national league

[kaymac]

Interesting discussion last night on KMTV involving reps from three Kent clubs. One issue raised was about loans and how exactly they would work, none of the three reps knew.

 

[Chris Powell's mate]

lol.. I don't know what the league will do but there are loans available right they might not want them but they are there to keep clubs afloat..
Thing is with votes and democracy though is you can lose and you don't get it your way. Obviously the bias view from our side is we want it void but I think we are gonna have to accept that the minority voters who want it null and void are gonna have to figure out a way to continue which might just be taking the loans.

What is totally not fair and unreasonable is cancelling the season because 6/24 voted for it.

Disagree!
That's the equivalent of saying a car can get by missing a few bits from the engine.
The NL functions as an complete entity of 23 clubs.
If clubs, six, for argument's sake, insist they have no players because they can't pay them, how do you force the issue and maintain the integrity of the league?
Play junior teams, and suffer results like 12-1, for example?
A loan has to be repaid.
If the terms were 0% interest over 15 years, it might be doable.
But I've not seen a single reference to these.
And if owners at Wealdstone and Dover are saying they can't afford them, am assuming terms are not favourable.
If there is no money, and it's not clubs fault, how can the NL executive punish them by kicking them out?

 

[kaymac]

Dover, Tonbridge and Maidstone all on furlough.

 

[rigsby]

I don't know the repayment terms but it would be pretty ridiculous to be asking for repayment when there is no income which is the sole reason the funding is required..

I literally don't know the answers to any of these questions all I'm saying is I think it's very likely the NL result will be to continue the clubs who voted for that not to happen are going to have to find a way around that as I said there are winners and losers in democratic votes. I'm not making a case for the league to continue just saying that is looking the more likely.

They all ready have, they are not going to continue.

Many chairman are quite rightly saying they wont take on more debt. Its about their survival, democracy has nothing to do with it.

 

[amsemp]

If 6 or 7 teams refuse to continue even if the overall vote is to carry on, surely that’s the much banded about ‘integrity’ of the league up in flames? The decision makers should’ve just found their bollocks and made a decision that’s consistent for all NL & N/S clubs. Shifting that on to the clubs is just going to create a messy and bitter situation that helps no one.

 

[Jim Levenstein]

They all ready have, they are not going to continue.

Many chairman are quite rightly saying they wont take on more debt. Its about their survival, democracy has nothing to do with it.

They are saying that now. See what they say when the result comes in and they lose.. They could furlough paid players and staff and bring in people to play for free like Tonbridge have. If Democracy has nothing to do with it the NL shouldn't have said 50% majority vote to pass because 6/24 for example is not 50% therefore they will lose and league should carry on as per the rules the NL set out. As I said in my original post it's going to get messy when the NL clubs voting to Null and Void lose.

From what I gather it only really seems as Dover are saying they won't continue in NL Wealdstone etc have made it public they voted to stop but they aren't saying we are not going to play on.

 

[Jim Levenstein]

Disagree!
That's the equivalent of saying a car can get by missing a few bits from the engine.
The NL functions as an complete entity of 23 clubs.
If clubs, six, for argument's sake, insist they have no players because they can't pay them, how do you force the issue and maintain the integrity of the league?
Play junior teams, and suffer results like 12-1, for example?
A loan has to be repaid.
If the terms were 0% interest over 15 years, it might be doable.
But I've not seen a single reference to these.
And if owners at Wealdstone and Dover are saying they can't afford them, am assuming terms are not favourable.
If there is no money, and it's not clubs fault, how can the NL executive punish them by kicking them out?

Yep we don't know what the repayment terms are seems as no-one does so we can't really comment tbh.
The whole thing is a mess just like you can say if the 6 can't continue how does the league keep its integrity same goes for putting out vote to continue or null and void how does it keep its integrity if continue wins but then they stop anyway.

 

[brigg blue]

On the plus side, if we do get relegated the other teams in the NL will be so saddled with debt we should fit right in!

 

[shrimperjon]

One down, 22 to go!
Surely, it only needs three or more to render the league void? Four clubs x 20/21 games means 80+ games expunged if allowed to pull out.
That would make a mockery of the rest of the season, bearing in mind those four have a total 88 odd games to play.

Wealdstone vote to end National League season - West London Sport

Wealdstone FC have voted in favour of ending the National League season early and declaring it null and void.

www.westlondonsport.com

Havnt Dover already said they cant continue, Heard their chairman on Talksport and said its the only way they can survive

 

[Shrimper]

And those that don’t continue automatically relegated or table finalised on PPG?

If the NLS/NLN stops then there is no relegation

 

[rigsby]

They are saying that now. See what they say when the result comes in and they lose.. They could furlough paid players and staff and bring in people to play for free like Tonbridge have. If Democracy has nothing to do with it the NL shouldn't have said 50% majority vote to pass because 6/24 for example is not 50% therefore they will lose and league should carry on as per the rules the NL set out. As I said in my original post it's going to get messy when the NL clubs voting to Null and Void lose.

From what I gather it only really seems as Dover are saying they won't continue in NL Wealdstone etc have made it public they voted to stop but they aren't saying we are not going to play on.

You do know its cost money to run a football club even if the players are not getting paid. More so in the 20/21 season because of extra cleaning and Covis testing etc. The pitch still has to be prepared, floodlights and kit cleaning, as well as away travel costs

So getting people in for free is pointless and so is expecting clubs to continue because others want to.

 

[Jim Levenstein]

You do know its cost money to run a football club even if the players are not getting paid. More so in the 20/21 season because of extra cleaning and Covis testing etc. The pitch still has to be prepared, floodlights and kit cleaning, as well as away travel costs

So getting people in for free is pointless and so is expecting clubs to continue because others want to.

Of course but a lot less and if one side is willing to do it others may it’s just looking at possible ways the clubs could finish when the null and void of the NL doesn’t pass the vote and continue does as I say from what I’ve seen on Dover in the NL are saying they won’t continue other sides just made public their voting intention

 

[Chris Powell's mate]

Havnt Dover already said they cant continue, Heard their chairman on Talksport and said its the only way they can survive

You're right, two down, 21 to go! That said, another two or three should do it...

 

[Shrimper]

You're right, two down, 21 to go! That said, another two or three should do it...

If resolution 1 passes you'll need 12 to vote to null and void. Which won't happen

 

[Fairport]

Regarding loans, the chairman of Chelmsford City is in favour of accepting saying that the terms would be reasonable and they want to carry on playing. He is however in a minority in National League South, where it seems many clubs want to end the season.

 

[Chris Powell's mate]

If resolution 1 passes you'll need 12 to vote to null and void. Which won't happen

As said a few times now, how do you make clubs play when they can't?
The question therefore is how many missing clubs would render the NL pointless?

 

[Petejames]

As said a few times now, how do you make clubs play when they can't?
The question therefore is how many missing clubs would render the NL pointless?

6

 

[rigsby]

If you were in a group of 23 people who were voting on wether we should stick our head in the oven........Would the result of the vote matter to you?. Would you respect ayes vote for the sake of democracy, or would you have already made up your mind.

This is not a vote on whether to allow 5 subs or not. Its clubs saying their skint and can't carry on.

 

[Chris Powell's mate]

If you were in a group of 23 people who were voting on wether we should stick our head in the oven........Would the result of the vote matter to you?. Would you respect ayes vote for the sake of democracy, or would you have already made up your mind.

This is not a vote on whether to allow 5 subs or not. Its clubs saying their skint and can't carry on.

Equally interesting is how the NL are going to enforce a 'play on' vote?
Even two clubs making it plain they want out is an issue.
The clubs who've already got maximum points from Wealdstone and Dover, and those yet to play the pair is going to favour the latter.
The NL can kick the non-players out of the league, and normally no one would bat an eyelid. But now?
I think this vote nonsense is merely testing the water, and pressure brought to bear on those who can't continue is unfair and pointless, as you say.

 

[kaymac]

Ask Brian Barwick, he should have all the answers...