I said, I'd advocate rule change to ensure that all clubs are treated equally.

Sheepdips comments about Appendix E are all well and good, but weren't the rules in place long before you got into this mess.

Our situation with West Ham and Tevez was different, they lied, cheated and consistently broke the rules yet the authorities did nothing and we suffered.

As far as I can see the Conference isn't doing anything wrong, because you haven't explained why there is an injustice. You're just pissed off that you're trying to sort yourselves but forgot that there were other punishments still to come. Please let me know if i'm incorrect

 

[SheepdipBlade]

I think the key point here isn't whether or not Salisbury should be spared relegation or whether they knew about the ruling beforehand - it's that the rules are unfair and inappropriate to the 21st century where football is a business.

IMO the Conference should apply the UK laws in the way the Football and Premier Leagues do - and apply that to football via points deductions (as the Conference already do).

Penalising clubs/(relatively) small businesses by dismissal from the league seems achronistic - and draconian in that it applies the harshest financial regulations upon those clubs with fewer opportunities to raise 100p in the pound. It has the effect of driving the club out of business as it deprives them of the opportunity to compete (it's not as if there's an alternative league at that level they can apply to) - even though they have exited admin and met their creditors demands.

It seems unjust that the Conference can bar a club even though it's creditors are happy and it has exited admin. It should be for the creditors to identify a reasonable level of reimbursement; not the Football Conference.

The FA need to grow a pair, take overall control and apply one rule across the game.

 

[de g.]

I'll sign.

The FA needs to get it's house in order and ensure that ALL clubs, whether they be Salisbury City or Portsmouth, have to abide by the same rules.

What's more - Appendix E - is also unfair (and possibly legally dubious as well). It stipulates that any club that enters administration must exit admin by the third Sat of the following May - AND THAT ALL FOOTBALLING DEBTS ARE PAID AT 100p IN THE POUND. This means that even if a club has agreed with it's creditors to settle at a lower lever (as every Football League team that has come out of admin has done - didn't Leeds once offer 8p in the pound?) and manages to come out of admin - the Conference will still bar that club from it's league for the following season for not paying 100p in the pound.

It seems really unfair that the Conference can destroy a club/business - even though that club/business has followed the letter of UK law. In amateur days the intransigence of the League may have been more acceptable - but the world has moved on.

It also seems really unfair that some of these clubs - such as Chester City - have gone under for as little as £20K - - the sort of money John Terry loses down the sofa. There's enough money in the game to secure the future of our smaller clubs - some of which have been around since before 1889, and all of which mean as much to their fans as the Blades do to us.

I'm not advocating that Clubs should be allowed to gain benefits by spending more than they can afford - I am saying that smaller clubs should have the same opportunities to survive administration as Football League sides - that smaller clubs are just as important to the game as clubs like ours - and that we had support from fans of many clubs following the Tevez Affair, and it'd be petty for us not to support Salisbury City in their time of need.

Go on - sign the damn petition!

Liam SCFC - can I sign your petition without joining Facebook?

The requirement about football debts does and has applied to every club going into admin.

Leeds remain a special case, being (I think) that they were unable to agree a CVA and therefore meet the league rules. Frankly, it was a cop-out that they were allowed to continue int he league, but that is how it goes, but they were still required to pay football debts in full.

 

[SheepdipBlade]

The requirement about football debts does and has applied to every club going into admin.

Leeds remain a special case, being (I think) that they were unable to agree a CVA and therefore meet the league rules. Frankly, it was a cop-out that they were allowed to continue int he league, but that is how it goes, but they were still required to pay football debts in full.

Are you absolutely sure - cos this doesn't sound right to me.

Pompey are looking to pay far less that 100p, Leicester certainly did - and as you say Leeds got nowhere near. The only area of uncertainty may be the definition of "football related debt"

As fans of other clubs have pointed out - what is the sense of stipulating 100p in the pound? If I can afford to pay my creditors 100p in the pound, why would I ever go into admin in the first place?

If you're right de.g - then I'd change my earlier post to read that all football leagues should apply UK law - not out-dated achronistic thinking. The fact that the Football and Premier Leagues may be as incompetant as the Conference wouldn't come as a great shock!

 

[de g.]

HMRC have been (rightly) challenging this for years. However, the rules are very clear: football-related debts must be paid first and in full (this includes payments to players, coaching staff etc, transfer fees and money due to other clubs) before other creditors.

There was a big controvery over Leeds, as ex players who had moved to other clubs were paid huge amounts because the transfer deals which took them away from Leeds included payment of part of their wages due to the insanely high salaries they originally gave them.

There is a good argument to suggest that at least part of the money owed to HMRC is football related anyway - PAYE and NI are part of the cost of employing players and they should be required to pay that portion just as they are required to pay the salaries.

 

[SwissBlade]

As fans of other clubs have pointed out - what is the sense of stipulating 100p in the pound? If I can afford to pay my creditors 100p in the pound, why would I ever go into admin in the first place?

But isn't this the point? Its surely a better solution to ensure that clubs don't go into Admin?

I'm all for kicking teams out of the league if they can't run themselves properly

 

[SheepdipBlade]

But isn't this the point? Its surely a better solution to ensure that clubs don't go into Admin?

I'm all for kicking teams out of the league if they can't run themselves properly

Got to disagree on this one mate. Too many clubs have gone under because of charlatan chairmen and boards - leaving behind genuine fans and communities that have lost a great chunk of their heritage and identity.

Football clubs are important to people and communities in the way that no other business is - and as such need to be preserved wherever possible.

The only way I could agree with you, is if the FA ever get their shit together on their efforts to ensure that only "suitable" people can buy football clubs. Until then I feel it's too harsh to wipe out a communities football club because the chairman is a shark or incompetant.

 

[SwissBlade]

Got to disagree on this one mate. Too many clubs have gone under because of charlatan chairmen and boards - leaving behind genuine fans and communities that have lost a great chunk of their heritage and identity.

Football clubs are important to people and communities in the way that no other business is - and as such need to be preserved wherever possible.

The only way I could agree with you, is if the FA ever get their shit together on their efforts to ensure that only "suitable" people can buy football clubs. Until then I feel it's too harsh to wipe out a communities football club because the chairman is a shark or incompetant.

I agree, but then again these are minority. True its the fans and communities that suffer, but if the penalties were stronger then the gambler chairmen would think twice about playing with the future of a club.

On the other hand, there are a great many other clubs that do manage to keep themselves in order and deserve better. I don't think 10 pts is enough of a deterent

 

[SheepdipBlade]

I agree, but then again these are minority. True its the fans and communities that suffer, but if the penalties were stronger then the gambler chairmen would think twice about playing with the future of a club.

On the other hand, there are a great many other clubs that do manage to keep themselves in order and deserve better. I don't think 10 pts is enough of a deterent

Unfortunately it's the smaller clubs who make easier pickings for charlatans (though I'm sure Manure fans might have a thing to say too )

Interesting point you make about the 10 point penalty. I wouldn't want to see too many deductions that equate to automatic relegations (Luton) - seems no better than Appendix E - but harsher deductions may be in order.

It's difficult as each scenario is different. I'm one of those Blades going to Northwich Victoria in a couple of weeks and they're in a similar position to Salisbury - but their's was created by a previous chairman quitting - pulling out his finances and almost bankrupting the club (he said their ground was his pension policy!). How do you fairly penalise a club who has had the rug pulled from beneath it?

At some point the authorities need to look at the wider picture - strive to support clubs facing genuine and honest difficulties - whilst penalising those who sought an unfair advantage by operating above their means - - and remember that without the fans the game is meaningless - - and without the little clubs the game is diminished.