Statement from Ron Martin (16/9/20)

[kentblues]

This bit of the statement really confuses me

“We are still in that process of re-building to be ready to build again.
Unwittingly Sol Campbell in his efforts to find a winning formula blooded a number of young players and now all of those count as part of our maximum squad size of 23”

I don’t think that’s correct


Why you may ask well here’s the EFL rules re squads for 20/21

43.9 Squad Lists

43.9.1 Clubs shall be permitted to name up to a maximum number of Players in their Squad
List based on the following provisions:

(a) in respect of Championship Clubs, 25 Players of which a minimum of 8 must be a Home Grown Player;

(b) in respect of League One and Two Clubs:
(i) in Season 2020/21, 22 Players of which a minimum of 8 must be a Home Grown Player; and
(ii) in Season 2021/22 and each subsequent Season, 20 Players of which a minimum of 8 must be a Home Grown Player.

The limit set out in Regulation 43.9.1(b)(ii) increases to 22 for any Club relegated into League One, for its first Season following relegation.

43.9.2 The following Players do not need to be included in the Squad List to be eligible to play in League Matches:

(a) in respect of Championship Clubs, any Under 21 Player (save for any Under 21 Player who is registered with the Club on a Temporary Loan Transfer); and

(b) in respect of League One Clubs and League Two Clubs, any Under 21 Players.

Look the EFL is a basket case. Their regulations have been drafted by a 12 year old and simply can at no point have been subject to legal review. There appear to be all sorts of "rules" at odds with whats written in the regulations. No doubt because the EFL seek to also add into the regulations a notwithstanding all this we can do what we like.

Now they may think this is good enough- it isn't, if they were a competent governance body the rules would be transparent.

Forget the regulations as published, the reason I know Ron's statement is correct is that Lee Bowyer explained how the ridiculous and stupid rules meant they too had to include in the squad numbers young kids who put a toe on the pitch a couple of years ago. Basically the EFL in their abject stupidity have rules that penalise clubs for giving home grown youngsters game time- many clubs in the current situation will now actively resist making the same mistake. Well done EFL- aspiring young players no doubt will be wanting to congratulate you.

Rather than 1 minute on the pitch there should be a certain number a games. But that would be sensible and in the world of the EFL that is strictly verboten.

 

[Jai]

Someone’s gonna mention a CEO again but not explain how we’re gonna ****ing pay for it.

When Kavanagh left, we were in a position to afford it. The problem is the club has been mismanaged so badly in the meantime that we probably are no longer in a position to afford it. But running without one is a massive false economy

 

[ESG]

When Kavanagh left, we were in a position to afford it. The problem is the club has been mismanaged so badly in the meantime that we probably are no longer in a position to afford it. But running without one is a massive false economy

Or a club Secretary

 

[Colchester and proud!]

28 professional players? We have 22 listed on the club website in the first team. I guess that also includes some u23s such as Klass, Acquah (even with the club?), Howard, Callum Taylor, Benton and Stewart.

GK: Oxley, Seaden
DEF: Bwomono, Ralph, Hobson, Clifford, Taylor, Demetriou, Lennon, Kyprianou, Mitchell-Nelson, White
MID: Green, Dieng, Egbri, Gard, Phillips, Hutchinson, Kinali
FWD: Goodship, Rush, Kelman

If it is as simple as the squad numbers being capped at 23 players, then can't we drop players/loan them out to make space? Mitchell-Nelson has been playing for the u23s. Rush and Kinali can go out on loan to gain experience.

As a comparison. We have 32 players in our 1st team squad although some of those are young players, we released a few in the Summer and are still looking to bring in a striker or two. https://www.cu-fc.com/fixtures/first-team/

 

[Leo210856]

Look the EFL is a basket case. Their regulations have been drafted by a 12 year old and simply can at no point have been subject to legal review. There appear to be all sorts of "rules" at odds with whats written in the regulations. No doubt because the EFL seek to also add into the regulations a notwithstanding all this we can do what we like.

Now they may think this is good enough- it isn't, if they were a competent governance body the rules would be transparent.

Forget the regulations as published, the reason I know Ron's statement is correct is that Lee Bowyer explained how the ridiculous and stupid rules meant they too had to include in the squad numbers young kids who put a toe on the pitch a couple of years ago. Basically the EFL in their abject stupidity have rule that penalise clubs for giving home grown youngsters game time- many clubs in the current situation will now actively resist making the same mistake. Well done EFL- aspiring young players no doubt will be wanting to congratulate you.

Rather than 1 minute on the pitch their should be a certain number a games. But that would be sensible and in the world of the EFL that is strictly verboten.

You have two things running in parallel.

When a club is in embargo players that have played a couple of games take up a berth in your 23 man squad. When not in embargo if those same players were born after 1/1/1999 they don’t irrespective of their experience.

The EFL rule isn’t about trying to penalise clubs playing home grown players. In fact within the squad limits be it the 22 over 21 year olds that apply to all clubs or the special provisions that kick in when a club is in embargo you can have as any HG players as you like nor is it trying to penalise home grown youngsters playing its saying sorry but they’ve played in your first team already so they have to count in the allowable 23.

 

[kentblues]

This is all somewhat painful in a number of ways.

The statement is classic Ron sharing in his own words his view on things. Yes a decent PR person would change a lot of it- is that really what you want. Instead of his actual words and thoughts a PR version designed to make you happier? I would be careful what you wish for.

He has given a statement and said he will do so regularly- hold him to that. Let's not prove why he's foolish bothering to make any statements at all.

It seems to me that in some cases a strong dislike of Ron then means fault must be found with everything he says irrespective of whether he has a case or not.

To dismiss the Cardnet piece as some sort of made up invalid excuse is absurd. Forget Ron- the club needs that money. When you bought your new season ticket you did it for the club, when you waived the refund from last year you did it for the club. You wanted your money to go to the club. A bank has decided they will keep your money. If you have real outrage I suggest you direct it at Lloyds Bank and Cardnet. Its likely, in any fair analysis, that had those funds been released we would have been certainly much closer to clearing the debt. BTW this money is the clubs income- so to suggest it should not be used to pay the clubs debts is also absurd. If football clubs can't use their income (i.e. gate receipts) to pay their expenses what are they supposed to use?

 

[kentblues]

You have two things running in parallel.

When a club is in embargo players that have played a couple of games take up a berth in your 23 man squad. When not in embargo if those same players were born after 1/1/1999 they don’t irrespective of their experience.

The EFL rule isn’t about trying to penalise clubs playing home grown players. In fact within the squad limits be it the 22 over 21 year olds that apply to all clubs or the special provisions that kick in when a club is in embargo you can have as any HG players as you like nor is it trying to penalise home grown youngsters playing its saying sorry but they’ve played in your first team already so they have to count in the allowable 23.

Forget what EFL intends (they often achieve the opposite intended or otherwise- the law of unintended consequences). Surely look at the actual consequences therefore?

We are in the middle of a financial crisis where any number of clubs could find themselves under embargo. If a youngster puts a toe on the first team pitch then if under an embargo he will count to the squad and prevent potentially further signings. Lesson- in these highly uncertain times, when the next embargo may apply to you, don't put those youngsters on the pitch unless its completely unavoidable.

 

[southendkid]

QUOTE="Yorkshire Blue, post: 2274354, member: 1665"]
That thread was from August after the salary cap was introduced.

The embargo thing you quote is in terms of bringing players in and on what wage using the exception but there is still a limit on the number of over aged 21 year olds you can register and that numbers or 20/21 is 22. Bear in mind the rule cover all of the EFL where some clubs can have up to 25 in their squads

I am not questioning how players can be signed using the embargo rules I am questioning the assertion in the statement that the squad limit is 23 but also why it’s being claimed that academy players have to be listed in the squad list because they have played first team games when clearly if they are aged under 21 they don’t count in the 22

You're confusing two separate things. We do have to abide by the 22 squad limit excluding kids (as do all clubs in the league), however because we are under an embargo we have to also abide by a second squad limit which is a maximum of 23 including kids (which is what Ron is referring to).

 

[nevereatwhitesnow]

This is all somewhat painful in a number of ways.

The statement is classic Ron sharing in his own words his view on things. Yes a decent PR person would change a lot of it- is that really what you want. Instead of his actual words and thoughts a PR version designed to make you happier? I would be careful what you wish for.

He has given a statement and said he will do so regularly- hold him to that. Let's not prove why he's foolish bothering to make any statements at all.

It seems to me that in some cases a strong dislike of Ron then means fault must be found with everything he says irrespective of whether he has a case or not.

To dismiss the Cardnet piece as some sort of made up invalid excuse is absurd. Forget Ron- the club needs that money. When you bought your new season ticket you did it for the club, when you waived the refund from last year you did it for the club. You wanted your money to go to the club. A bank has decided they will keep your money. If you have real outrage I suggest you direct it at Lloyds Bank and Cardnet. Its likely, in any fair analysis, that had those funds been released we would have been certainly much closer to clearing the debt. BTW this money is the clubs income- so to suggest it should not be used to pay the clubs debts is also absurd. If football clubs can't use their income (i.e. gate receipts) to pay their expenses what are they supposed to use?

I think you are generally quite a balanced poster (perhaps with a slight bias to optimism but personally I think it's healthier that way) but the bit in bold seems odd - Ron chose the method of sales and the provider and presumably knew what the terms were(based on the current credit rating) - to blame them is a little like an gambler blaming a defeat on the bookies accepting their bet?!

 

[londonblue]

Can't see how Cardnet can operate like that. Them whitholding the money is more likely that we will fold and could well be a contributing factor into the possible demise of our club.

If i bought petrol on a credit card from a petrol station that is close to closing, do Cardnet drip feed the monies a little bit per day on the assumption that i can't possibly use all of the petrol up in one go?

Understand their reasoning for holding onto the monies and then paying a little bit each month. Sort of like a regular cash flow, but I would like the money that i paid to Southend United to be passed to Southend United.

It does seem a bit unfair, because it creates a vicious circle. On the other hand, you can understand why they do that.

 

[lombard]

Paying the debt off, will not get us out of the mire."Dodgy Ron" has continually mismanaged the club from day one.What with transferring Roots Hall and the training ground into his own companies, early in his tenure.A share sale that was slanting his way, and at a ridiculous price !
Continual non payment and late payments to staff, and a large number of winding up orders.He is out of his depth running an organisation.The rent he charges SUFC,basically ring
fences his initial investment and a lot more.I really think he doesn't care about the football club.
I will be surprised if we survive beyond this season as a Football League Club !!!

 

[londonblue]

My take on Ron's statement can be summed up as follows:

"What a load of bollocks."

He is deluded if he thinks he's going to get in another 4-odd players before the transfer window shuts whilst having to operate a revolving door policy. Remember, with the exception of one place in the squad, we have to get rid of players before any new ones can come in.

As I've said on numerous occasions, the way Ron negotiates (at a snail's pace), I simply don't see how he's going to manage that. Moreover, every player and agent knows the situation we're in so they can delay and delay until they get the deal they want, especially as we will have already reduced our squad size to accommodate them.

 

[Leo210856]

You're confusing two separate things. We do have to abide by the 22 squad limit excluding kids (as do all clubs in the league), however because we are under an embargo we have to also abide by a second squad limit which is a maximum of 23 including kids (which is what Ron is referring to).

The point I was trying to make, and can see that I didn’t make it well is that a club in embargo needs to have 23 registered ad experienced professionals and can within salary cap and indeed other financial constraints keep up to that number of registered yes under 21 year olds are included in that number but the squad limit is 22 and that excludes under 21 year olds

 

[kentblues]

I think you are generally quite a balanced poster (perhaps with a slight bias to optimism but personally I think it's healthier that way) but the bit in bold seems odd - Ron chose the method of sales and the provider and presumably knew what the terms were(based on the current credit rating) - to blame them is a little like an gambler blaming a defeat on the bookies accepting their bet?!

My understanding is that the Club has used Cardnet for a number of years. He says he expected that the season ticket money would be passed on and go towards settling HMRC. It is valid to question when and if he knew otherwise- did Cardnet change their terms, did they alert the club in anyway that they didn't intend to pass monies on prior etc.

But fundamentally the outcome is that a season ticket holders money that they wanted to go to the club, including waiving last years refund in many cases (because they wanted to help the club) is now helping a bank instead. Some will be happy with that, some wont. That I guess was my point.

PS yes my glass in nearly always half full :-)
PPS the season ticket also chose the method of payment in the expectaion the club would get the money not the bank

 

[dannypav]

Don’t forget ‘due diligence’.
Any new player we are interested in will have to pass our strict ‘due diligence’ check before we agree to sign him.

 

[Mad Cyril]

Ron over uses nevertheless.

 

[koiman]

mr martin is a rascal i'm sure he doesn't care about the club getting wound up he says he owns the stadium he will just build on the ground he will be the winner

 

[nevereatwhitesnow]

My understanding is that the Club has used Cardnet for a number of years. He says he expected that the season ticket money would be passed on and go towards settling HMRC. It is valid to question when and if he knew otherwise- did Cardnet change their terms, did they alert the club in anyway that they didn't intend to pass monies on prior etc.

But fundamentally the outcome is that a season ticket holders money that they wanted to go to the club, including waiving last years refund in many cases (because they wanted to help the club) is now helping a bank instead. Some will be happy with that, some wont. That I guess was my point.

PS yes my glass in nearly always half full :-)
PPS the season ticket also chose the method of payment in the expectaion the club would get the money not the bank

I have no idea whether Cardnet have changed their terms or not but as they are regulated by the FCA if Ron believes they have acted outside their terms and agreements he could make a claim against them although I think it's unlikely given the outstanding WOU is a pretty handy red-flag for a finance company to point to.

To be honest it's something a reasonable CFO or CEO would have know (or checked) prior to putting the cards on sale

I do feel sorry for the fans, especially those who really only purchased a ST to help the club financially when they knew it's pretty unlikely they'll be able to use it for a big chunk of the season because of Covid.

 

[Leo210856]

mr martin is a rascal i'm sure he doesn't care about the club getting wound up he says he owns the stadium he will just build on the ground he will be the winner

A major stumbling block would be that Sport England would as a matter of course have to be consulted they in all probability would ensure that facilities would have to be built elsewhere within a few miles at most of Roots Hall.

I believe that all councils keep a register of football/ sports pitches ( that are currently/ within the last x number of years been used ) and are required to maintain or moved on a one for one basis.

 

[Leo210856]

Cardnets terms and conditions in 2015

27. Security
27.1 If any part of Lloyds Banking Group holds security in respect of any liabilities of the Retailer to Lloyds Bank plc, then any sums due from the Retailer to the Bank under this Agreement will be secured upon such security.
27.2 Lloyds Bank plc may at any time without notice to the Retailer set off, against any sums due from Lloyds Bank plc (whether or not in connection with this Agreement) to the Retailer, any sums due from the Retailer to the Bank or which in the Bank’s reasonable opinion are likely to fall due but to remain unpaid by the Retailer.
27.3 The Bank may at any time by notice require the Retailer to give security, in such form as the Bank shall determine, in respect of all sums due at any time under this Agreement or any loss or damage that the Bank may suffer under this Agreement (including any future Chargeback risk). The Retailer must comply with the Bank’s request within the timescale specified in the notice.
28. Variation
The Bank may from time to time vary this Agreement (including the Retailer Operating Manual) upon written notice to the Retailer. The Bank will give the Retailer at least 30 (thirty) days notice of any variation