Che's Left Foot
an Australian chap
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2007
- Messages
- 1,617
bang on. well said.
bang on. well said.
Pretty sure TNT Sports pays a lot of attention to what's going on in the NL, as they are coughing up money to show the NL games live.The League don’t get a say in TV company choices and TV companies don’t pay much attention to what’s going on in non league football.
Excellent Statement.
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!! I'd be in a straightjacket by then!!!For what it's worth, the WUP that led to their liquidation had been adjourned 12 times.
If we don't turn up on the day then D&R could just split in half and have a low energy 6-a-side game. Either that or the players could run around and do skids in the centre circle, climb trees, fall into streams or fight each other while the coaches stand around smoking. We've all been involved in such fixtures as kids. Would make okay telly, maybe a bit nichePretty sure TNT Sports pay a lot of attention to what's going on in the NL, as they are coughing up money to show the NL games live.
Good stuff. Accountability and consequences are the only things which will drive this (repeating myself for years)
Very good. I would also have referred to our understanding there is at least one offer on the table that would resolve the situation. You would like to think the NL are aware of this- probably mentioned in the f2f meeting. The key thing he is not delaying for lack of a buyer and that is a critical point..
Our licence/membership is subject to the conditions, so they have already been backed into a corner to a degree. When making a statement and definitive deadline they can state that xyz must be competed by x date. Failure to complete will result in y consequence (expulsion) unless the league is provided with sufficient supporting documentation that is acceptable to amend x date.I can’t see the league publishing anything.
If you publish you are boxing yourself into a corner. Deadlines are broken so often in life in loads of different things.
Ie, the sale could go to the wire. The club and buyer could -provide concrete evidence it is going through, but the payments could be 24 hours after the leagues ultimatum. They may be ‘happy’ to extend by a day but this becomes more difficult if they have gone public.
Although it is a critical point, as I pointed out earlier I think it's outside of their remit to require an owner of a club to sell.Very good. I would also have referred to our understanding there is at least one offer on the table that would resolve the situation. You would like to think the NL are aware of this- probably mentioned in the f2f meeting. The key thing he is not delaying for lack of a buyer and that is a critical point..
Very good statement, needed to be said........
I'm sure he's been intouch with the NL in advance himself, and spun them a BS story like he does the judges each time. What he has going for him, and will use to his advantage and take credit for no doubt, is our own huge away support, which the league will I am sure factor. Victims of our own success you may say. He knows this and will suggest a deal is close, but can't disclose details, bla, bla bloody, bla, all the while we all carry on suffering.Very good. I would also have referred to our understanding there is at least one offer on the table that would resolve the situation. You would like to think the NL are aware of this- probably mentioned in the f2f meeting. The key thing he is not delaying for lack of a buyer and that is a critical point..
Exactly the sort of statement I'd dreamed up in my head when thinking 'where the hell do we go next?'. Straight and to the point well done Shrimpers Trust. Over to you National League...
He'll find anyone to blame but himself. The history books however will tell a different story when he's not here to spin it.He can now blame the Trust for any sanction. Needed to be done though.
Its not that they would *require* the club to sell but rather to understand the context that he is not selling now because he doesn't want to not because he has no offers. Therefore they would be even more comfortable enforcing their rules. Naturally they would set a deadline to comply not to sell...Although it is a critical point, as I pointed out earlier I think it's outside of their remit to require an owner of a club to sell.
They therefore have to stick to their remit (regulating the integrity of the competition) by asking clubs to pay their bills and prepare the team and ground properly for the season.
Obviously if the owner's only way of doing this is to sell the club, then so be it....
I absolutely did mean 6, good spot!