The Next 6 Months?

Presumably Brian Barwick is the new Leonid Brezhnev.

The FA Alliance Committee has REJECTED the proposal for a Step 2 mini-league.
The Committee has supported the outcome of the original resolution vote to continue at Step 1 & make Step 2 null & void (with no promotions/relegations).
The decision will require FA Council approval.


Hopefully that's the end of it. Many were saying there was no problem if those clubs who wanted to continue did so, but the possibility of the promotion idea always seemed dead in the water. From our point of view I'm hoping for a normal 21/22 season played in its entirety in front of supporters. My fear was that if this idea was adopted with even play offs at the end of it we would be looking at a late start again with the additional midweek games it would require.

With any possibility of relegation to the NLS and NLN seemingly now gone (apart from maybe Dover) there's a mass of meaningless games to complete at the level above before the end of May.

Last month I made a 'Freedom of Information' request to the DCMS to see if they would reveal exactly what was said to the NL board about funding at the start of the season. I received this reply today:

Dear Mr Bingham,
Thank you for your correspondence of 22 February, in which you made the following request for information:
In Hansard there is a report of a debate on ‘*Professional and Amateur Sport: Government support’* which took place in the House of Commons on 30 September 2020. Hansard, at column 343, reports Nigel Huddlestone MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Sport, Tourism and Heritage, as saying on 30 September 2020 “*Yesterday we also provided the national league with assurance that financial support from the Government will be forthcoming so that it can start this season this Saturday*”. I would be grateful if, under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, you could please provide me with all information that you hold regarding the assurance that was given to the National League on 29 September 2020 regarding Government financial support.

We can confirm that DCMS holds information within the scope of your request. However, we have determined that some of this information may be exempt from release under section 35 (formulation of government policy) of the Act. This is a qualified exemption and, as such, it is necessary to carry out a public interest test to consider whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

By virtue of section 10(3) of the Act, where public authorities have to carry out a public interest test, they do not have to comply with the request until such time as is reasonable in the circumstances. Due to the need to consider where the balance of the public interest lies in relation to the information that you have requested, the department will not be able to respond to your request immediately. However, we hope to let you have a substantive response to your request by 22nd April.

Yours sincerely,

Freedom of Information Team
Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport 


What I have never understood is why, if as they have said on several occasions they didn't give the NL board the assurances it claimed to have received, the DCMS seem so reluctant to prove it.

I see that Brian Barwick has announced today that he is standing down as chairman of the NL. Apparently he made the decision in February and it has nothing to do with the potential vote of no confidence...

In the words of a former Prime Minister...

Rejoice Rejoice Rejoice!

According to the Times...

It comes at a critical time for the National League clubs, because it is feared the departure of the former Football Association chief executive and television boss will make the government even more nervous about providing future bailout money.

After the disgraceful carve up of the money last Autumn under his watch I'd have thought his remaining in post would have made the Government more nervous.

It appears that should the vote of no confidence go ahead it will be weighted in the NL clubs' favour. And apparently those with a chance of promotion back to Mecca fear that the uncertainty following a no confidence verdict may lead to the EFL cutting ties.

comrade powell wrote:According to the Times...

It comes at a critical time for the National League clubs, because it is feared the departure of the former Football Association chief executive and television boss will make the government even more nervous about providing future bailout money.

After the disgraceful carve up of the money last Autumn under his watch I'd have thought his remaining in post would have made the Government more nervous.

It appears that should the vote of no confidence go ahead it will be weighted in the NL clubs' favour. And apparently those with a chance of promotion back to Mecca fear that the uncertainty following a no confidence verdict may lead to the EFL cutting ties.

There have been quite a few comments on social media echoing what you are saying about the EFL and that they might be reluctant to relegate any clubs to the NL if the vote of no confidence is successful. The danger is I suppose that even with Barwick going if the vote of no confidence fails the rest of the board might see that as some sort of mandate to carry on as before.

I'm sure you're correct, Les. And if so I think it should result in NLN and NLS clubs looking for separate governance for our level. Whether we like it or not, we are not 'elite' and very much the poor relations in this present set up.

comrade powell wrote:I'm sure you're correct, Les. And if so I think it should result in NLN and NLS clubs looking for separate governance for our level. Whether we like it or not, we are not 'elite' and very much the poor relations in this present set up.

I agree. As has been said on here and in other places before, rather than the EFL 'cast off' the NL it might be better if they incorporated it into the present structure and went with League 2 north and south. This would avoid ridiculous trips like Weymouth to Hartlepool just as an example. The present NLN and NLS would then become the top non league competitions, although there would no doubt need to be discussions about how the winners would move up.

This is the full NL statement about Barwick's decision to stand down. In view of his acknowledgement of "...how tough it has been for many of our clubs over the past twelve months facing the unprecedented challenges brought on by the Covid pandemic" presumably we can expect the fines and other charges to be revoked!    

National League Statement | Chairman to Stand Down at End of the Season - The Vanarama National League (thenationalleague.org.uk)

You actually have to be stood up to be able to stand down. He has never stepped up to the plate.

Reading the statement I can only assume that there is a parallel universe in which all of those things happened because there has been no evidence of it in this one!

Just went to BBC Ceefax to check what time the Champions League games kick off. Apart from these top level matches there was also a Conf S game listed - Us away to H&W but canceled.

Peter Newman wrote:Just went to  BBC Ceefax to check what time the Champions League games kick off.  Apart from these top level matches there was also a Conf S game listed - Us away to H&W  but canceled.

Flash Scores had Dulwich v Dorking listed for Tuesday as well, but again shown as cancelled.

Somebody posted on Facebook an advertisement seen in the Daily Mail for the new National League chairperson:

The Vanarama National League is looking to appoint a Chairperson from the commencement of the 2021/22 season.
The league is an association football league in England consisting of three divisions, the National League, National League North and National League South and is an integral part of the National League System.
The new Chair will help the National League manoeuvre the opportunities and challenges of a post-Covid world and have the chance to build upon its prestigious reputation and development built up over many years.
The ideal candidate will bring a significant level of leadership experience and strategic vision as well as experience of chairing board level meetings.
Candidates will also need to evidence acting as a leader and ambassador for a high profile organisation.   

The role apparently comes with a modest retainer plus expenses and the closing date for applications is 24 May.

I was quite amused by the 'prestigious reputation' and can't help thinking that if the outgoing chairman had shown some of those qualities the league might not be in the position it is now.

Indeed. And the fact that it’s being advertised in that publication speaks volumes about the sort of person the NL hopes to attract. Far better to replace the Board first and then appoint someone with a background in non league football.

comrade powell wrote:Indeed. And the fact that it’s being advertised in that publication speaks volumes about the sort of person the NL hopes to attract. Far better to replace the Board first and then appoint someone with a background in non league football.

Apparently the interviews are scheduled for 31 May, which is only a few days after the vote of no confidence is due to take place!

LB wrote:Last month I made a 'Freedom of Information' request to the DCMS to see if they would reveal exactly what was said to the NL board about funding at the start of the season. I received this reply today:

Dear Mr Bingham,
Thank you for your correspondence of 22 February, in which you made the following request for information:
In Hansard there is a report of a debate on ‘*Professional and Amateur Sport: Government support’* which took place in the House of Commons on 30 September 2020. Hansard, at column 343, reports Nigel Huddlestone MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Sport, Tourism and Heritage, as saying on 30 September 2020 “*Yesterday we also provided the national league with assurance that financial support from the Government will be forthcoming so that it can start this season this Saturday*”. I would be grateful if, under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, you could please provide me with all information that you hold regarding the assurance that was given to the National League on 29 September 2020 regarding Government financial support.

We can confirm that DCMS holds information within the scope of your request. However, we have determined that some of this information may be exempt from release under section 35 (formulation of government policy) of the Act. This is a qualified exemption and, as such, it is necessary to carry out a public interest test to consider whether, in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.

By virtue of section 10(3) of the Act, where public authorities have to carry out a public interest test, they do not have to comply with the request until such time as is reasonable in the circumstances. Due to the need to consider where the balance of the public interest lies in relation to the information that you have requested, the department will not be able to respond to your request immediately. However, we hope to let you have a substantive response to your request by 22nd April.

Yours sincerely,

Freedom of Information Team
Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport 


What I have never understood is why, if as they have said on several occasions they didn't give the NL board the assurances it claimed to have received, the DCMS seem so reluctant to prove it.

So much for getting a reply by 22nd April - I actually received it two days ago! Unsurprisingly they weren't able to provide the information because it isn't in the public interest - no doubt Brian Barwick has friends in high places! This is the reply I received:

"Please accept our apologies for the time it has taken to respond to your request. I can confirm that the Department holds the information. However, we have determined that the information is exempt under Section 35(1)(a) (formulation or development of government policy etc) of the Act. Section 35 is a 'qualified exemption' and requires us to carry out a public interest test to consider whether the balance of interest lies in releasing or withholding the information.

In considering this, we have paid particular regard to the arguments in favour of disclosure, including that disclosure may be of benefit because transparency makes government accountable to the electorate and increases trust. There is a public interest in understanding the discussions of officials regarding financial support to the national league and transparency would meet this public interest.   

When considering the public interest in withholding the information we considered that there is a strong public interest in protecting discussions between officials when discussing outgoing financial support. Officials need to be able to engage in candid discussions on issues relating to financial support and they need to be free to think through all the implications of different options in these engagements. We have considered that the public interest in release of the information is not outweighed by the public interest in applying the exemption".

I think 'transparency' and 'trust' went out of the window a long time ago!

What a load of claptrap!

An excellent documentary on this whole disgraceful affair has been released. Well worth an hour of your time...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=lhs6B8FyDKc

Clearly our league governance needs MAJOR changes!!!!

Totally agree, but that is unlikely to happen with the present constitution.

No surprise I suppose at how badly the league comes out of this. David Bernstein's report on the lottery funding is very damning and no surprise that it wasn't published. Speaks volumes that when they didn't get the result they wanted they said he had misunderstood his brief! The fact that six of the board members at the time are still there doesn't bode well for any change, especially as one of them is now chairman.    

Not surprisingly I am still pursuing my Freedom of Information request - interesting to hear that Ollie Bayliss has had the same responses as me. My local MP, who did manage to put pressure on someone at DCMS to respond to my appeal after almost a year, is now Secretary of State for that department so will be interesting to see if she is so helpful now!

Well done for your efforts, Les.