Breaking News -10 Points Deduction Confirmed (Aug23)

[Liam AAS]

Yes, I’m sure the likes of AFC Wimbledon and Exeter City would do anything to swap places with a club beholden to the whims and tired stratagems of one dishonest man.

Sorry it’s all come to this. As usual the dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed. Re: the National League, they have precedent for removing or refusing licenses to play in their divisions. If only the EFL had a scintilla of the organisational fortitude and care about its member clubs then many of the recent debacles could have been avoided.

Good luck for the coming weeks and keep the pressure up on the rat.

This is the greatest sentence that the English langauge has ever known

 

[Target man]

He did mention another person but said he gets on well with the Aussie, i wanted the interview to go on longer as SJ although having some sympathy for him was tying him up in knots at times .

Didn't trust a word Ron said TBH

Last thing he said was if he can fund the club he will but if he cant get the funds then its not an option and he wont

He doesn't have to get on well with him, just sell!!

Unless of course he's planning on sticking around like a bad smell ...

 

[Beefy]

The NL were clear what would happen - just take some responsibility for your actions and put all your efforts into getting the sale done.

But this is Ron Martin all over isn't it? What people say just doesn't matter to him.

 

[Mick]

Thanks for your response Mick, especially the patronising sarcasm at the beginning.

I was actually struggling to connect the response about quotes from the directors about points deductions with my post explaining that the NL are penalising the club rather than Ron directly and so all suffer and was hoping Stuart might explain but clearly you've answered for him (although not the point I was questioning).

Cheers

Sorry I failed to answer the point you were questioning, but as your post comprised just a single question mark and absolutely no words, I feel I could be forgiven.

Anyway, as you've got us back on the subject of indolent directors, I've dug up a few words of official guidance regarding the role of company directors:

"Directors are expected to act in a way that is most likely to promote the success of the company. In short, any action they take should benefit members of the company as a whole.

When making any decisions, they need to consider the short and long-term impact on shareholders, employees, suppliers, customers, clients and communities. They also need to consider any potential impact on the environment and the company’s reputation.

This duty seems obvious, but it can be easy to get wrong. Directors might, for instance, prioritise the interests of certain shareholders or executives above those of everyone else. It’s key to remain unbiased and broad minded.

Although they need to follow the rules and align to company values, this doesn’t mean they can’t have their own view. In fact, they’re expected to. Directors are required to exercise independent judgement. This means that rather than blindly following the commands of others, or relying on someone else’s knowledge and judgment, they need to develop and voice their own informed view on the company’s activities. Becoming very familiar with all the key aspects of a company’s activities helps them do this. When making a decision, they should consider the interests of the company.

Company directors also have the continued responsibility to ensure the health and safety of the workplace."

Not sure our directors can tick too many of those boxes and personally if I were a director who was not allowed or willing to do these things I would resign forthwith.

 

[Userorange]

There is no chance of Ron getting VNL to overturn their points deduction decision.

If he did manage it I pledge I will publicly sink to my knees and kiss his bare backside.

On the other hand I might ask @Billy Bests boot laces to do it for me as he doesn’t mind the smell of fish.

 

[kentblues]

Can't be bothered to get in the prediction game about what the club appeal against a points deduction for non-payment of HMRC will bring. I don't believe there is an instance in the premier League, EFL or National League where it has ever resulted in anything other then an embargo. Feel free to prove me wrong..

So there is no precedent in terms of an appeal. The only precedent is that the penalty is an embargo..this at least is clear.

The league will rely on its blanket we can give whatever penalty we like for anything catch all. That gets them only so far - especially if they are issuing a penalty against precedent and it goes to appeal.

They will no doubt say its not a penalty for not paying HMRC its a penalty for not meeting the terms of out license. That is to some extent splitting hairs.

BTW do NOT assume other clubs will be in favour of this precedent either. They would now have a points deduction in play for non-payment/ late payment of HMRC as well. You can say, oh no thats different. Well it is right up to the point it isn't.

Anyway can't be bothered to say any more on it. It will go through the process and nothing anyone says on here about will matter one little bit. From the terminology Ron used I suspect he has taken some legal advise that says he has a case. But lawyers always tell you that at the beginning anyway....

 

[Cricko]

Sorry I failed to answer the point you were questioning, but as your post comprised just a single question mark and absolutely no words, I feel I could be forgiven.

Anyway, as you've got us back on the subject of indolent directors, I've dug up a few words of official guidance regarding the role of company directors:

"Directors are expected to act in a way that is most likely to promote the success of the company. In short, any action they take should benefit members of the company as a whole.

When making any decisions, they need to consider the short and long-term impact on shareholders, employees, suppliers, customers, clients and communities. They also need to consider any potential impact on the environment and the company’s reputation.

This duty seems obvious, but it can be easy to get wrong. Directors might, for instance, prioritise the interests of certain shareholders or executives above those of everyone else. It’s key to remain unbiased and broad minded.

Although they need to follow the rules and align to company values, this doesn’t mean they can’t have their own view. In fact, they’re expected to. Directors are required to exercise independent judgement. This means that rather than blindly following the commands of others, or relying on someone else’s knowledge and judgment, they need to develop and voice their own informed view on the company’s activities. Becoming very familiar with all the key aspects of a company’s activities helps them do this. When making a decision, they should consider the interests of the company.

Company directors also have the continued responsibility to ensure the health and safety of the workplace."

Not sure our directors can tick too many of those boxes and personally if I were a director who was not allowed or willing to do these things I would resign forthwith.

Any response @avila05 ?

 

[dusterman]

We need to run this rodent out of our club, our city, our county and as far away as possible.

 

[Stuart W]

Sorry I failed to answer the point you were questioning, but as your post comprised just a single question mark and absolutely no words, I feel I could be forgiven.

Anyway, as you've got us back on the subject of indolent directors, I've dug up a few words of official guidance regarding the role of company directors:

"Directors are expected to act in a way that is most likely to promote the success of the company. In short, any action they take should benefit members of the company as a whole.

When making any decisions, they need to consider the short and long-term impact on shareholders, employees, suppliers, customers, clients and communities. They also need to consider any potential impact on the environment and the company’s reputation.

This duty seems obvious, but it can be easy to get wrong. Directors might, for instance, prioritise the interests of certain shareholders or executives above those of everyone else. It’s key to remain unbiased and broad minded.

Although they need to follow the rules and align to company values, this doesn’t mean they can’t have their own view. In fact, they’re expected to. Directors are required to exercise independent judgement. This means that rather than blindly following the commands of others, or relying on someone else’s knowledge and judgment, they need to develop and voice their own informed view on the company’s activities. Becoming very familiar with all the key aspects of a company’s activities helps them do this. When making a decision, they should consider the interests of the company.

Company directors also have the continued responsibility to ensure the health and safety of the workplace."

Not sure our directors can tick too many of those boxes and personally if I were a director who was not allowed or willing to do these things I would resign forthwith.

I couldn’t be bothered to reply to a question mark, as I thought my “dig” at the museum pieces decorating the boardroom was fairly obvious. Thanks for taking the trouble to explain in detail, Mick. I really couldn’t be arsed. Actually that probably gives me the suitable credentials to get on the board……

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Surely the CEO as a lawyer can see the error in appealing something they really do not have a remote chance of winning? The terms were laid down - clear the debt or you'll be deducted points. Martin didn't pay and the NL deducted the points. What part of that merits an appeal?

Usually what happens in these circumstances is that the client announces that they will definitely appeal and how unfair it all is and then once the sale goes through the appeal is quietly dropped.

 

[londonblue]

Can't be bothered to get in the prediction game about what the club appeal against a points deduction for non-payment of HMRC will bring. I don't believe there is an instance in the premier League, EFL or National League where it has ever resulted in anything other then an embargo. Feel free to prove me wrong..

So there is no precedent in terms of an appeal. The only precedent is that the penalty is an embargo..this at least is clear.

The league will rely on its blanket we can give whatever penalty we like for anything catch all. That gets them only so far - especially if they are issuing a penalty against precedent and it goes to appeal.

They will no doubt say its not a penalty for not paying HMRC its a penalty for not meeting the terms of out license. That is to some extent splitting hairs.

BTW do NOT assume other clubs will be in favour of this precedent either. They would now have a points deduction in play for non-payment/ late payment of HMRC as well. You can say, oh no thats different. Well it is right up to the point it isn't.

Anyway can't be bothered to say any more on it. It will go through the process and nothing anyone says on here about will matter one little bit. From the terminology Ron used I suspect he has taken some legal advise that says he has a case. But lawyers always tell you that at the beginning anyway....

The thing is, only an idiot would gamble. Anyone acting in the best interests of the club would pay it just in case, and then argue the point.

 

[BALDY]

Great post, and thing that gets me still and I don’t understand is where does all the revenue go ? We have one of the biggest crowds in the league, nobody is being paid yet we are skint !

I was told that back in the mists of time Charlton had 70.000 crowds and the players earnt peanuts so just like SUFC what the hell happened to the £££££?

 

[BALDY]

7 points off ? We have 6 if u minus 10 that's 4? And I guarantee we will now win friday so I make that 3 points leaving us on 1 ? We will easily stay up and still make the playoffs

I am all for a person being positive but the above is dreamlike!

 

[BALDY]

This is the greatest sentence that the English langauge has ever known

Besides: If it takes a week to walk a fortnight.....How many Apples are there in a barrel of Grapes!!......................Forget Shakespear here is Baldy.

 

[Hampshire Shrimp]

The only hope I would have of this 10 points being removed, is Tom Lawrence, being a lawyer, if hes SURE there is no way they should have imposed 10 points on us, then I trust him out of anyone.

The time to have asked for clarification on this was when the statement from the NL came out on the 26th July 23. But, I suppose TL thought that all debt would have been paid.
The rat probably thought that the court would be a walk in the park, saying a deal was close with his usual bullsh*t, the judge viewed it differently and told him in no uncertain terms what the way ahead is. I just hope that the takeover happens and we get back to talking about football related issues.
The staff, players, managers, coaches, TL and us fans deserve much better.

Good luck all and Up the Blues.

 

[* ORM *]

2 successive defeats followed by a 10 point deduction is just a six game bad run. We had worse than that last season, recovered and nearly sneaked into the play offs. Far from doom and gloom just yet.

 

[West Stand]

Kent

You say

“So there is no precedent in terms of an appeal. The only precedent is that the penalty is an embargo..this at least is clear.

The league will rely on its blanket we can give whatever penalty we like for anything catch all. That gets them only so far - especially if they are issuing a penalty against precedent and it goes to appeal”

Its well within their rules to issue a ten point deduction indeed as I posted yesterday the relevant section

“Any Embargo is without prejudice to any other penalties that the Competition may wish or be entitled to impose pursuant to any other Rule or Regulation or Appendix in relation to any matter giving rise to the right to impose an Embargo including but not limited to any default, or any agreement reached with creditors or failure to report the default or incorrectly reporting the Club’s adherence to any agreement with creditors”

Yes there obviously is a right to appeal the penalty to the league/ FA but that is it in terms of options there is no route to a court of law or indeed CAS. I can’t see any appeal being successful and to appeal comes at a cost which almost be more many wasted

The irony is had RM gone down the route that clubs suffering the catastrophic financial predicament and mismanagement that SUFC is enduring then the 10 points would have been levied when the club was still in the EFL then and almost certainly talk of relegation to the NLS wouldn’t be on the agenda.

I expect more points penalties to follow. Irrespective of who is pulling the strings at the club it continues to trade, to function in a way that continually sticks two fingers up at rules which other clubs have and no doubt will continue to be held account to

It did with Luton and quite possibly like Luton the FA get involved because it’s not just failure to comply with NL rules but core FA rules likewise are being broken and we can stamp our feet all we like but does anyone really think that the club have any grounds to think they are being hard done by ?

The only thing that does cross my mind , and it’s a worry, is this all part of some master plan?

 

[kentblues]

Kent

You say

“So there is no precedent in terms of an appeal. The only precedent is that the penalty is an embargo..this at least is clear.

The league will rely on its blanket we can give whatever penalty we like for anything catch all. That gets them only so far - especially if they are issuing a penalty against precedent and it goes to appeal”

Its well within their rules to issue a ten point deduction indeed as I posted yesterday the relevant section

“Any Embargo is without prejudice to any other penalties that the Competition may wish or be entitled to impose pursuant to any other Rule or Regulation or Appendix in relation to any matter giving rise to the right to impose an Embargo including but not limited to any default, or any agreement reached with creditors or failure to report the default or incorrectly reporting the Club’s adherence to any agreement with creditors”

Yes there obviously is a right to appeal the penalty to the league/ FA but that is it in terms of options there is no route to a court of law or indeed CAS. I can’t see any appeal being successful and to appeal comes at a cost which almost be more many wasted

The irony is had RM gone down the route that clubs suffering the catastrophic financial predicament and mismanagement that SUFC is enduring then the 10 points would have been levied when the club was still in the EFL then and almost certainly talk of relegation to the NLS wouldn’t be on the agenda.

I expect more points penalties to follow. Irrespective of who is pulling the strings at the club it continues to trade, to function in a way that continually sticks two fingers up at rules which other clubs have and no doubt will continue to be held account to

It did with Luton and quite possibly like Luton the FA get involved because it’s not just failure to comply with NL rules but core FA rules likewise are being broken and we can stamp our feet all we like but does anyone really think that the club have any grounds to think they are being hard done by ?

The only thing that does cross my mind , and it’s a worry, is this all part of some master plan?

I did say I can't be bothered to get into a debate...and yet..
We actually agree in that I said I thought it would not succeed. I still don't.
The penalty is without precedent for HMRC default across not just NL but also Prem & EFL (has anyone found an instance yet please share). So precedent combined with published specific penalties (rather than relying on "we can do what we like for whatever reason") probably provides a reasonable basis of appeal. Just a fact (we can argue about whether it can/will succeed- except we agree). Given the impact and that there is a chance of succeeding its not unreasonable to appeal. I doubt there is anyone on here who would not want to if it might succeed? We don't actually welcome a 10 point penalty (to state the obvious).
The big worry is this penalty was for HMRC default, if we don't pay players and staff next week that's a new and different breach, and as you say would potentially/likely be another points penalty.
If the club/Ron don't have the money then no doubt it will be a case of retire again to the playground for another c**k waving contest with once again a guaranteed lose/lose outcome....So hopefully the money is there or takeover completes prior.
Beyond that the next court appearance comes next.
The league have painted themselves into a little bit of a corner in that I doubt the intention was to issue rapid points deductions until we cease to exist. PLEASE...that is not to try and pass any blame/responsibility in their direction. Again just to state the obvious.

 

[bazzashrimper]

I may be hopelessly optimistic, but barring administration I can’t see another points deduction before the next WUP.

We have 39 days left. The penalty for non payment has been given. At the end of 39 days we are either paid or dead. The league were holding Ron to account expecting another adjournment not to impact him. What more point is there in a deduction when the club is likely to be dead or sold in 5.5 weeks?

 

[BILLERICAY BLUE]

I may be hopelessly optimistic, but barring administration I can’t see another points deduction before the next WUP.

We have 39 days left. The penalty for non payment has been given. At the end of 39 days we are either paid or dead. The league were holding Ron to account expecting another adjournment not to impact him. What more point is there in a deduction when the club is likely to be dead or sold in 5.5 weeks?

Nope, we get a 10 point deduction each time we fail to pay the players and / or staff. So potentially another 20 points between now and the next WUP hearing.